CASE STUDY: and of Dar es Salaam - CHET | Center for ... Study - Tanzania... · UNIVERSITY OF DAR...

Universities and Economic Development in Africa

CASE STUDY: Tanzania and University of Dar es Salaam Tracy Bailey, Nico Cloete and Pundy Pillay

Contents

List of tables and figures ......................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. viii

Project group ......................................................................................................................... ix

Acronyms and abbreviations .................................................................................................. x

Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................... xi

Higher Education and Economic Development Publications ............................................. xiv

PART 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction to the Higher Education and Economic Development project ........... 1

1.1.1 Overview of HERANA ................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Project focus and process ............................................................................ 2

1.1.3 The analytical framework for the study ...................................................... 3

1.1.4 What the project is not doing ...................................................................... 5

1.2 Data collection for the Tanzania case study .......................................................... 6

1.3 The focus and structure of this report ................................................................... 7

PART 2: THE TANZANIA CASE STUDY: BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .............................. 8

2.1 The Tanzanian economy and approach to economic development ....................... 8

2.1.1 Economic development, competitiveness and innovation ......................... 8

2.1.2 Economic development policy and planning ............................................. 15

2.2 The Tanzania higher education system ............................................................... 17

2.2.1 The size and shape of the higher education system ................................. 17

2.2.2 Higher education expenditure and financing ............................................ 18

2.3 The University of Dar es Salaam ......................................................................... 24

UNIVERSITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA | TANZANIA CASE STUDY

iii

2.3.1 Key moments in the development of the institution ................................ 24

2.3.2 Governance and strategic objectives ........................................................ 26

2.3.3 Institutional finances ................................................................................. 26

PART 3: THE ROLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN TANZANIA .............................................. 30

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 30

3.2 The national perspective .................................................................................... 31

3.2.1 Key national stakeholders in relation to the pact ..................................... 31

3.2.2 The role of higher education in national policies ...................................... 32

3.2.3 Higher education and development policy coordination .......................... 33

3.3 The University of Dar es Salaam perspective ...................................................... 34

3.3.1 Institutional narrative(s) on the role of the university .............................. 34

3.3.2 Initiatives around research and innovation ............................................... 39

3.3.3 Initiatives around teaching and learning ................................................... 45

PART 4: THE NATURE AND STRENGTH OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM ACADEMIC CORE .............................................................................................. 49

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 49

4.2 SET enrolments and graduations ........................................................................ 51

4.3 Postgraduate enrolments and graduations ......................................................... 55

4.4 Student‐staff ratios ............................................................................................. 59

4.5 Academic staff qualifications .............................................................................. 61

4.6 Research funding ................................................................................................ 62

4.7 Research outputs ................................................................................................ 65

PART 5: THE ENGAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT‐RELATED ACTIVITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM ...................................................................... 67

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 67


iv

5.2 Engagement and linkages with external stakeholders ........................................ 67

5.2.1 University‐government‐industry linkages ................................................. 69

5.2.2 The influence of foreign donors ................................................................ 69

5.2.3 Incentives, rewards and coordination ....................................................... 71

5.2.4 Summary .................................................................................................... 74

5.3 The connectedness of development activities to the academic core ................... 74

5.3.1 A brief overview of the projects ................................................................ 76

5.3.2 Articulation ................................................................................................ 83

5.3.3 Contribution to strengthening the academic core .................................... 89

5.3.4 Analysis of the connectedness of development projects/centres ............ 92

PART 6: KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................... 95

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 95

6.2 Some macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Tanzania ......................................................................................................... 96

6.3 Evidence of a pact around the role of higher education in Tanzania? .................. 97

6.3.1 Notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development ......... 99

6.4 The academic core of the University of Dar es Salaam ...................................... 102

6.5 Coordination and connectedness ...................................................................... 106

6.5.1 Knowledge policy coordination and implementation ............................. 107

6.5.2 Connectedness to external stakeholders and the academic core ........... 110

6.6 Concluding comments ...................................................................................... 112

List of sources .................................................................................................................... 114

Appendix 1: List of interviewees ....................................................................................... 117

Appendix 2: Cluster analysis methodology and data ........................................................ 118

Appendix 3: Academic core rating descriptions ................................................................ 122


v

List of tables and figures

Tables

Table 2.1: GDP per capita vs. Human Development Index in sub‐Saharan Africa (2007) ... 10

Table 2.2: Selected higher education and economic development indicators ................... 12

Table 2.3: Global competitiveness and global innovation .................................................. 14

Table 2.4: Country comparison of innovation inputs (enablers) and outputs .................... 15

Table 2.5: Recommended main sources of funding public higher education in Tanzania . 20

Table 2.6: University of Dar es Salaam government income (2000/2001‐2006/2007) ...... 27

Table 4.1: Dar es Salaam: Total enrolments by field of study (thousands)......................... 52

Table 4.2: Comparison of total science and technology enrolments (thousands) ............. 53

Table 4.3: Dar es Salaam: Total SET graduates .................................................................... 54

Table 4.4: Comparison of total science and technology graduates .................................... 55

Table 4.5: Comparison of total postgraduate enrolments in all fields of study.................. 56

Table 4.6: Dar es Salaam: Master and doctoral enrolments and graduates ....................... 57

Table 4.7: Comparison of masters and doctoral enrolments .............................................. 58

Table 4.8: Comparison of doctoral graduates ..................................................................... 58

Table 4.9: Dar es Salaam: FTE students and academic staff ............................................... 59

Table 4.10: Dar es Salaam: Research outputs ..................................................................... 65

Table 5.1: Overview of the development‐related projects ................................................. 82

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities ...................... 84

Table 5.3: Initiation/agenda‐setting, funding sources and implementation agencies ....... 86

Table 5.4: Financial sustainability of the projects/centres ................................................. 87

Table 5.5: Articulation rating (maximum score = 13) .......................................................... 88

Table 5.6: Contribution to strengthening the academic core ............................................. 90


vi

Table 5.7: Strengthening academic core rating (maximum score = 5) ............................... 91

Table 5.8: Summary of ratings ............................................................................................. 92

Table 6.1: Role for knowledge and universities in development in Tanzania ..................... 99

Table 6.2: Comparing national and institutional notions of the role of higher education in Tanzania ........................................................................................................ 102

Table 6.3: University of Dar es Salaam: Rating of the academic core ............................... 104

Table 6.4: National coordination of knowledge policies ................................................... 108

Table 6.5: Implementation of knowledge policies and activities ...................................... 109

Table A2.1: Cluster analysis data table .............................................................................. 119

Figures

Figure 2.1: Income by source as a percentage of total income, University of Dar es Salaam (2001‐2007) ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 4.1: Dar es Salaam: Enrolments by field of study ..................................................... 52

Figure 4.2: Comparison of science and technology majors as % of total enrolment ......... 53

Figure 4.3: Dar es Salaam: Graduation rates by field of study ............................................ 54

Figure 4.4: Comparison of science and technology graduation rates ................................. 55

Figure 4.5: Comparison of % postgraduates in enrolment total ......................................... 56

Figure 4.6: Comparison of doctoral enrolments as % of masters and doctoral enrolments ........................................................................................................ 57

Figure 4.7: Comparison of total doctoral graduates ........................................................... 58

Figure 4.8: Comparison of 2007 FTE student‐staff ratios .................................................... 60

Figure 4.9: Comparison of totals of permanent and FTE academic staff (2007) ................ 61

Figure 4.10: Comparison of ratios of FTE to permanent academic staff (2007) ................. 61

Figure 4.11: Comparison of highest formal qualifications of permanent academics (2007) .............................................................................................................. 62

Figure 4.12: Comparison of research income in market rate USD and PPP$ (millions) ..... 64


vii

Figure 4.13: Comparison of total research income per permanent academic in market rate USD and PPP$ (thousands) ...................................................................... 64

Figure 4.14: Comparison of research publication units per permanent academic ............. 65

Figure 4.15: Comparison of doctoral graduates in given year as % of permanent academics employed ....................................................................................... 66

Figure 5.1: Plotting the development‐related projects ....................................................... 93

Figure 6.1: The four notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development 100

Figure 6.2: Plotting the development‐related projects at the University of Dar es Salaam ............................................................................................................. 111

Figure A2.1: Plot of means for each cluster ...................................................................... 121


viii

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the support and participation of the following organisations and individuals:

Funding The Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Kresge Foundation.

University of Dar es Salaam contact Prof. Daniel Mkude (Department of Linguistics) for his assistance in providing background information on the university, providing academic core data, and scheduling interviews.

Interview respondents at the University of Dar es Salaam:

Prof. MAH Maboko (Deputy Vice‐Chancellor: Academic Affairs), Dr Sylvia Shayo Temu (Director of Planning and Finance), Prof. C Mwinyiwiwa (Acting Director of Research), Prof. FW Mtalo (Principal: College of Engineering and Technology), Dr Ulingeta Mbamba (Associate Dean: University of Dar es Salaam Business School), Ms Katherine Fulgence (Business Development Service Incubation Programme), Dr AT Kamukuru (Faculty of Aquatic Sciences and Technology), Dr Cuthbert Kimambo (Business Technology Incubation, College of Engineering and Technology), Prof. NN Luanda (Dept of History, College of Arts and Social Sciences), Dr AE Majule (Institute of Resource Assessment), Dr Daniel Mkude (Department of Linguistics), Dr CL Nahonyo (Head: Dept of Zoology), Dr Simon Ndaro (Kinondoni Integrated Coastal Area Management Programme, Faculty of Aquatic Sciences and Technology), Prof. James Ngana (Institute of Resource Assessment), Dr AK Temu (Tanzania Gatsby Trust, College of Engineering and Technology) and Mr Elia Yobu (Programme Officer: University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre). Tanzania national stakeholders: Wilbard Abeli (Director for Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Vocational Training), Fatima Kiongosya (Director of Planning, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs), Dr Bohela Lunogelo (Executive Director: Economic and Social Research Foundation), Mr Daniel Magwiza (Deputy Secretary: Grants, Finance and Administration, Tanzania Commission for Universities), Prof. MH Nkunya (Executive Director: Tanzania Commission for Universities), Denis Rweyemamu (REPOA – Research on Poverty Alleviation) and Grace Shirima (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training).


ix

Project group

Academic advisers Higher Education Studies: Prof. Peter Maassen (University of Oslo) and Dr Nico Cloete (Director: CHET, and University of the Western Cape)

Development Economics: Dr Pundy Pillay (CHET Consultant)

Sociology of Knowledge: Prof Johan Muller (University of Cape Town) and Prof Johann Mouton (University of Stellenbosch)

Researchers Dr Nico Cloete (Director: CHET) Dr Pundy Pillay (CHET Consultant) Prof. Peter Maassen (University of Oslo) Ms Tracy Bailey (CHET Consultant) Dr Gerald Ouma (Kenya and University of the Western Cape) Mr Romulo Pinheiro (University of Oslo) Mr Patricio Langa (Mozambique and University of Cape Town) Mr Samuel Fongwa (Cameroon and University of the Western Cape) Mr Biko Gwendo (Kenya and University of the Western Cape)

Contributors to reports Dr Ian Bunting (CHET Consultant) and Dr Charles Sheppard (Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University) for analysis of the academic core data Mr Nelius Boshoff (University of Stellenbosch) for data on research output

Project assistance Ms Tracy Bailey (Project Manager) Ms Angela Mias (CHET Administrator) Ms Monique Ritter (Research Assistant) Ms Carin Favis (Transcriber)

External Commentator Prof. Manuel Castells (University of Southern California and Open University, Barcelona)

Network Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA)


x

Acronyms and abbreviations

BWP Botswana Pula

CHET Centre for Higher Education Transformation

CoET College of Engineering and Technology

DPF Department of Planning and Finance

FTE Full‐time equivalent

GCI Global Competitiveness Index

GDP Gross domestic product

GER Gross enrolment ratio

GII Global Innovation Index

HERANA Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa

HESLB Higher Education Students’ Loans Board

IMF International Monetary Fund

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MSTHE Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education

NGO Non‐governmental organisation

NUFFIC Netherlands Organisation for International Co‐operation in Higher Education

PPP Purchasing power parity

R South African Rand

R&D Research and development

SET Science, engineering and technology

SME Small and medium enterprise

TCU Tanzania Commission for Universities

TDTC Technology Development Transfer Centre

TEA Tanzania Education Authority

TZS Tanzanian Shilling

UDEC University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre

UDSM University of Dar es Salaam

URT United Republic of Tanzania

USD United States Dollar

Ush Ugandan Shilling

WEF World Economic Forum

UNIVERSITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA |BOTSWANA CASE STUDY

xi

Glossary of terms

Academic core

The academic core refers to a university’s academic degree programmes and research activities.

Gini co‐efficient

The Gini co‐efficient is a standard economic measure of income inequality, based on the Lorenz Curve. It ranges from zero (which indicates perfect equality, with every household earning exactly the same), to one (which implies absolute inequality, with a single household earning a country's entire income).

Global Competitiveness Index (GCI)

The World Economic Forum (WEF) defines competitiveness as the set of institutions, policies, and factors that determine the level of productivity of a country. The GCI uses this definition to establish a quantitative tool to help policy‐makers benchmark and measure the competitiveness of a given country. The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness further divided into three pillar groups, which are:

Basic requirements (institutions, infrastructure, macro‐economic stability, health and primary education);

Efficiency enhancers (higher education and training, goods market efficiency; labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, market size); and

Innovation and sophistication factors (business sophistication, innovation).

Global Innovation Index (GII)

The GII assesses in detail the extent to which different economies benefit from the latest innovation advances, based on three main principles:

There is a distinction between enablers (inputs) and outputs while measuring innovation in an economy. Enablers are aspects that help an economy to stimulate innovation and outputs are the results of innovative activities within the economy.


xii

There are five enabler pillars that are included in the GII: institutions, human capacity, general and information and communications technology infrastructure, market sophistication, and business sophistication. The enabler pillars define aspects of the conducive environment required to stimulate innovation within an economy.

The two output pillars which provide evidence of the results of innovation within the economy are scientific outputs and well‐being.

Gross domestic product (GDP)

The GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, which equals total consumers, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. Changes in the GDP on an annual basis provide a measure of economic growth.

Gross enrolment ratio (GER)

The GER indicates the total enrolment in a specific level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the official school‐age population, corresponding to the same level of education in a given school year. The GER is calculated by dividing the number of pupils (or students) enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, by the population of the age group which officially corresponds to the given level of education, and multiplying the result by 100. The GER is widely used to show the general level of participation in a given level of education. It indicates the capacity of the education system for enrolling students of a particular age group. It is used as a substitute indicator to Net Enrolment Ratio (NER, outlined below) when data on enrolment by single years of age are not available. The GER can also be a complementary indicator to the NER by indicating the extent of over‐aged and under‐aged enrolment.

Human Development Index (HDI) The HDI is a summary composite index that measures a country's average achievements in three basic aspects of human development. These include the following:

Health (measured by life expectancy at birth);

Knowledge (measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary GER); and

A decent standard of living (measured by GDP (income) per capita).


xiii

The HDI was created to emphasise that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth.

Pact

A ‘pact’ is defined by Gornitzka et al. (2007: 184) as “a fairly long‐term cultural commitment to and from the University, as an institution with its own foundational rules of appropriate practices, causal and normative beliefs, and resources, yet validated by the political and social system in which the University is embedded. A pact, then, is different from a contract based on continuous strategic calculation of expected value by public authorities, organised external groups, university employees, and students – all regularly monitoring and assessing the University on the basis of its usefulness for their self‐interest, and acting accordingly.”

Purchasing power parity (PPP)

The PPP is a rate of exchange that accounts for price differences across countries, allowing international comparisons of real output and incomes. At the PPP$ rate used in this report, PPP$ has the same purchasing power in the domestic economy as USD 1 has in the US.


xiv

Higher Education and Economic Development Publications

The eight case study reports in this series contain the detailed data and analysis for each country and university in the sample. Together, they form the empirical basis for the analysis and discussion of findings contained in the CHET book, Universities and Economic Development in Africa, which was published in August 2011. While every effort has been made to check the data and edit the text in the time available, it should be noted that these case study reports have not been subjected to the publishing rigours of formally published publications. They are therefore made available ‘as is’.

Higher education and economic development: A literature review Pundy Pillay (2010)

This report reviews the international literature on the relationship between higher education and economic development. The review focuses on previous research and theory on the link between higher education and economic growth, the knowledge economy, innovation, and local and regional development. The review would be of interest to academics and students who work in the field of higher education studies. Click here to download a copy of this report.

Linking higher education and economic development: Implications for Africa from three successful systems Pundy Pillay (2010)

This book synthesises the findings of case studies of three systems – Finland, South Korea and North Carolina in the US – that have successfully linked higher education to their economic development initiatives. This publication would be of particular interest to policy‐makers and funders. Click here to download a copy of this report.

Universities and economic development in Africa Nico Cloete, Tracy Bailey, Pundy Pillay, Ian Bunting and Peter Maassen (2011)

This report presents the key findings from each of the eight African case study reports and synthesises these within the analytical framework of the larger study. This publication would be of interest to national policy‐makers, international agencies, funders and university leadership. Click here to download a copy of this report.


1

1.1 Introduction to the Higher Education and Economic Development project

1.1.1 Overview of HERANA The Higher Education and Economic Development project forms part of the work of the Higher Education Research and Advocacy Network in Africa (HERANA). HERANA was established in 2007 and is coordinated by the Centre for Higher Education Transformation (CHET) in Cape Town, South Africa. Key partners include the University of the Western Cape (South Africa), Makerere University (Uganda) and the University of Oslo (Norway). The research component of HERANA investigates the complex relationship between higher education and development in Africa, with a specific focus on economic and democratic development. A second research area explores the use of research in policy‐making. Alongside the research component is an advocacy strategy that aims to:

Disseminate the findings of the research projects;

Coordinate existing sources of information on higher education in Africa;

Develop a media strategy; and

Put in place a policy dialogue (through seminars and information technology) facilitating interactions between researchers, institutional leaders and decision‐makers. The capacity‐building component of HERANA is the Higher Education Masters in Africa Programme, run jointly between the key partners. The main objective of the project is to contribute to the strengthening of higher education in Africa through building capacity and expertise in African higher education. The

Part 1

Introduction

AT A GLANCE

Overview of HERANA Project focus and process Analytical framework Data collection Focus and structure of the report


2

students contribute to higher education and development research through the research components of the programme. The research and advocacy components of HERANA are funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Kresge Foundation. The Higher Education Masters in Africa Programme is funded by NORAD.

1.1.2 Project focus and process As a point of departure, the overall aim of the project was to investigate the complex relationships between higher education (specifically universities) and economic development in selected African countries with a focus on the context in which universities operate (political and socio‐economic), the internal structure and dynamics of the universities themselves, and the interaction between the national and institutional contexts. In addition, the project aimed to identify those factors (practices, strategies) and conditions (context) – at both national and institutional levels – that facilitate or inhibit universities’ ability to make a sustained contribution to economic development. The project began with a review of the international literature on the relationship between higher education and economic development (Pillay 2010a). This was followed by case studies of three systems which have successfully linked their economic development and higher education policy and planning – Finland, South Korea and the North Carolina state in the US (Pillay 2010b). The next phase of the project involved the collection of data at both the national and institutional levels in the eight African countries and universities included in the study:

Botswana – University of Botswana

Ghana – University of Ghana

Kenya – University of Nairobi

Mauritius – University of Mauritius

Mozambique – Eduardo Mondlane University

South Africa – Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

Tanzania – University of Dar es Salaam

Uganda – Makerere University The countries included in the study were selected for three main reasons: on the basis of previous collaboration; being located in sub‐Saharan Africa; and, on the basis of World Economic Forum (WEF) ratings regarding participation in the knowledge economy in the African context. In each of the collaborating countries the national university was selected, except in South Africa where the


3

Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University was regarded as a more ‘comparable’ institution. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a wide range of individuals in each country, including selected ministries, commissions/councils for higher education and other stakeholders at the national level; and, institutional leadership, heads of development‐related projects and centres, and academic and administrative staff. The analysis also draws on various policy and strategy documents (national and institutional levels), as well as quantitative data including national development indicators and statistics relating to the higher education systems and universities in the sample. Throughout the project process, dissemination and advocacy activities have taken place. These have included seminars in many of the African countries in the sample and in Norway, as well as dissemination via the HERANA web site1.

1.1.3 The analytical framework for the study In the knowledge economy, universities are considered to be key institutions for the production of high‐level skills and knowledge innovation, based on the traditional core business of universities – the production, application and dissemination of knowledge. In many countries, higher education has become one of the central areas in the government’s knowledge policies. This means that more policy/political actors than the Ministry of Education, as well as socio‐economic stakeholders (employers’ organisations, funders and research councils), have become interested in higher education and involved in higher education policy. This raises the issue of system‐ and institutional‐level coordination of knowledge policies with adequate structures and processes within the political system, most notably the capacity to coordinate different political activities of the governing of knowledge production, reproduction and coordination. As mentioned earlier, to get a better understanding of the relationship between higher education and development, the research group undertook three case studies (Finland, South Korea and North Carolina state) where there is a well‐established integration of higher education in national development strategies. Of particular interest to our study was to answer the question: What is it about these three systems that enable them to successfully link higher education to economic development? Put another way: What are the core conditions that are present in each of the three systems that enable their higher education sectors to successfully and sustainably contribute to development?

1 HERANA web site: http://www.chet.org.za/programmes/herana/.


4

Common to all three systems was a strong, agreed upon framework for economic development aimed at realising an advanced, competitive knowledge economy, and the important role for higher education in this regard. Despite major contextual differences, the three systems exhibited the following conditions for harnessing higher education for economic development:

Their higher education systems had been built on a foundation of equitable and quality schooling. There was also an emphasis on achieving high quality higher education.

They had achieved very high higher education participation rates.

Their higher education systems were differentiated (institutional and public/private) as part of achieving their human capital, research and innovation objectives for economic development.

Their governments ensured a close link between economic and (higher) education planning.

There were effective partnerships and networks between the state, higher education institutions and the private sector to ensure effective education and training, and to stimulate appropriate research and innovation.

There was strong state involvement in a number of other respects including, for example, adequate state funding for higher education; using funding to steer the higher education sector to respond to labour market requirements; and, incentivising research and innovation in the higher education sector. Drawing on the review of literature (Pillay 2010a), the implications from the case studies of three successful systems (Pillay 2010b), and preliminary observations from the eight African case studies, we formulated the following analytical propositions:

1. A condition for universities’ contributions to development is the existence of a broad pact between government, universities and core socio‐economic actors about the nature of the universities’ role in development.

2. As a core knowledge institution, the university can only participate in the global knowledge economy and make a sustainable contribution to development if its academic core is quantitatively and qualitatively strong.

3. For linking universities effectively to development a country needs various forms and methods of knowledge policy coordination. In addition, the connections between the larger policy context, universities and development are crucial.

The analytical point of departure for our model is, therefore, that the conditions under which each university in Africa, as elsewhere, is contributing to economic development are influenced by the following three interrelated factors:


5

The nature of the pact between the universities, political authorities and society at large;

The nature, size and continuity of the university’s academic core; and

The level of coordination, the effectiveness of implementation, and connectedness in the larger policy context of universities. These, in turn, are influenced by local circumstances, for example, the nature of the economy of a country, and its political and governance traditions and culture; institutional characteristics, including the ‘loosely‐coupled’ nature of higher education institutions; and, the external relations of universities, especially with national authorities, foreign agencies and industry. These analytical propositions give rise to the following sets of research questions:

To what extent is there agreement (a pact) between key stakeholders about the role of higher education, and to what extent does this include a specific role for higher education in economic development? Is there a role for knowledge production and for universities in the national development plan?

What policies, funding, structures and incentives are in place at the national and institutional levels which give expression to the role of higher education in economic development? To what extent is there coordination of these activities between the different national authorities, and between the national authorities, institutional stakeholders and external agencies?

What is the strength of the academic cores of the national (‘flagship’) universities?

Are development activities in the universities connected to external groupings and do these activities strengthen or weaken the academic core? This report presents the data that address these questions in the Tanzanian context generally, and with specific reference to the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM). The analytical framework of the study is elaborated further in Part 6 which discusses the key findings for this case study.

1.1.4 What the project is not doing As can been seen from the analytical framework of the project, this study has a considerable scope. However, the project is not attempting to do the following:

Measure or evaluate the extent to which universities are contributing to development, or the impact that their activities have on development in their respective countries;

Include an assessment of the impact or effectiveness of specific institutional policies, units or development projects;


6

Review the number or nature of donor projects, or an examination of the overall contribution of particular external donors to university development; or

Assume or assert that the primary role for higher education is development, but rather seeks to investigate the factors that either facilitate or inhibit the possible contributions that universities can make to development.

1.2 Data collection for the Tanzania case study A wide range of data sources have been consulted for the purposes of developing this case study. In order to prepare for the research team’s visit to Tanzania, CHET obtained a letter of cooperation from the vice‐chancellor of UDSM, who also approved the selection of Prof. Daniel Mkude (Department of Linguistics) as our Institutional Contact and Facilitator. The next step was to request background information on the Tanzania higher education system and the university from Prof. Mkude. In addition to the background information, Prof. Mkude was asked to assist in the scheduling of interviews for the research team and, together with the relevant institutional leadership, to identify five to ten projects that related to either economic development or poverty reduction. The research team visited Tanzania in May 2009 to conduct interviews with national and institutional stakeholders. National stakeholders included representatives from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs and the Tanzania Commission for Universities, amongst others. Institutional stakeholders included various institutional leaders, senior academics and project leaders. The full list of interviewees is provided in Appendix 1. In addition to the site visit and interviews, a range of national and institutional documents has been consulted. These are listed in the list of sources. In developing the case study report, additional information was gleaned from the internet as well as further correspondence with interviewees to verify information and fill in gaps. Finally, during July and August of 2010, the first draft of this report was emailed to the vice‐chancellor, the project leaders and other key institutional stakeholders at UDSM with a request to provide written feedback on the accuracy of the information and interpretation of data contained in the report. In addition to the written feedback received from a number of individuals, formal feedback was obtained from two university representatives during a seminar in Franschhoek, Cape Town, in August 2010.


7

1.3 The focus and structure of this report This report pulls together a wide range of data on the national development context and the higher education system in Tanzania, as well as UDSM, in order to address the key research questions. The structure of the remainder of the report is as follows: In Part 2, we provide background and contextual information about Tanzania – its economic development and global competitiveness ratings, its approach to economic development policy and planning, as well as the size and shape, governance, policy and financing of the higher education system. A brief profile of UDSM is also provided including key moments in the development of the institution, its governance structure and strategic objectives, and the institutional finances. In Part 3 of the report, we turn to the role(s) of higher education in Tanzania – in general, and in relation to economic development – through an investigation of the ways in which both national and institutional stakeholders talk about and conceptualise the role of higher education, the policies which give expression to these notions, as well as the structures and mechanisms for coordination which relate to higher education. In Part 4 we examine the nature of the academic core at the UDSM. In Part 5, we investigate the UDSM’s engagement with its key external stakeholders and the incentives for development‐related activities. We also undertake an analysis of the selected development projects at the university, with a specific focus on the connectedness between these activities and the academic core. In particular, we explore the articulation of development activities with national priorities and institutional objectives, as well as with external stakeholders, and the extent to which these activities either strengthen or weaken the academic core of the institution. In Part 6, we provide a summary of the key findings of the report and relate these to the analytical framework and key questions of the study presented in Part 1. This includes a discussion of the nature and extent of the pact around the role of higher education in Tanzania; the nature and strength of the academic core of UDSM; the coordination and implementation of knowledge policies at the national level; and the connectedness of development‐related activities in the university to external stakeholders and to the academic core.


8

2.1 The Tanzanian economy and approach to economic development

2.1.1 Economic development, competitiveness and innovation Tanzania’s population in 2005 was 38.5 million. The country is in the bottom 10% of the world's economies in terms of per capita income. The economy depends heavily on agriculture, which accounts for more than 40% of GDP, provides 85% of exports and employs 80% of the work force. Topography and climatic conditions, however, limit cultivated crops to only 4% of the land area. Industry traditionally featured the processing of agricultural products and light consumer goods. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and bilateral donors have provided funds to rehabilitate Tanzania's out‐of‐date economic infrastructure and to alleviate poverty. Long‐term growth through 2005 featured a pickup in industrial production and a substantial increase in output of minerals led by gold. Recent banking reforms have helped increase private‐sector growth and investment. Continued donor assistance and solid macro‐economic policies supported a positive growth rate, despite the world recession (Open Directory Project 2010; TEZ 2010). Significant measures have been taken to liberalise the Tanzanian economy along market lines and encourage both foreign and domestic private investment. Beginning in 1986, the Tanzanian government embarked on an adjustment program to dismantle socialist economic controls and encourage more active participation of the private sector in the economy. The programme included a comprehensive package of policies which reduced the budget deficit and improved monetary control, substantially depreciated the overvalued exchange rate, liberalised the trade regime, removed most price controls, eased restrictions on the marketing of food crops, freed interest rates and initiated a restructuring of the financial sector.

Part 2

The Tanzania case study: Background and context

AT A GLANCE

The Tanzanian economy and approach to development Higher education in Tanzania A profile of UDSM


9

In May 2009, the IMF approved an Exogenous Shock Facility to help the country cope with the global economic crisis. Tanzania is also engaged in a Policy Support Instrument with the IMF, which commenced in February 2007 after Tanzania completed its second three‐year Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF). The PRGF was the successor program to the Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility, which Tanzania also participated in from 1996‐1999. The IMF’s Policy Support Instrument programme provides policy support to participating low‐income countries and is intended for countries that have usually achieved a reasonable growth performance, have low underlying inflation, an adequate level of official international reserves and have begun to establish external and net domestic debt sustainability (TEZ 2010). GDP per capita in USD was 316 in 2005 (compared to Mauritius’ USD 5 059; South Africa’s USD 5 109; Kenya USD 760; Uganda USD 303 and Mozambique USD 335); in purchasing power parity terms (that is, adjusted to take account of what 1 USD will be able to buy in various countries), it was USD 744 (South Africa USD 11 110; Mauritius USD 12 715; Mozambique USD 1 242; Uganda USD 1 454; and Kenya USD 2 083). Between 1990 and 2005, GDP per capita grew at 1.7% per annum (compared to Uganda 3.2%; Kenya 2.0%; and Mozambique 4.3%). Thus, in comparison to its East African neighbours, Tanzania has fared poorly in terms of growth of GDP per capita (UNDP 2009). In terms of the Human Development Index (HDI – computed as an average of a country’s adult literacy rate, life expectancy, and GDP per capita, in other words encapsulating both social and economic indicators), Tanzania was ranked at 159 out of 177 countries in 2005. In the HERANA sample of eight countries, only Mozambique ranks lower (172). Kenya is ranked at 148 and Uganda at 154. In terms of the components of the HDI, life expectancy was at 51 years in 2005; adult literacy was 69.4%; and the combined GER for primary, secondary, and tertiary education was 50.4% (ibid.). Table 2.1 compares GDP (or income) per capita and the HDI for the HERANA sample of countries and the three international case studies. The difference between the GDP per capita ranking and its HDI ranking reflects divergence between economic and broader social development, and is often a consequence of inequality in access to income, education, health, etc. For example, South Africa’s HDI ranking is 51 places lower than its GDP per capita ranking, and Botswana’s is 65 – these figures are amongst the highest for the countries ranked in this report.


10

Table 2.1: GDP per capita vs. Human Development Index in sub‐Saharan Africa (2007)

Country GDP per capita (PPP, USD)*

GDP ranking HDI ranking** GDP ranking minus HDI ranking

Botswana 13 604 60 125 ‐65

Ghana 1 334 153 152 1

Kenya 1 542 149 147 2

Mauritius 11 296 68 81 ‐13

Mozambique 802 169 172 ‐3

South Africa 9 757 78 129 ‐51

Uganda 1 059 163 157 6

Tanzania 1 208 157 151 6

Finland 34 526 23 12 11

South Korea 24 801 35 26 9

United States 45 592 9 13 ‐4

Source: UNDP (2009) Notes: *PPP shows a rate of exchange that accounts for price differences across countries, allowing international comparisons of output and incomes. At the PPP$ rate shown in Table 2.1 for the eight HERANA countries, PPP$ 1 has the same purchasing power in the domestic economy as USD 1 has in the US. **177 countries were ranked. The HDI is a composite index measuring deprivations in the three basic dimensions – a long and healthy life (as measured by life expectancy), access to knowledge (adult literacy, and combined primary, secondary and tertiary education enrolment), and a decent standard of living (GDP or income per capita).

Poverty levels are extremely high. Between 1990 and 2005, the population living below 1 USD a day was estimated on average at around 57.8%; the proportion below 2 USD a day at 89.9%; and those below the national poverty line at 35.7%. With a Gini coefficient of 0.346, Tanzania is the most equal country in the HERANA sample with respect to income distribution. Gender equality in education (as measured by the ratio of female to male) by type and/or level of education was as follows (UNDP 2009): adult literacy: 0.80; youth literacy: 0.94; net enrolment in primary education: 0.98; gross enrolment in primary education: 0.96; and gross enrolment in tertiary education: 0.48. In summary, more than four decades after independence Tanzania remains one of the poorest countries on the continent. In spite of reasonable rates of economic growth during the past decade, growth of income per capita remains low and the incidence of poverty extremely high. The country remains heavily


11

dependent on donor aid which still comprises a large component of the government’s budget. Access to education at all levels remains low and is partly a function of inadequate investment in the sector. In particular, access to and equity in tertiary education remain huge challenges. It is unlikely that Tanzania will be able to participate in the knowledge economy to any significant extent with current outputs of human capital from the tertiary education system. In terms of the WEF’s (2010) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI, 2010‐11), Tanzania is ranked at 113 out of 139 countries. According to the WEF, Tanzania is a Stage 1 (factor‐driven) economy. Table 2.2 provides data on quality of the education system, gross tertiary education enrolment rates and global competitiveness, as well as the stage of development of each country’s economy. It shows this data both for the HERANA countries as well as the three international case studies. The latter group has tertiary education participation rates and are all ‘innovation‐driven’ economies. Amongst the HERANA countries, there is a strong correlation between tertiary education participation and global competitiveness, on the one hand, and the stage of economic development on the other. The countries fall into two groups. One group (Botswana, Mauritius and South Africa) has relatively high GDP per capita (Table 2.1) and tertiary education participation and the latter two are classified as ‘efficiency‐driven’ with Botswana in transition to this group. The other group, comprising the five other sample countries, has relatively low GDP per capita and tertiary education participation, and is classified as ‘factor driven’. The countries in this latter group are also ranked relatively low in terms of global competitiveness.


12

Table 2.2: Selected higher education and economic development indicators

Country Stage of development (2009‐2010)1

Quality of education

system ranking (2009‐2010)2

Gross tertiary education

enrolment rate (2008)

Overall global competitiveness

ranking (2010‐2011)2

Ghana

Stage 1: Factor‐driven

71 6.25 114

Kenya 32 4.16 106

Mozambique 81 1.53 131

Tanzania 99 1.55 113

Uganda 72 3.7 118

Botswana Transition from

1 to 2 48 7.64 76

Mauritius Stage 2: Efficiency‐driven

50 25.9 55

South Africa 130 15.44 54

Finland Stage 3:

Innovation‐driven

6 94.4 7

South Korea 57 98.1 22

United States

26 82.9 4

Sources: WEF (2010)

Notes: 1 Income thresholds (GDP per capita in USD) for establishing stages of development (WEF 2010: 10): Stage 1 Factor‐driven: <2 000; Transition from stage 1 to stage 2: 2 000‐3 000; Stage 2 Efficiency‐driven: 3 000‐9 000; Transition from stage 2 to stage 3: 9 000‐17 000; Stage 3 Innovation‐driven: >17 000. 2 Ranked out of 139 countries. 3 2005 figure. 4 2006 figure. The 2010 figure by the Botswana Tertiary Education Council is over 20% while in South Africa the figure remained around 16%. 5 2007 figure. 6 2009 figure.

Of the 12 pillars of competitiveness that the WEF uses in the derivation of the GCI, two are particularly relevant for the purposes of this study: a) the ‘efficiency‐enhancing’ 5th pillar, higher education and training; and one of the ‘innovation and sophistication’ factors, namely innovation. On higher education and training, Tanzania fares poorly relative to its average competitiveness ranking of 100 – its ranking for higher education and training is 128 out of 133 countries. However, for innovation it is ranked at 98, seven places lower than its average competitiveness ranking. Other competitiveness factors on which it does well are institutions (74), macroeconomic stability (77), and financial market sophistication (74). The Global Competitiveness Report for 2009‐2010 reports on Tanzania as follows (WEF 2009: 40):


13

Tanzania has seen an impressive improvement this year of 13 ranks, up to 100th place, and directly following Kenya and Nigeria in the overall rankings. The country benefits from public institutions that are characterised by reasonable public trust of politicians (ranked 61st), relative government even handedness in its dealings with the private sector (ranked 60th), and a security situation that is good by regional standards (ranked 64th). In addition, some aspects of the labor markets lend themselves to efficiency, such as the high female participation in the labor force (ranked 4th) and reasonable taxation and firing costs. There has also been a measurable improvement in the sophistication of financial markets, up from 90th to 74th place this year. But Tanzania demonstrates weaknesses throughout most of the other areas measured by the Index. Infrastructure in the country is underdeveloped (ranked 123rd), with poor‐quality roads, ports, and electricity supply, and few telephone lines. And although primary education enrolment is commendably high (25th), enrolment rates at the secondary and university levels are among the lowest in the world (ranked 125th and 129th, respectively). Related to the education level of the workforce, the adoption of new technologies is low in Tanzania (ranked 120th), with very low uptake of ICTs such as the Internet and mobile telephony. In addition, the quality of the educational system receives a poor assessment. And the basic health of the workforce is also a serious concern, ranked 118th in this area, with poor health indicators and high levels of diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV.

Table 2.3 compares the GCI and Global Innovation Index (GII) for the eight HERANA countries. This shows that Tanzania ranks 5th on both the GCI and GII indices, higher than Uganda but lower than Kenya on both indices.


14

Table 2.3: Global competitiveness and global innovation

Country

Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) Ranking*

Global Innovation Index (GII) Ranking**

Botswana 66 (4.08) 86 (2.80)

Ghana 114 (3.45) 105 (2.66)

Kenya 98 (3.67) 83 (2.84)

Mauritius 57 (4.22) 73 (2.93)

Mozambique 129 (3.22) 100 (2.69)

South Africa 45 (4.34) 51 (3.24)

Uganda 108 (3.53) 108 (2.65)

Tanzania 100 (3.59) 98 (2.69)

Sources: *WEF (2009); **INSEAD (2010) Notes: 1. GCI

a) The GCI ranks 132 countries, with the top three countries being Switzerland (with a GCI score of 5.60), US and Singapore.

b) The GCI is derived from three sub‐indices and 12 pillars of competitiveness. The three sub‐indices are “basic requirements” (with four pillars – institutions, infrastructure, macro‐economic stability, and health and primary education); “efficiency enhancers” (with six pillars – higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market sophistication, technological readiness, and market size); and “innovation and sophistication factors” (with two pillars – business sophistication and innovation). The basic requirements sub‐index is considered key for factor‐driven economies, the efficiency enhancers are key for efficiency‐driven economies, and the innovation and sophistication factors are key for innovation‐driven economies.

2. GII a) The GII combines innovation inputs (such as institutions, human capacity, information

and communication technology and uptake of infrastructure, market and business sophistication) with innovation outputs (such as science and creative outputs).

b) The top four countries in the GII are Iceland (with a score of 4.86), Sweden, Hong Kong and China.

Table 2.4 provides a comparison of some enabler and output pillars for Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya. This table shows that Tanzania is outranked by Uganda on all the innovation variables except production process sophistication, GDP per capita, the Gini coefficient, and the extent of staff training. On the ‘quality of the educational system’ the countries are rated equally. However, Tanzania’s overall innovation ranking, as well as its ranking in terms of both innovation outputs and inputs is higher than that of Uganda, suggesting that it uses its limited resources (e.g. human capital) much more effectively. On the other hand, Tanzania is ranked lower than Kenya on overall GII (98 vs. 83) and on ‘innovation inputs’ (65 vs. 101) but ranks higher on ‘innovation outputs’ (91 vs. 117).


15

Table 2.4: Country comparison of innovation inputs (enablers) and outputs

Enabler or Output

Enabler or Output Pillar

Variable Uganda Tanzania Kenya

Science Output Knowledge

creation

Local availability of specialised research and training services

3.67 3.48 4.40

Capacity for innovation 2.56 2.53 3.35

Knowledge application

Growth rate of labour productivity

6.00 4.90 ‐0.60

Production process sophistication 2.27 2.78 3.22

Creative

Output

Benefits to social welfare

GDP per capita (USD) 348 362 464

Gini co‐efficient 0.43 0.35 0.48

Human

Cap

acity (enab

ler)

Investment in education

Education expenditure (% of GNI) 4.00 2.39 6.63

Extent of staff training 3.46 3.64 4.22

Quality of educational institutions

Quality of the educational system 3.17 3.17 4.43

Quality of scientific research institutions

3.68 3.63 4.27

Quality of management schools 3.54 2.83 4.44

Innovation potential

Availability of scientists and engineers

3.71 3.48 4.31

Enrolment in tertiary education 3.47 1.45 2.75

Source: INSEAD (2010)

2.1.2 Economic development policy and planning Several documents describe the development vision and strategic plans of the Government of Tanzania. Foremost amongst these are the Tanzania Development Vision 2025, and the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty. Tanzania Development Vision 2025 According to the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (URT 2000), by the year 2025, it is envisioned that a “solid foundation for a competitive and dynamic economy with high productivity will have been laid in Tanzania” (ibid.: 1). Consistent with this vision, it is expected that the Tanzania of 2025 will be a nation imbued with five main attributes including high‐quality livelihood; peace, stability and unity; good governance; a well‐educated and learning society; and


16

a competitive economy capable of producing sustainable growth and shared benefits. Vision 2025 recognises that past impediments to the achievement of the development vision included the following (ibid.: 8):

A donor dependency syndrome and a dependent and defeatist developmental mindset;

A weak and low capacity for economic management;

Failures in good governance and in the organisation of production; and

An ineffective implementation syndrome. Key to the achievement of a ‘high quality livelihood’ is “universal primary education, the eradication of illiteracy and the attainment of a level of tertiary education and training that is commensurate with a critical mass of high quality human resources required to effectively respond and master the development challenges at all levels” (ibid.: 11). Moreover, Vision 2025 poses “new challenges which demand the adoption of new driving forces capable to graduate Tanzania from a least developed country to a middle income country with a high level of human development characterized in improvements in the quality of livelihood of the people” (ibid.: 12). In this context, the following three key driving forces need to be promoted and utilised (ibid.: 13):

A developmental mindset imbued with confidence, commitment and empowering cultural values;

Competence and a spirit of competitiveness; and

Good governance and the rule of law. Key to the ‘Developmental Mindset and Empowering Culture’ goals is, amongst others (ibid.: 13‐15):

A broad human development strategy: There is need to promote a broad human development investment strategy which involves a wide range of players as well as a broad resources base which embraces individuals, families, communities, agencies and corporate bodies.

A learning society: The society should be encouraged to learn continuously in order to upgrade and improve its capacity to respond to threats and to exploit every opportunity for its own betterment and for the improvement of its quality of life.

Education as a strategic change agent: Education should be treated as a strategic agent for mindset transformation and for the creation of a well‐educated nation, sufficiently equipped with the knowledge needed to competently and competitively solve the development challenges which face the nation. In this light, the education system should be restructured and transformed qualitatively with a focus on promoting creativity and problem‐solving.


17

The National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty

The National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty is a second national organising framework for putting the focus on poverty reduction high on the country’s development agenda. The strategy is informed by the aspirations of Tanzania’s Development Vision 2025 for high and shared growth; high quality livelihood; peace, stability and unity; good governance; high quality education and international competitiveness. It is committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), as internationally agreed targets for reducing poverty, hunger, diseases, illiteracy, environmental degradation and discrimination against women by 2015. It strives to widen the space for country ownership and effective participation of civil society, private sector development and fruitful local and external partnerships in development and commitment to regional and other international initiatives for social and economic development. The strategy builds on the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2000/2001‐2002/2003), the Poverty Reduction Strategy Review, the Medium‐Term Plan for Growth and Poverty Reduction, and the Tanzania Mini‐Tiger Plan 2020 that emphasise the growth momentum to fast track the targets of Vision 2025. The strategy was expected to last five years, that is, from 2005/2006 to 2009/2010. The end point of the strategy coincides with the targets of the National Poverty Eradication Strategy; it is two thirds of the way towards the MDGs (2015); and it is 15 years towards the targets of Vision 2025. The longer term perspective (five years) was considered to be a better time frame than that of three years as it allows for a more sustained effort of resource mobilisation, implementation and evaluation of the poverty reduction impact.

2.2 The Tanzania higher education system

2.2.1 The size and shape of the higher education system According to the National Higher Education Policy of 1999 (MSTHE 1999), higher education encompasses all courses of study leading to the award of a first degree, advanced diploma, postgraduate or any higher level degree. In the context of this definition, the system of tertiary education in Tanzania is dual, comprising (a) universities and university colleges, and (b) non‐university institutions (institutes and colleges), mainly offering three‐year advanced diplomas in professional fields, such as accountancy, engineering, social welfare, materials management, community development, business administration and related fields of study.


18

Public universities and university colleges are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education, while public non‐university institutions are regulated by various government ministries. In 2007, there were 12 public universities and colleges enrolling some 39 000 students including the Open University of Tanzania with almost one third of the enrolments. In addition, there were 20 private universities and colleges enrolling just more than 12 000 students. There were also another 14 public and two private non‐university higher education institutions enrolling a further 16 000 students. In 2007/2008, a total of 82 428 students, out of whom 25 342 students were female and 54 919 male, were enrolled in the higher education institutions, an increase of 9% from the 2006 enrolment. The government continued to encourage the private sector to establish and run higher education institutions to support the government’s effort in providing higher education. In 2007/2008, six private universities and university colleges were registered. At the present time, there are 20 private universities and university colleges, making a total of 32 universities and university colleges. According to UNESCO, the GER for Tanzania in 2004 was around 1% compared to 3% for Kenya and Uganda and 5% for sub‐Saharan Africa (UNESCO 2008). This low participation rate can be attributed to the low participation rate in secondary education and limited capacity in the higher education system. For example, in 2005, only 30% of those who applied were admitted to the UDSM.

2.2.2 Higher education expenditure and financing2 A fundamental shift in Tanzania’s development, economic and educational policies, including higher education financing policies, was made in 1967 through the Arusha Declaration, a political blueprint that intended to make Tanzania a socialist and an economically self‐reliant state. According to one of the principles of the Arusha Declaration, access to scarce resources such as education was to be regulated and controlled by the government to ensure equal participation by all socio‐economic groups. The implementation of the Arusha Declaration, among other things, went in tandem with nationalisation and control by the state of the major means of production, including the abolition of school fees in primary and secondary education and tuition fees in higher education. Until 1967, students in higher education institutions had paid tuition fees but poorer students were assisted through government bursaries.

2 The information in this section is drawn primarily from Ishengoma (2010).


19

When Tanzania adopted socialism in 1967, bursaries were granted to all students admitted at the then University College of Dar es Salaam on signing of a bond to work for the Government for a period of at least five years. Failure to honour this bond would compel one to refund the government all the costs incurred at university. In 1974, the Government abolished the bursary system and took responsibility for paying all the costs of higher education. The rationale for this change in the financing of higher education policy was to make higher education accessible to all socio‐economic groups to achieve one of the major goals of the Arusha Declaration of building an egalitarian society. The government continued to finance all the costs of public higher education until 1992/1993 when it instituted cost‐sharing. Education expenditure at around 4% of GDP is relatively low but as a percentage of the total government budget it is high at about 25%. The share of tertiary education in the education budget increased from 17.7% in 1998/99 to 21.9% in 2006/07 while the share of primary declined from 72.6% to 64.5%; that of secondary increased from 7.3% to 12.5%; while teacher education declined from 2.4% to 1.1%. The share of higher education at nearly 22% is relatively high. According to the Education Sector Performance Report of 2007/08 (URT 2008), the largest beneficiaries of the education budget in 2007/08 were primary education (49.1%), higher education (23.9%) and secondary education (15.7%). Financing of public higher education in Tanzania, in the context of cost‐sharing in higher education policy, is (ideally) a shared responsibility between the government, students and their parents, communities and external donors. In 1998, the governmental Task Force on Financial Sustainability of Higher Education identified major sources of financing public higher education and consequently came out with a formula which to some extent, is currently being applied. The suggested contribution to higher education financing according to this source was as follows:

Central government, local governments and communities: 82%;

Students, parents and households: 12%;

Higher education institutions plus donors: 4%; and

Other sources plus higher education institutions staff: 2%. The Task Force also proposed the following funding sources for each higher education institution: the government, which should be responsible for capital development, recurrent and other administrative and personnel emoluments; parents and students; internally generated funds by institutions, donors and other private sources; and institutional staff through consultancy and commissioned research. In practice, the government is the major source of funding of public higher education, despite the policy of cost‐sharing.


20

In addition to these proposals for funding sources, the Task Force made specific recommendations on the three main sources of funding public higher education, including strategies to attain a financially sustainable public higher system within the context of cost‐sharing. The details of these recommendations are summarised in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5: Recommended main sources of funding public higher education in Tanzania

Main Source Financing Strategies

A. Central & Local Government

1. Government direct subventions to higher education institutions2. Educational levies 3. Government grants administered by designated bodies 4. Bilateral and multi‐lateral agreements 5. Tax relief on imported educational materials 6. Tax relief to third party investors on infrastructure 7. Borrowing funds from international agencies and banks 8. Mobilisation of public moral and material support to the sector 9. Guaranteed core funding 10. Performance based investments on campuses

B. Students through Cost‐Sharing

1. Payment of fees from their earnings2. Payment of fees from parents’ earnings 3. Private loan scheme for qualifying students 4. Public (Government) loan scheme 5. Employers’ scholarships for their employees 6. Extended family contributions 7. Trust funds and other scholarships 8. Work study schemes

C. Institution‐Generated Income through Revenue Diversification

1. Privately sponsored student tuition fees2. Faculty contracted research and consultancy and service delivery3. Running short courses 4. Lease operations of buildings, facilities and land 5. Rationalisation of the mode of offering of various services in campuses 6. Institution of cost‐cutting measures 7. Donor and alumni donor funds, endowments and gifts 8. Accruals from fixed deposits 9. Sale of patents 10. Sale of prototypes 11. Sale of books and other academic items

Source: Ishengoma (2010)

While to some extent the above formula for financing is currently being applied in public higher education institutions, in practice, the government – despite its declining subventions to public higher education institutions – remains the major source of financing, specifically financing capital development and recurrent expenditures. The UDSM, for example, received 66% of its funding from government and 29% from external donors with less than 5% from institutional revenue. The corresponding figures for the Sokoine University of Agriculture were respectively 72% and 1%.


21

The government’s recurrent funding to the universities is currently based on capitation grants developed from unit costs of different courses and student numbers targeted to be enrolled in a given academic year. The government is also the major source of financing tuition‐dependent private higher education institutions through the provision of loans to students enrolled in private universities and university colleges through the Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HESLB) and the Tanzania Education Authority (TEA). While the percentage share of external donors in financing Tanzania public higher education has been declining over the years, their financial contribution to public higher education is still significant. The TEA is a publicly‐funded facility which gets annual allocations from the treasury and can raise additional financial resources from individuals and foundations. It provides grants and soft loans to both public and private educational institutions at all levels from primary education to university. By July 2005 it had disbursed grants totalling TZS 10.9 billion (about USD 7.2 million) and TZS 5.1 billion (USD 3.3 million) in soft loans to 34 private educational institutions (including private universities and university colleges) and 62 public educational institutions. Private universities rely heavily on external donors for their core funding (70‐80%) and tuition fees. As stated earlier, private universities also rely on limited government support mainly through the HESLB which also provides loans to students enrolled in specific programmes and the TEA which provides grants and soft loans for capital development in private education institutions. In implementing cost‐sharing in higher education, the government introduced a student loans scheme in the 1992/93 academic year initially to cover student accommodation and meal costs. A revolving student loan scheme did exist in the 1960s and 1970s, but collapsed due to lack of supervision. Income contingent loans from this interest‐free loan scheme were recovered from monthly salaries of university graduates for a period of eighteen months. The student loan scheme which was introduced in 1992/93 operated under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education until July 2004 when HESLB was established. By July 2003 a total of TZS 26 billion in loans were due for recovery but no loan recovery had taken place until 2007, mainly because the board had no viable loan recovery mechanism. In 2007/08, the first year the board attempted recovery of the loans, it managed to collect TZS 917 million (approximately USD 1 million) from graduates who had received loans since 1993. HESLB began its operations as an independent government organ in July 2005. The Act which established the Board stipulates that eligible and needy Tanzanian students who secure admission to higher learning institutions may seek loans from the Board to meet some of the costs of higher education.


22

The major objectives of HESLB include the following: (a) to strengthen the implementation of cost sharing policy in higher and technical education by providing financial assistance on a loan basis to academically able but needy students unable to meet higher education expenses; and (b) to recover monies lent to students who have graduated and are serving the nation in different sectors within and outside the country. HESLB is mandated to give loans to needy Tanzanian students pursuing higher education in either public or private universities within Tanzania; students studying abroad under development partnerships scholarships; and a limited number of needy Tanzanian students pursuing masters or doctorate degrees in local public or private universities. Students enrolled in both public and private universities may apply for loans to cover tuition fees as charged by institutions with limits placed according to the discipline. In addition to the above expenses, the Board also pays limited sums for meals and accommodation; books and stationery; field research; special faculty requirements; and practical training. According to recently‐revised guidelines and criteria, loans are granted to students pursuing first degrees or advanced diplomas in national priority courses such as medical and physical sciences; engineering and technology; accountancy; economics; commerce; finance; and law and education. Furthermore, under these new guidelines, HESLB provides loans up to 60% of the required tuition fee, 60% of the recommended special faculty requirements and practical field expenses and up to 100% of the recommended research expenses in the following fields of studies only: medicine (including human, veterinary and dental surgery); pharmacy; engineering; architecture and agricultural sciences. In addition to the above guidelines, the board imposes a cap on the maximum number of new students to be financed for each respective higher education institution, both private and public. According to new guidelines, the percentage of loan for various approved loan items including tuition fees would differ from one student to another depending on the socio‐economic status of student, parents or guardian as would the maximum loan amount allowable for each loan item. Loans would now be approved according to means testing. While these new guidelines appear to promote equity in access to loans and consequently access to higher education, given HESLB’s current operational problems, the implementation of the above guidelines is likely to be very problematic. Already the board is facing serious operational problems such as issuing loans to non‐Tanzanians and ineligible Tanzanian students. During the 2007/08 financial year, a total of 55 981 students in higher education institutions were expected to be given loans from HESLB. The board also planned to collect TZS 1 200 million in repayment of loans.


23

Higher education financing policies, specifically the current student loans scheme, appear to be exacerbating the already existing inequities in higher education in Tanzania. Empirical studies on equity in higher education reveal that higher education is inequitable because of the disproportional representation of children from upper and middle class families in both public and private higher education. One study has shown that the top 20% of the Tanzanian population in terms of wealth consumes 40% of all government spending on education because this group is disproportionately represented in secondary and higher education. Other studies have revealed that access to higher education in Tanzania is greatly influenced by correlates such as socio‐economic class, religion, ethnicity and gender. To implement a student loans scheme without proper means testing – as Tanzania is currently doing – is essentially to consolidate inequities in higher education. To a large extent, financing of higher education through the TEA also exacerbates inequities in higher education financing. As stated earlier, the authority also grants soft loans and grants to private higher education institutions; many of these are affiliated to religious organisations in Tanzania and abroad and charge higher tuition fees compared to public higher education institutions. These institutions are also characterised by low enrolments. While there cannot be objections to some form of public financial support to private higher education especially on the basis of need, the fact that government financing of the public universities and university colleges has been declining suggests that the above practice is to some extent inappropriate.

In summary, however, the scope of state intervention has diminished in the financing of higher education. As a result higher learning institutions are opting for additional funding sources to bridge the gap and have introduced specific measures including income generation, cost‐sharing, rationalisation of services, and third‐party investment. Such additional funding sources can represent between 10‐30% of total operational costs. In conclusion, the tertiary education challenges in Tanzania are substantial and include the following:

Low enrolment in higher education institutions;

Inadequate infrastructure in higher education institutions;

Inadequate textbooks, reference books, journals and laboratory equipment;

Inadequate teaching staff accompanied by poor mastery of teaching language;

Inadequate budgetary allocation for higher education development; and

Lack of understanding/awareness on cost‐sharing policy in higher education. A number of efforts are being made to improve access and quality. For example, the Science and Technology Higher Education Project (Quick Win


24

Project) is supported by a credit from the World Bank. The objective of the project is to increase quantity and quality of higher education graduates with special emphasis on science, technology and education through an improved learning environment. The project covers the following:

Investment in priority disciplines for economic growth;

Expansion of capacity for teacher training and for graduate studies in education;

Strengthening key higher education agencies and institutions; and

Investment in system‐wide information and communication technology and libraries. With regard to quality improvement, TEA was established to solicit funds in order to promote education development at all levels in terms of rehabilitation and construction of infrastructure, purchase of books and laboratory equipment, and construction of hostels. In 2007/2008 the Authority disbursed a total of TZS 38 223 million. Finally, the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU) was established to ensure appropriateness, relevance and quality status of facilities, programmes, courses, students and staff. However, substantially higher levels of investment and effort are required to raise the level of tertiary education, in terms of both quantity and quality, to a point where it can ensure greater economic competitiveness and potential to participate in the knowledge economy.

2.3 The University of Dar es Salaam

2.3.1 Key moments in the development of the institution3 TUDSM began its history in 1961 as a College of the University of London, with only one faculty (Law) and fourteen students. Together with Makerere University College in Uganda and Nairobi University College in Kenya, it became a Constituent College of the University of East Africa in 1963. The national university, UDSM, was established in August 1970. The primary focus of the university at the time of its establishment is described in a university document (UDSM 2007: 4) as follows: “Like other universities all over the world, it was meant to be an institution where people are trained at the highest level for clear and independent thinking, analysis and problem solving.”

3 The information in this section was provided by Prof. Daniel Mkude as part of the background

information to the institution (Mkude 2009).


25

In another document, the following three “social functions” are attributed to the newly established national university (DPF 2009: 1):

The first one was to transmit knowledge as a basis for action, from one generation to another. The second was to act as a centre where the frontiers of knowledge could be advanced by scientific research. The third one was, through teaching, to meet the high‐level human resource needs of Tanzanian society.

According to a self‐assessment report produced by the university, a number of developments in the 1980s gave rise to the need for “a comprehensive review” of the university’s mission, status, objectives, functions and legal status (UDSM 2007: 4). These external drivers included the start of the shift, from 1985 onwards, “from a centralised to a more market‐oriented economy”, the establishment of two new state universities and the policy decision to establish private universities. Since 1994, the university has been implementing the UDSM Institutional Transformation Programme which is primarily about “building a new identity [for the university] with its own distinctive characteristics in an effort to achieve and maintain a reputable regional and international position in terms of the relevance and quality of its prime outputs” (ibid.: 5). The Institutional Transformation Programme is given expression in the university’s Corporate Strategic Plan (2004‐2013) which is operationalised further through five‐year rolling plans4 at the institutional, college, faculty, institute and major department levels (ibid.). The core functions of the university today are listed in the strategic plan as teaching, research and public service (UDSM 2009: 3). The university has five colleges including Engineering and Technology, Arts and Social Sciences, and Natural and Applied Sciences, as well as the Dar es Salaam University College of Education and the Mkwawa University College of Education. There are also five schools including the Business School, Education, Informatics and Communication Technologies, Law, and Journalism and Mass Communication. The university has the following institutes, centres and bureaus: Institute of Kiswahili Studies, Institute of Marine Sciences, Institute of Development Studies, Institute of Resource Assessment, Centre for Continuing Education, Centre for Entrepreneurship Development, Centre for the Study of Forced Migration, Centre for Environmental Studies, Centre for Virtual Learning, University Computing Centre Ltd, Technology Development and Transfer Centre, UDSM Gender Centre, Quality Assurance Bureau, Bureau of Industrial Cooperation, Bureau of Educational Research and Evaluation, and Economic Research Bureau. 4 Since 1996.


26

There are also the Directorates for Graduate Studies, Undergraduate Studies and for Research and Publications. According to the university’s research policy, the Directorate for Research and Publications was established in 1998 as part of the Institutional Transformation Programme “to administer and coordinate research including external linkages on all matters related to research in line with the First Edition of the UDSM Research Policy approved by university Council in the same year” (UDSM 2008: 2). The role of the Research and Publications Committee is described in the research policy as follows (UDSM 2008: 2):

In principle, the Research and Publications Committee has the responsibility of approving and monitoring all research and publications projects within UDSM. The Committee receives proposals and reports from respective faculties, bureaus, institutes and campus colleges after the proposals or reports have been scrutinised by respective lower organs.

2.3.2 Governance and strategic objectives The university is led by a vice‐chancellor and two deputy vice‐chancellors (Academic and Administration), a director of planning and finance, a director for research, principals of colleges, deans of faculties and directors of institutes. The two bodies involved in institutional decision‐making include the university senate and university council. The university’s vision is “to become a reputable world‐class university that is responsive to national, regional and global development needs through engagement in dynamic knowledge creation and application.” Its mission is the “unrelenting pursuit of scholarly and strategic research, education, training and public service directed at attainment of equitable and sustainable socio‐economic development of Tanzania and the rest of Africa.” The strategic objectives of the university’s strategic plan (2008/09‐2012/13) include the following:

1. Access to university education expanded; 2. Quality of graduates increased; 3. Volume and quality of research and publications enhanced; 4. Volume and quality of public service enhanced; 5. Outreach, networking and partnerships strengthened; and 6. Institutional capacities strengthened.

2.3.3 Institutional finances Table 2.6 shows that the total income received from government increased from USD 15 966 317 in 2000/2001 to USD 25 707 124 in 2006/2007. As can be


27

seen from Figure 2.1, over the period 2001‐2007 the largest proportion of the university’s income has come from state allocations. While the proportion of state allocation has increased significantly over this period, the proportion of donations has decreased. The proportion of student fees increased from 3.95% in 2001 to 15.48% in 2007.

Table 2.6: University of Dar es Salaam government income (2000/2001‐2006/2007)

Academic year Government income in TZS ’000 (Actual)

Government income in USD

Exchange Rate

2000/2001 14 052 116 15 966 317 1 USD = TZS 880.11

2001/2002 14 363 767 14 784 535 1 USD = TZS 971.54

2002/2003 15 423 272 14 883 018 1 USD = TZS 1036.30

2003/2004 16 360 124 14 923 853 1 USD = TZS 1096.24

2004/2005 16 204 754 14 532 890 1 USD = TZS 1115.04

2005/2006 22 932 144 18 485 465 1 USD = TZS 1240.55

2006/2007 32 193 545 25 707 124 1 USD = TZS 1252.32

Note: Inflation‐adjusted figures

Figure 2.1: Income by source as a percentage of total income, University of Dar es Salaam (2001‐2007)

More than once, the strategic plan bemoans the lack of government funding. In the following quotes, the plan indicates the challenges that this poses for the university (UDSM 2009: 13):

Government funding of public universities has long been an area of concern for UDSM, with the budgetary allocations being

55%

60%58%

71%

56%

64%65%

4% 4% 4%6% 7%

9%

15%

41%

36% 38%

23%

37%

27%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

State allocations Tuition fees Donations


28

too low to the extent of affecting the quality of outputs. This continued to be the case in 2006/07 and also in 2007/08. Further difficulty is caused by the unpredictable release of these allocations, thus making effective planning very difficult or impossible for that matter. There are now efforts by the HEIs [higher education institutions] to agree with the government on a formula based on unit cost per output. A team has been formed by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training (MEVT) to collect proper data for that purpose.

In recent years however, public funds to UDSM have been received at a declining rate, which has the potential to reverse the university’s achievements so far. Since 2004 the government has directed all HEIs to prepare budgets based on student unit cost (SUC) to be used as the basis for allocating public funds to HEIs. Although the government has not set clear benchmarks for allocating public funds for other core UDSM activities including research and outreach activities, it has, together with other African governments, signed the African Union (AU) Charter, committing itself to setting aside 1% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for funding research activities.

Major foreign donors for the university include the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations; the Royal Norwegian government including the Norwegian Agency for Development Co‐operation (NORAD) and the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU); the Dutch government including the Netherlands Organisation for International Co‐operation in Higher Education (NUFFIC); and, the Swedish government, especially Sida/SAREC. Through government, the university is also receiving World Bank funding for infrastructure development. According to the university’s current strategic plan, “Donor funds have been directed mainly at research and transformational as well as infrastructure development activities” (ibid.: 47‐48). The strategic plan outlines strategies to improve government and donor funding, as well as internal generation of income (ibid.: 43). In terms of government, the aim is to come to an agreement that annual budgets are based on student unit costs. The plan also makes mention of the establishment of the Tanzania Educational Authority from which higher education institutions can “access additional funds to buffer deficits in the course of implementing their core mission” (ibid.: 49). The aim of increased donor funding will be “to fund transformation innovations at UDSM and activities designed to create strategic partnerships with various stakeholders of the University in an ongoing way” (ibid.: 43). Amongst others, strategies to generate income internally include increasing the number of partnerships with industry and other institutions by 20% per year, and setting targets for colleges, schools and institutes to generate


29

income directly related to the core mission of the university – examples of research and evening / weekend courses are mentioned. The Director of Planning and Finance indicated that they were also planning to try to source more funds from the private sector locally:

I have an action plan which I wanted to submit to management to say: now let us also look internally [for funding]. Yes, financial crunch, yes, but if mining companies, if banks can support the football association, what about higher education? And we are the ones that are producing bankers for these. We are the ones who are producing geologists for the mining companies. So I think we need also to make our own case for the internal donors. I know in South Africa you are doing it. Here in Tanzania we have not explored that source. So I think as much as we are saying the world there – is it responsive or not? – we also need to exert that demand from our own side.


30

3.1 Introduction As was highlighted in section 1.1.3, the existence of a ‘pact’ between national and institutional stakeholders, as well as external stakeholders such as industry and foreign donors, on the role of higher education is a key factor in the extent to which universities are able to make a sustained contribution to development. A pact was defined as a fairly long‐term cultural, socio‐economic and political understanding and commitment between universities, political authorities and society at large of the identity or vision of universities, what is expected of universities, and what the rules and values of the universities are. For the purposes of this study, our interest is in exploring the general nature of the pact, and then the extent to which there is a role for higher education in economic development in the pact. We begin our analysis of the nature and extent of a pact in Tanzania by considering the notions(s) of the role of higher education from the perspective of the national authorities and the institutional stakeholders at UDSM. This includes an investigation of the ways in which both national and institutional stakeholders talk about development and the role of higher education, whether and how these notions are articulated in relevant policy documents, and the extent to which specific structures have been established to give expression to the intent of the policies. It also includes a look into the extent to which matters pertaining to higher education are coordinated across national authorities, and between national authorities, higher education institutions (with a specific focus on UDSM) and key external stakeholders.

Part 3

The role of higher education in Tanzania

AT A GLANCE

Key national higher education stakeholders Role of higher education in national policies Policy coordination in the higher education sector Institutional narratives on the role of the university Policies, structures and appointments Research funding Research agenda Linkages with the labour market


31

3.2 The national perspective

3.2.1 Key national stakeholders in relation to the pact The key stakeholders in higher education are the following:

The Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education (MSTHE), responsible for policy development;

The Higher Education Students Loan Board (HESLB);

The Tanzanian Commission for Universities (TCU) for regulation of the sector; and

The Planning Commission responsible for linking the role of higher education and development as, for instance, in the Tanzania Development Vision 2025. The MSTHE was established in 1990 to provide a “single policy formulation and coordinating body for science, technology and higher education at the national level” (TCU 2005: 2). It oversees science and technology teaching and development in the technical and higher education institutions. Currently, the ministry consists of three principal divisions including Science and Technology, Technical and Vocational Education, and Higher Education. The TCU is the regulatory body for public and private universities and university colleges. According to its 2005/06 strategic plan (TCU 2005: 5), it states that:

[G]iven the role of higher education in national socio‐economic growth and sustainable development and competitiveness in the globalising world, as part of its role, the TCU shall:

(a) Provide guidance and regulation to the growth and

sustainable development of higher learning institutions in Tanzania;

(b) Cooperate with the public and private sector, and NGOs in facilitating close linkages for orderly development of higher education; and

(c) Provide government, private sector, NGOs and other stakeholders with advisory services that would enhance involvement in the development and sustainability of quality higher education.

According to the same plan, the TCU is committed to achieving its vision and mission and future aims to (ibid.: 5‐6):

(a) Stimulate a culture of continuous improvement of higher education in relevant institutions through periodic review of


32

their quality assurance system, accreditation status and issuance of regulatory guidelines;

(b) Facilitate improved higher education institution governance that is transparent, democratic and representative as a way of ensuring efficiency and effectiveness of HE operations;

(c) Facilitate implementation of a sustainable system of financing higher education based on evidence‐based institutional financial needs;

(d) Facilitate institutionalisation of fair, transparent, and equitable access to higher education in all institutions of higher learning;

(e) Market the institution of higher learning services, capacities and capabilities and outputs;

(f) Facilitate internationalisation of higher education institutions’ academic programmes within the country, regionally and internationally;

(g) Establish and facilitate quality assurance mechanisms for programmes and courses imported into Tanzania under transnational and cross‐border provision; and

(h) Establish mechanisms for monitoring quality of academic staff in universities.

3.2.2 The role of higher education in national policies The National Higher Education Policy The National Higher Education Policy (1999) observes that higher education in Tanzania is constrained by a number of factors including imbalances in student enrolment with more students enrolling in humanities and social science programmes as opposed to science and technology‐based programmes, high running costs, limited space, deteriorating infrastructure and facilities, and curricula that do not adequately focus on the demands and priorities of the society. The policy highlights the changing needs of higher education for Tanzania to include the following challenges (URT 2005):

Increased social demand for higher education;

Need for enhanced entrepreneurship;

Need for greater social democracy and good governance;

Need for sustainable resource mobilisation; and

The need to keep pace with science and technology developments.


33

There are a number of other government policies that have important implications for tertiary education. These include the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 (described earlier), the Science and Technology Master Plan, and the Higher and Technical Education Sub‐Master Plan. Science and Technology Sub‐Master Plan The government has adopted the Science and Technology Sub‐Master Plan to guide the nation. This plan defines key roles to be played by higher learning institutions. It is characterised by the following features (TCU 2005: 11):

Enhancing funding for science and technology in the country;

Enhancing availability of science and technology physical and technical resources;

Improved national science and technology human resources;

Promoting strategic national research and development priorities;

Improving the national capacity for technology transfer and absorption;

Enhancing the national science and technology institutional capacity and linkages; and

Enhancing science and technology development, information dissemination and application. Higher and Technical Education Sub‐Master Plan The MSTHE’s Higher and Technical Education Sub‐Master Plan provides the national higher and technical institutions with an important framework for the strategic development of the sector. The Sub‐Master Plan is characterised by (ibid.):

Sub‐sector rationalisation

Expansion of student enrolment

Addressing the gender imbalance

Addressing and combating HIV/Aids in the sector

Optimisation of resource utilisation by institutions

Quality revitalisation and improvement

Mainstreaming and internalisation of science and technology.

3.2.3 Higher education and development policy coordination The key policy and governance institutions in the higher education sector are respectively the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education and the Tanzanian Commission for Universities responsible respectively for policy


34

development and university regulation. Both institutions have clearly‐defined mandates. As stated earlier, the Planning Commission is responsible, amongst others, for linking the role of higher education and development. However, with respect to the role of higher education in development, there is little evidence of effective policy coordination between these three agencies to enhance the role of higher education in development.

3.3 The University of Dar es Salaam perspective

3.3.1 Institutional narrative(s) on the role of the university Like most universities in Africa, the university was established with the expectation that it would produce human resources for the government and civil service. As one institutional leader put it: “Originally, because we were going through socialist ideology, we were expected to generate people who would be finally absorbed, fully used by the government.” Another senior academic described the ‘traditional’ role of the university in terms of a long‐term investment in the training of professionals. He indicated that in the 1980s and 1990s, calls for universities to link and contribute more directly to society placed new demands on the way in which the university operated. As can be seen from the quote below, this particular respondent points to the tensions between the traditional and the new:

Universities play a very important role in the development of a country. But unlike universities abroad, say, in South Africa, for example, or in Britain or in America or in Japan – where there is that direct link between universities and industry, universities and the medical field, etcetera, directly linked to what is taking place in the society – ours here, we are sort of rooted, grounded, in the traditional motif of education whereby that investment you make takes a long time because you train teachers, you train high‐level manpower, you train researchers and such people whose impact on society is sort of long‐term and delayed. It’s a deferred consumption pattern, it’s not immediate. That’s the traditional role of a university. But then, of recent, say 1980s, 1990s, the situation has begun to change whereby the university has to make a direct impact on the nation. This is because of the demands that modern society – so to say, I’m using ‘modern’ in respect to what is happening in Africa, and these things have been taking place in Europe for a long time – but 1980s, 1990s, with liberalisation, with globalisation then there is a new demand on universities to contribute directly to society. So there have emerged units,


35

institutes, programmes at the University of Dar es Salaam which are geared to make a direct impact on society in terms of development. But, as I’m saying, traditional universities are not designed strictly to do that; they are designed for education, knowledge, search for knowledge, research, consultancy etcetera – consultancy may be said to have a direct link. (Senior academic)

This call for universities to contribute more directly to society or to “impact on the nation” is reflected in key university documents and some institutional stakeholders’ discourses with respect to the need for the university to align itself with and respond to development objectives at either local, national, regional or international levels. For example, the link between the university and development is referred to in the university’s vision statement: “To become a reputable world‐class university that is responsive to national, regional and global development needs through engagement in dynamic knowledge creation and application”. The university’s research policy articulates the importance of research for development, including economic growth (UDSM 2008: 6):

Potentially, the University of Dar es Salaam is one of the most capable institutions in the country with a mandate to generate new understanding through research. The UDSM roles in research, evaluation, information transfer, and technology development are therefore critical to national social progress and economic growth.

In the following quote, an institutional leader describes how the university’s strategic plan is aligned with international and national priorities – including economic growth and poverty reduction – and how academic units are tasked with aligning with the policies related to their sectors:

So the way we articulate our [strategic] plan is really looking at the Millennium Development Goals which our country has subscribed to and subscribes to, and our national strategy for growth and poverty reduction, as well as other national policies – the higher education policy and the other policies that are relevant to the university. The university is relevant to every part of the nation but you cannot address each policy, you cannot address every policy, but we see to it that the units – for example, if I would take the School of Business, they will take into account the national trade policy, they will take into account the national policy of small and medium enterprises development. So the individual units will again look into policies as to how they should be addressed within their own colleges and schools, while we look at the global picture – MDGs, the vision of the country, the policy itself. (Institutional leader)


36

The strategic plan makes reference to Tanzania’s Development Vision 2025 which outlines a role for higher education institutions. As can be seen from the following quote, while the plan makes reference to the university’s response to this call for higher education institutions’ involvement in implementation of Vision 2025, it does so in the very broadest sense. Furthermore, the location of this reference in the “Financing Framework” section, and the call for increased government funding, suggests that the plan uses the reference to Vision 2025 politically, that is, as a means to leveraging more funds (UDSM 2009: 47):

In the Development Vision 2025, Tanzania envisages becoming a middle‐income country with attributes including a well‐educated, poverty‐free society and a nation capable of addressing emerging development challenges for achieving a high quality of life for its people. According to Vision 2025, Tanzania endeavours to become a nation whose people are ingrained with a developmental mindset and competitive spirit. In attaining these attributes education and knowledge are critical for enabling the nation to effectively mobilise its domestic resources and in ensuring and maintaining the provision of people's basic needs. Education and knowledge are also important in giving Tanzania a competitive edge in the regional and global economy. Tanzania should brace herself to attain creativity, innovativeness and a high level of quality education in order to focus on development challenges and effectively compete regionally and internationally, cognizant of the reality that competitive leadership in the 21st century will hinge on the level and quality of education and knowledge.

Recognising the pivotal role of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in producing the highly trained human resources needed for the economic development of the country, UDSM is, through [the Institutional Transformation Programme], building a new identity with its own distinctive characteristics in an effort to become a reputable world‐class university responsive to national, regional and global development needs. Through constant review of its programmes, improved quality control of its output and keeping in close contact with stakeholders, UDSM aspires to engage in dynamic knowledge creation, inculcating critical thinking in students and staff, and improving the efficient and effective application of teaching, research and consultancy services. In order to realise these aspirations it is essential that funding levels increase.

While the link between the university and development is made, nowhere are these ‘development needs’ clearly identified or defined. The notion of


37

development – and the role for the university in this – is, however, (tacitly) embedded especially in references to the focus on training and production of skills. For example, in the list of the ‘basic functions’ of the university (UDSM 2009: 6) there is reference to promoting “continuing education of Tanzanians in order to maintain labour productivity and global competitiveness” and to being “a producer and supplier of key policy makers, experts and personnel for national development.” There is also reference to entrepreneurship in these basic functions. In the discussion of enrolment trends, the plan notes the increase in undergraduate student enrolments between 1994/95 and 2007/08 and makes the following comment: “Indeed, such expansion of student enrolment is crucial as it demonstrates the University’s aspiration to assist the nation in obtaining the critical mass of professionals required to spearhead the various interventions for growth and poverty reduction” (ibid.: 9). The only reference to the ‘knowledge society’ in the strategic plan appears under the heading “Capacity and Application of ICT”. The university sees its role in helping Tanzania move towards becoming a knowledge society through securing modern information and communication technology resources for the university and in producing ICT professionals (UDSM 2009: 11):

Globalisation is intensifying worldwide socio‐cultural‐economic relations and is pushing the whole world towards the so‐called ‘knowledge society’, which is knowledge‐driven and being built on creativity, know‐how, imagination and innovation. Tanzania is faced with a serious challenge of integrating into such a society, particularly in the competitive area of international knowledge covering scientific, technological, financial, production, commerce, communication and other relevant activities. One major driving force towards achieving the above is Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Therefore, ICT should be harnessed persistently, both in terms of securing modern resources as well as training and retaining the relevant ICT professionals at all levels, if the country is to remain competitive. UDSM should play an active role in meeting this challenge.

While there is reference to the role of the university in relation to development in general, the main emphasis in the current strategic plan seems to be on strengthening the academic core (e.g. increasing student enrolments, improving quality, capacity development and increased funding for research, increased research outputs), as well as infrastructural development and financial sustainability. To some extent the focus on strengthening the academic core is evidenced in the six strategic objectives of the plan which include the following:

1. Access to university education expanded; 2. Quality of graduates increased;


38

3. Volume and quality of research and publications enhanced; 4. Volume and quality of public service enhanced; 5. Outreach, networking and partnerships strengthened; and 6. Institutional capacities strengthened.

The focus on strengthening the academic core was also emphasised by an institutional leader:

We [Tanzania] are the least in the region in terms of student enrolment in higher education, and I would say we are one of the largest countries in the region. So we think that our major task is to ensure that we increase access to higher education, not necessarily by increasing undergraduates; we think we have been there for 40 years, we are now heading to 50 years and we think our thrust should now go to postgraduate to ensure that we are able to assist the upcoming universities with a supply of lecturers, with a supply of senior well‐trained academic and administrative staff. [...] We are going to consolidate the undergraduates but enhance the postgraduates so that we can assist all the upcoming colleges. We are now having 26 universities but we are the university that is offering postgraduate studies at masters and PhD level; the others are trying but we do have the strength and we think this strength should assist the country to pursue the mission of enhancing access to higher education. (Institutional leader)

To the extent that a role for the university in economic development forms part of the discourses of the institutional leadership and other senior academic staff, the question arises: what evidence is there that the institution is walking their talk? As such, we now turn our attention to an investigation of the policies, structures, programmes, funding and incentives that have been put in place relating to the institution’s role in economic development. It is important to note that it was beyond the scope of this study to assess or evaluate the effectiveness or impact of these initiatives. Instead, they are included here as part of our analysis of the vision that institutional stakeholders have for the university in relation to economic development.


39

3.3.2 Initiatives around research and innovation Institutional policies, structures and appointments There are no institutional level policies which focus specifically on the role of university research activities in relation to economic development. The Corporate Strategic Plan and the current UDSM Five‐Year Rolling Strategic Plan do make mention of this role (outlined in section 3.3.1 above), as does the UDSM Research Policy and Operational Procedures (2008), although in all cases in relatively broad terms. Two units were identified in the College of Engineering and Technology (CoET) which link research activities to economic development. The Bureau for Industrial Co‐operation is a non‐profit consulting firm based within the CoET. According to the web site5, the Bureau was established in 1990 “with the sole aim of mobilising expertise and resources for effective contribution to the socio‐economic development of the country”. The specific objectives of the bureau include the following:

To provide consultancy services to industry;

To provide other expert professional services to the community; and

To deliver continuing professional development programmes to engineering personnel. Consultancy teams are constituted from both academic and technical staff across the college. The Technology Development Transfer Centre (TDTC)6 was established in 2001 as a merger between the then Faculty of Engineering and the former Institute of Production and Innovation. According to the TDTC brochure, the main aim of the centre is “to develop and disseminate technologies that have direct relevancy to the Tanzanian community and which will directly bring impact on the development of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the lives of the general public” (CoET 2006: 1). Target groups for the centre include local industry, government ministries and agencies, regulating bodies, professional bodies, technology‐oriented intermediaries, non‐governmental organisations, national and international research institutions, funding and implementing agencies, embassies and donor agencies, students and parents, College alumni and the Tanzanian civil society (CoET 2006: 2‐3). The core focus is the transfer of technologies to these target groups based on five broad areas of activity, including in‐house technology development, technology transfer, technology brokerage, business/technology incubation, and contracted research. The TDTC

5 Bureau for Industrial Cooperation web site: http://www.coet.udsm.ac.tz/bico/index.htm. 6 Technology Development Transfer Centre web site: http://www.coet.udsm.ac.tz/tdtc.htm.


40

works in close collaboration with organisations such as the Tanzania Gatsby Trust, the Innovation Systems and Clusters for Tanzania, the UDSM Entrepreneurship Centre, and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing (CoET 2006: 14‐16). Research funding Like many universities in Africa, the UDSM struggles with the limited funding made available by government and other public sources. This lack of research funding was highlighted by an institutional leader:

Research at the university, it’s one of the core functions and it’s supposed to be facilitated strongly by the government, but unfortunately the government [...] does not give enough for research, but the university and the government try to solicit funds from other sources. (Institutional leader)

The strategic plan also highlighted two major constraints facing research (in the country as a whole, and in the university in particular), namely the very low levels of government funding for research and the lack of coordination, as well as the lack of a national policy framework for science and technology research (UDSM 2009: 12):

Tanzania is constrained by the lack of capacity for research that is necessary for significant socio‐economic development, which was mainly attributed to the lack of a clear national policy. The former Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (MHEST) drafted the National Science and Technology Research Policy, which was undergoing the approval process. The Policy advocates a national research agenda and multidisciplinary research, and addresses issues related to research funding, human resource capacity, national research support environment and culture, partnership between research and development (R&D) and industry, regional and international cooperation and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The National Science and Technology Policy is also currently being reviewed to take on board innovation, among other new trends. All the above was expected to provide an important framework for the strategic development of the University in terms of research and development, especially when taking into consideration the former MHEST Master Plan which puts a great deal of emphasis on the promotion of strategic national research.

The major challenge in terms of research at UDSM however is the low level of funding for research by the Government, which


41

has been less than 15 million in total annually, since 2000/01 to‐date. This may compromise the prioritisation of research undertakings in line with actual national needs. In addition, effective coordination of research funding, as well as the diverse agencies currently funding various research activities at UDSM, is not at the desired level. However the recent changes of ministries will result in a number of issues needing to be addressed by UDSM as an institution of higher education in the country.

One respondent suggested that often research agendas are not implemented because of the lack of research funding:

The problem has always been, and it’s still there, is you agree that these are the concerns of the people and these are the priority areas, but do you have the funds to do the research? That is where the university is very weak because you don’t have funds set aside by the university itself for driving research. The proposal, we started long ago, the government is to set aside a percentage of the national income for research purposes and that would be taken care of by the Commission for Science and Technology. The principle was agreed upon by the government but the implementation has never taken off – and so long as you don’t have specific money earmarked for research for the universities and the research institutes, it’s very difficult to carry out any of these decisions. Many times the stakeholders get frustrated. Said: last year you called us, we talked and then we agreed on this. What are the results? Well, we have not been able to take off because of no money. How sure are we that you are going to have money for the next stage? So that has been our biggest weakness. (Senior academic)

The university’s research policy indicates two main strategies for increasing research funding. The first is to “Contend, in collaboration with other research institutions, for an increased share of national financial resources allocated for research”, using the 1% of Gross National Product suggested by NEPAD as a benchmark (UDSM 2008: 13). The second is to increase the drive to solicit funds internationally and locally, at departmental, faculty, institute, college and university levels (ibid.). The document also indicates the institution’s intention to lobby government to introduce performance‐based research funding which could be based on, for example, “the success in attracting research students, in attracting research income from a diversity of sources, and in the quality and output of its research publications” (ibid.).


42

Research agendas There is limited mention of research in the university’s strategic plan. Under the heading “UDSM Values and Norms”, one of the norms is listed as “Research relevance by ensuring that research addresses relevant national or societal problems” (UDSM 2009: 7). The university research policy is more specific in this regard (UDSM 2008: 6):

[...] research has to be relevant with developmental responsibility addressing national or societal problems with immediate or long‐term impacts. In this respect, the UDSM research activities have to constantly be aligned with national, regional or even global development direction. The research agenda of the UDSM has therefore to be in line with the national and regional development strategy.

The first key objective of the research policy is “Priorities and National Coordination” which addresses the need for the institution and its academic units to develop research agendas that are aligned with national development objectives and priorities, in order to influence these policies and priorities (UDSM 2008: 12). There was no evidence of an institutional level research agenda as such although the research policy talks about the “main research agenda” – where priority is given to projects which are aligned to the main research agenda in award of research funds (UDSM 2008: 14). A senior academic reported that while, in the past, there had been an agenda‐setting system in place for the university, this system has all but collapsed. He went on to suggest that the influence of foreign donor interests and agendas has contributed to the fragmentation of research across the institution:

Back in the 1960s – ’64, ’65, ’66 – we used to have what are known as themes, the agenda: the agenda for history research or for geography research or for political science research, for the next five years will be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, let’s not do anymore, and this is what they told you in Uganda, whereby you have so many small projects, everyone going his own way. So there is no coordination at all. I told you a minute ago that these donors have an agenda; so if they’re going to fund research on environment then they’ll do it on the environment. If they are going to do it in, say, in geography it will be in geography. But the university may not even know what is happening in the departments. There are very big projects going on right now but the university may not even know. We have a mechanism in place whereby you’re supposed to report back to the university: you know, I’m working in the environment in Dar es Salaam,


43

you report. For heaven’s sake, who knows what I’m doing here, because all I do is ask for a permit to do research for six months or seven months or whatever. But I’m saying that that system, that agenda‐setting system has collapsed; it doesn’t work anymore. With the institutional transformation programme which we adopted in 2000‐and‐something, that attempt on paper is being made at least to know what is happening and coordinate it, not centrally, but at least someone somewhere should coordinate it so that we can see the broader picture of what the outcome will be. The system has collapsed, I must admit. (Senior academic)

All academic units (colleges, faculties, institutes and departments) are required to develop their own research agendas in consultation with external stakeholders. These research agendas are submitted to the Directorate for Research and Publications which, together with academic staff, further prioritises the proposed themes. The more specific research agendas7 of individual academic units can be found on the web sites of various colleges, faculties, departments and institutes. A few examples are provided in the box below. As can be seen from these three examples, there is a focus on economic development or poverty reduction in some of the themes.

Examples of research priorities of academic units

University of Dar es Salaam Business School research agenda

(http://www.udbs.udsm.ac.tz/research/)

The UDBS research agenda is “Entrepreneurship, Private Sector and Sustainable Development”. The decision to focus on this agenda is based on where the school has comparative advantages and the acknowledgment of the presence of untapped resource and investment opportunities for MSMEs to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The main research themes under the UDBS research agenda are a) good governance and business ethics for sustainable development; (b) promising sectors for sustainable development; (c) private and public sector reforms and inclusive development; (d) behavioural and human capital development and management; and (e) management information systems development and applications for economic sustainability.

Institute of Resource Assessment research themes

(http://www.ira.udsm.ac.tz/publication/policy.php)

Natural Resource Management and Environment Agriculture, Food Security and Poverty Alleviation Population and Human Settlement Social and Policy Analysis Remote Sensing and Geographical Information Systems

7 According to the university’s research policy document, by October 2006 the research agendas

of most faculties and institutes were in place, but that “few had taken the next step of

systematically operationalising the agenda” (UDSM 2008:2).


44

Examples of research priorities of academic units (continued)

Institute of Development Studies key priority research areas (2000‐2005)

(http://www.ids.udsm.ac.tz/research.htm)

Economic Policy Reforms and Strategies Agrarian Reforms and Strategies Science, Technology and Society Population, Environment and Natural Resources Management Gender Policy Mainstreaming and Globalisation Globalisation, Regional Integration and Sustainable Development Peace, Democratisation and Development in Tanzania

The challenges of innovation and technology transfer Finally, there was also some evidence of the challenges faced by the country and the university in terms of innovation and technology transfer:

In East Africa we also know that Kenya, Ugandans, they are more aggressive than the Tanzanians. So even in the innovation, the Tanzanians are a little bit far behind because we are slow. [...] So if you have the students, Ugandan students, Kenyan students and Tanzanian students – in terms of such things you can find the Ugandans, because of the background, they are in a more competitive environment. You see, our environment here, we were spoiled by the socialism which we had, where the government thinks for you and tells you and brings everything to you; you don’t have to fight, you will wait for your time. If it’s not enough, you share. So that’s the mentality. But slowly people are changing. (Institutional leader)

In the fields of research and consultancies the Faculty has been experiencing an unfavourable situation. The high financial resource inputs required for establishing research laboratories in science and the corresponding requirements for research student funding and consumables serially affects the development of scientific research in the Faculty of Science, especially geared towards research and development. Furthermore, the generally weak university/industry relations which are brought about by, among other things, the general weakness of the Tanzanian industrial sector and therefore lack of vision towards research and development. This situation also makes the capability of the faculty in offering consultancy services to the Tanzanian socio‐economic sector not to be fully


45

utilised, especially in the fields of contracted research and R & D. (Web site of the College of Natural and Applied Sciences8)

If you come from Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, they are very far compared to us – and these are the things we are discussing now. We are talking about it, we know that we are not very far; we have put it now in the new curriculum that the students have to be innovative, they have to innovate something in their work as part of their final work. I found that at Jomo Kenyatta, the staff members actually don’t get promotion if they don’t show some innovation. Actually, this is what we were discussing yesterday with the European Union, with this workshop we had yesterday, innovation, because this year has been declared a year of innovation for Europe; the European Union is celebrating innovations, creativity and innovation. So we want to use that as a stepping stone to do more. (Institutional leader)

In summary, while it is evident that there is both policy and practice in the university around identifying and aligning research agendas with national development needs, there are no specific policies or funds earmarked for economic development‐related research or research in key knowledge economy fields such as science and technology or the life sciences. There are also no incentives for academics to engage in these kinds of activities.

3.3.3 Initiatives around teaching and learning Institutional policies, structures and appointments There was no evidence of any specific policies, appointments or earmarked funds that are linked to teaching activities specifically around economic development. The UDSM Entrepreneurship Centre (UDEC)9 was identified as a unit which offers a range of services which link academic programmes and training for external stakeholders to economic development. Although based in the UDSM Business School since 2009, it draws upon academics from a wide range of faculties. The mission of the centre is to facilitate the development of entrepreneurial capacity in Tanzania. It does this through the provision of consultancy services, the provision of short courses to external stakeholders on a range of business‐ and enterprise development‐related topics, and business counselling to SMEs and students of the university. Of particular interest here is that UDEC administers three degree programmes: a Postgraduate Diploma in

8 http://www.cnas.udsm.ac.tz/background.html 9 University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre web site: http://udec.co.tz/.


46

Micro‐Finance, a Postgraduate Diploma in Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development, and the Masters in Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development (MEED) Programme. According to the web site10, the objective and focus of the masters programme include the following:

The objective of the MEED programme is to contribute to the growth and competitiveness of the private sector through building capacity for institutional reform and development. The intention is to develop high‐level competencies for enacting an enabling environment for development of entrepreneurship, small enterprises and the private sector in general. The programme develops pertinent theoretical, analytical and practical skills required for change agents in this area.

Linkages with the labour market There is recognition in the university’s current strategic plan of the need to review academic programmes to better align them with labour market needs (UDSM 2009: 10, 11):

The more competitive and dynamic labour market is now apparently demanding people who can adjust easily to the fast changing environment, acquire new skills and handle multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary problems, issues and challenges. However, some of the programmes have become highly specialised, even at undergraduate level. While this could be a positive move in certain areas, various other programmes need to be validated in order to determine the optimum extent of specialisation at undergraduate level in terms of cost and benefits. Otherwise, undergraduate programmes should focus on providing basic competencies in a discipline, reserving specialisation for postgraduate level. [...] Furthermore, as a result of the expansion in enrolment, there now seems to be too much emphasis on theory at the expense of practical/professional aspects. Both the Tracer Study and second Academic Audit reports have highlighted these facts and the University should therefore respond promptly.

Another university document makes reference to the need for curricula to be reviewed every five years and to base changes on graduate surveys and tracer studies (UDSM 2007: 7):

10 MEED Programme web site:

http://udec.co.tz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=96.


47

In line with the needs of the labour market, the University places a lot of weight on market as well as stakeholder demand in tailoring the curricula and formation of all her developmental programmes. Market demand is obtained from graduate surveys or tracer studies. The surveys are carried out at faculty and institute level when a new programme is being formulated and the curricular reviewed at least every five years. In short, the underlying principle is that, at least every five years, curriculum reviews are carried out and the views and recommendations from graduate surveys are taken into consideration.

The Principal of the CoET reported that the College holds stakeholder meetings to make inputs into curriculum development:

Whenever you have a curriculum, before you go to send it, you have to show that you have talked to your stakeholders. So we talk to the employers where we prepare a questionnaire which we send to the employers of the students; we talk to the ministries; we talk to the students themselves also, and they give you – we give them some questions which they answer and they’ll tell you what they think. For example, now for our students in engineering, we know what their weakness is; the students are very poor in report‐writing [...] it’s because of the language, English, they have a problem with English from the primary school, from high school they come here. If you read what they write it’s very poor English, very poor English. So they cannot also write the reports and that’s why our consumers are complaining about this. We have tried now to incorporate something which is not engineering in their training – we have a class called Communication Skills which is taught university‐wide nowadays to improve their language and expression, etcetera. (Institutional leader)

However, in none of the university documents reviewed or the interviews conducted, was there mention of formal structures (such as advisory boards) for engagement with external stakeholders around curriculum development. Neither was there any mention of targeting specific disciplines or fields of study for increased enrolments. In fact, there is hardly any mention in the current strategic plan of a focus on science and technology. Brief reference is made in the list of ‘basic functions’ of the university: “To promote research into economic, political, social, cultural, scientific and technological areas with particular reference to the interests of mankind” (UDSM 2009: 6). Later, in the context of a discussion about measures to improve financial sustainability, reference is made to “reviewing the curricula to give greater attention to


48

science and technology in line with market needs”, amongst other ways of generating funds (ibid.: 53‐54). Perhaps the most significant shift in terms of teaching related to economic development has been the strong focus on entrepreneurial training and small business development. For example, a senior academic in the Business School spoke about how a time came when “the demand for a business education increased significantly” which led to a reorganisation of the then faculty, including a focus on entrepreneurship and small businesses:

Based on this there was a lot of reorganisation within the faculty in order to address the incoming changes in the economic situation, business environment and so forth. That’s why some new courses were introduced later, like you mentioned entrepreneurship – because really it’s not just making people who can be employed, who can be easily absorbed by government or parastatal organisations, even private enterprises, thinking about developing and having people who can go and employ other people. [...] The issues of small business are being given a prominent stage, in association with – we have something called the University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre. This is assisting, I mean, preparing our graduates, not only just to be jobseekers but let them create jobs for the economic development of our country. (Senior academic)

The university has a policy on entrepreneurship which requires that every student is exposed to entrepreneurship training. While some faculties and colleges offer a separate entrepreneurship course, others have mainstreamed entrepreneurship into their programmes. The Postgraduate Diploma and a Masters programme in Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development administered via UDEC were mentioned above. A senior academic spoke about some of the challenges associated with introducing a culture of entrepreneurship into the country and the university: “We are in the hangovers of socialism where having a business was not something you were able to talk about.” The only mention of internships was those sponsored by the Engineering Registration Board for engineering graduates.


49

4.1 Introduction As outlined in the analytical framework (Section 1.1.3), the nature, size and continuity of the academic core is a key factor in the extent to which universities can make a significant and sustained contribution to development. The academic core of universities refers to teaching via academic degree programmes and to research activities (often, but not exclusively of the basic type). In societies where there is a strong pact between higher education and society, the universities have been able (and allowed) to develop a strong core of academic activities that forms the basis for all their activities. The stronger its academic core the easier it will be for a university to defend its institutional identity and integrity against external or internal threats. In addition, a strong, institutionalised academic core will allow the university to invest a large part of its resources in the maintenance and further strengthening of the core, which can be regarded as the main foundation under its specific institutional identity. According to Burton Clark (1998), when an enterprising university evolves a stronger steering core, and develops an outreach structure, its heartland is still in the traditional academic departments, formed around disciplines, and some interdisciplinary fields. The heartland is where traditional academic values and activities such as teaching, research and training of the next generation of academics occur. For the purposes of this project, we have used the following to operationalise the concept of the academic core and to identify important preconditions for the development of a strong academic core in African universities:

Part 4

The nature and strength of the University of Dar es Salaam academic core

AT A GLANCE

A profile of the UDSM academic core: Enrolments in science, engineering and technology Postgraduate enrolments and graduation rates Academic staff‐to‐student ratio Academic staff qualifications Research funding Research output


50

Increased enrolments in science, engineering and technology (SET): In African governments and foreign development agencies alike, there is a strong emphasis on SET as important drivers of development (Juma 2005). Included in SET are the agricultural sciences, architecture and urban and regional planning, computer and information science, health sciences and veterinary sciences, life sciences and physical sciences.

Increased postgraduate enrolments: The knowledge economy and universities are demanding increased numbers of people with postgraduate qualifications.

A favourable academic staff to student ratio: The academic workload should allow for the possibility of research and PhD supervision.

A high proportion of academic staff with doctoral degrees: Research (CHET 2010) shows that there is high correlation between staff with doctorates, on the one hand, and research output and the training of PhD students, on the other.

Adequate research funding per academic: Research requires government and institutional funding and ‘third‐stream’ funding from external sources such as industry and foreign donors.

High graduation rates in SET fields: Not only is it important to increase SET enrolments, it is crucial that universities achieve high success rates in order to respond to the skills shortages in the African labour market in these fields.

Increased knowledge production in the form of doctoral graduates: There is a need for an increase in doctoral graduates for two reasons. Firstly, doctoral graduates form the backbone of academia and are therefore critical for the future reproduction of the academic core. Secondly, there is an increasing demand for people with doctoral degrees outside of academia (e.g. in research organisations and other organisations such as financial institutions).

Knowledge production in the form of research publications recognised in ISI journals: Academics need to be producing peer‐reviewed research publications in order for the university to participate in the global knowledge community and to contribute to new knowledge and innovation. The preconditions outlined above are translated into the following academic core indicators: Indicator 1: Programmes – Strong SET enrolments and graduations Indicator 2: Postgraduates – Increased enrolments and graduations Indicator 3: Teaching loads – Improving academic staff/student ratios Indicator 4: Qualified staff – High percentage academic staff with PhDs Indicator 5: Funding – Availability of research funds Indicator 6: Research output – High or improving output. In order to develop a benchmark against which UDSM’s academic core could be assessed, an analysis was undertaken of South Africa’s 22 contact universities and the seven African universities included in the current study, based on seven input indicators and two output indicators. (See Appendix 2 for a description of


51

the cluster analysis methodology, the detailed data for the institutions included in the analysis, and a graph showing the results of the analysis.) A cluster analysis of the results produced the following four clusters of institutions:

Cluster 1 consists of the five South African universities which have a strong focus on both undergraduate and postgraduate studies, which are well‐resourced in teaching and in research, and which have strong research outputs.

Cluster 2 consists of two South African and five African universities which have a primary focus on undergraduate studies, which have adequate undergraduate teaching resources, and which have good undergraduate but moderate research output rates.

Cluster 3 consists of eight South African and two African universities which have high proportions of SET students, which have a main focus on undergraduate studies, but which do not have available the same levels of undergraduate teaching resources as Cluster 2. Their undergraduate output rates are satisfactory, but their research output rates fall below the targets set for South African universities.

Cluster 4 consists of seven South African universities which have low proportions of postgraduate students. Their resource levels are low compared to the other three clusters, their output rates at undergraduate level are unsatisfactory, and their research performance is poor. UDSM appears in Cluster 2 together with Botswana, Eduardo Mondlane, Mauritius, Makerere, Johannesburg and Limpopo. In the analyses which follow, UDSM (which had a student enrolment of 18 000 in 2007) is linked to: (a) one African university in Cluster 2 (Makerere, which had an enrolment of 34 000 in 2007) and (b) Limpopo (which also had an enrolment of 16 000 in 2007). UDSM is also compared to the Cluster 1 university which is close to it in terms of enrolment size. This is Stellenbosch which had an enrolment of 23 983 in 2007.

4.2 SET enrolments and graduations Figure 4.1 shows that UDSM’s student growth between 2001 and 2007 was mainly in business and management and in education and humanities. Its total enrolments more than doubled, increasing by 10 300 in 2007 compared to 2001. Only 2 400 of these increased enrolments were in SET majors. UDSM’s proportion of SET majors in its total enrolment fell from 52% in 2001 to 36% in 2007.


52

Figure 4.1: Dar es Salaam: Enrolments by field of study

Table 4.1: Dar es Salaam: Total enrolments by field of study (thousands)

Field of study 2001 2003 2005 2007 Average annual

growth rate: 2000‐2007

Science and technology 4.2 5.3 5.6 6.6 7.8%

Business and management 0.8 1.3 1.6 2.6 21.7%

Social sciences, humanities and education

3.0 4.1 6.3 9.1 20.3%

Totals 8.0 10.7 13.5 18.3 14.8%

Compared to the other two universities from Cluster 2, UDSM had the second highest proportion of SET students in 2007. Its proportion had dropped, however, while that of Makerere had risen. Johannesburg and Stellenbosch had small growths in their proportions of SET enrolments.

52% 50%41% 36%

10% 12%

12%14%

38% 38%47% 50%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Science & technology Business & management Humanities


53

Figure 4.2: Comparison of science and technology majors as % of total enrolment

Table 4.2: Comparison of total science and technology enrolments (thousands)

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam 4.2 5.2 5.6 6.6

Makerere 4.4 5.6 10.6 11.0

Johannesburg 9.0 10.9 13.5 13.6

Cluster 1: Stellenbosch 7.8 8.4 8.7 9.4

The data in Figures 4.3 and 4.4 measure output performance in terms of a university’s ratio between graduates in any given year and student enrolments in that same year. These ratios serve as proxies for cohort output rates, which indicate what proportion of any cohort entering a university can be expected to eventually complete their degrees or diplomas. The benchmark of 25% is a proxy for a cohort success rate of 75% of entering students obtaining their degrees or diplomas. Figure 4.3 shows that UDSM’s average graduate rate for SET improved over this period, and had reached the benchmark rate of 25% in 2005. However the average graduation rate of 23% for SET for the period 2001‐2007 is equivalent to a cohort success rate of 60%, which is not satisfactory.

52% 50%

41%

36%

16%

18%

30%

32%

27%

30%

33%38%

39% 40%

41%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam Makerere Johannesburg Cluster 1: Stellenbosch

Cluster 1: Stellenbosch

Dar esSalaam

Johannesburg

Makerere

27%


54

Figure 4.3: Dar es Salaam: Graduation rates by field of study

Table 4.3: Dar es Salaam: Total SET graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam 695 668 1 370 1 535

Figure 4.4 shows that UDSM’s performance in producing SET graduates was higher only than that of Johannesburg. UDSM’s average cohort success rate for 2001‐2007 was 60%, Makerere's 65%, Stellenbosch 68% and Johannesburg's only 53%. This indicates that UDSM was, in terms of its SET graduate outputs, not among the efficient universities in the group. The total SET graduates produced by each of the four universities are shown in Table 4.4.

16%

13%

25% 23%21%

16%

25%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2001 2003 2005 2007

Science & technology Average for all programmes

Target


55

Figure 4.4: Comparison of science and technology graduation rates

Table 4.4: Comparison of total science and technology graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam 695 668 1 370 1 535

Makerere 1 009 1 227 2 099 2 472

Johannesburg 1 463 1 723 2 435 2 708

Cluster 1: Stellenbosch 1 689 1 909 1 945 2 140

4.3 Postgraduate enrolments and graduations Figure 4.5 shows that the proportion of postgraduate students in UDSM’s total enrolment grew from 9% in 2001 to 15% in 2007. UDSM’s postgraduate proportion in 2007 was higher than that of Makerere and matched that of Johannesburg. The graph also indicates that there is a considerable gap between UDSM’s proportion of postgraduate students and that of a strong research university such as Stellenbosch.

16%

13%

25%

23%22%20% 22%

16%

16% 18%

20%

22% 23%22%

23%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

24%

26%

2001 2003 2005 2007


23%


Dar esSalaam

Johannesburg

Makerere


56

Figure 4.5: Comparison of % postgraduates in enrolment total

Table 4.5: Comparison of total postgraduate enrolments in all fields of study

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam 702 992 1 051 2 796

Makerere 1 519 1 151 2 788 3 026

Johannesburg 6 568 7 503 7 513 5 999

Cluster 1: Stellenbosch 8 258 7 670 7 648 7 940

Table 4.6 gives, for UDSM only, details of masters and doctoral enrolments and graduates over the period 2001 to 2007. The table shows that masters as well as doctoral enrolments nearly quadrupled over the period 2001 to 2007. Masters enrolments increased by 1 613 (or 292%) and doctoral enrolments by 136 (or 252%). Masters graduates increased at an average annual rate of 16.4% and doctoral graduates at an average annual rate of 12.2% between 2001 and 2007.

9%9%

8%15%

6%

4%

8% 9%

20%19%

16%14%

40%36%

35%33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2001 2003 2005 2007



Dar esSalaamJohannesburg

Makerere


57

Table 4.6: Dar es Salaam: Master and doctoral enrolments and graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007 Average annual growth:

2000‐2007

Masters

Enrolments 552 783 801 2 165 25.6%

Graduates 158 158 361 392 16.4%

Doctoral

Enrolments 54 72 78 190 23.3%

Graduates 10 9 7 20 12.2%

Total masters + doctoral

Enrolments 606 855 879 2 355 25.4%

Graduates 168 167 368 412 16.1%

Since doctoral students, especially in SET, are essential parts of research programmes, Figure 4.6 can be used as a first measure of a university's involvement in research. A university which has strong research programmes should have reasonably high proportions of doctoral students in its grouping of masters plus doctoral students. The figure shows that, for the period 2001‐2007, UDSM enrolled on average ten masters students for each doctoral student enrolled, which is a reasonable ratio. The comparable ratios for the other Cluster 2 universities are: Makerere 32 masters enrolments per doctoral enrolment and Johannesburg four. Stellenbosch, which has a stronger research record than Johannesburg, had on average five masters students per doctoral enrolment.

Figure 4.6: Comparison of doctoral enrolments as % of masters and doctoral enrolments

9%8%

9% 8%

2%

6%

3%

1%

19%

22% 23%

25%

18%

17%

17% 17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2001 2003 2005 2007



Dar esSalaam

Johannesburg

Makerere


58

Table 4.7: Comparison of masters and doctoral enrolments

2001 2003 2005 2007

Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral Masters Doctoral

Dar es Salaam 552 54 783 72 801 78 2 165 190

Makerere 1 167 28 864 54 2 153 59 2 767 32

Johannesburg 1 954 447 2 067 600 1 891 563 1 638 538


3 341 740 3 671 757 3 953 804 4 293 879

Figure 4.7 compares the total numbers of doctoral graduates produced by each of the four universities between 2001 and 2007. Johannesburg produced 27%, and Stellenbosch 57%, of the total doctoral graduate output of these four universities between 2001 and 2004.

Figure 4.7: Comparison of total doctoral graduates

Table 4.8: Comparison of doctoral graduates

2001 2003 2005 2007

Dar es Salaam 10 9 7 20

Makerere 11 21 25 23

Johannesburg 65 92 88 73

Cluster 1: Stellenbosch 103 112 126 153

10 9 7

2011

21 25 23

65

92 88

73

103112

126

153

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2003 2005 2007



59

4.4 Student‐staff ratios Data on the formal teaching hours carried by academic staff at the four universities are not available. Use has therefore been made of proxies which compare student to academic staff growth rates, and ratios of full‐time equivalent (FTE) students to FTE academic staff. Table 4.9 shows how UDSM’s totals of FTE students and FTE academic staff changed over the period 2001 to 2007. UDSM was able to match growth in FTE students and FTE academic staff in all fields of study, other than humanities plus education. FTE student to FTE academic staff nevertheless remained favourable in all these fields. Particular note should be taken of the ratio for humanities plus education. It is most unusual for ratios in this area to be as low as the average of 12:8 reflected in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Dar es Salaam: FTE students and academic staff

2001 2003 2005 2007

Average annual growth:

2000‐2007

Science and technology

FTE students 3 217 4 221 4 710 5 187 8.3%

FTE academic staff 257 285 326 373 6.4%

FTE student to FTE academic ratio 12.5 14.8 14.4 13.9

Business and management

FTE students 604 947 1 213 1 691 18.7%



Humanities plus education

FTE students 2 348 3 307 5 292 7 200 20.5%



TOTALS

FTE academic staff 6 169 8 475 11 215 14 078 14.7%

FTE student to FTE academic ratio 586 651 762 1 010 9.5%


Figure 4.8 compares FTE student to FTE academic staff ratios for 2007. The average ratio for all four universities was 20 or less, which is regarded as satisfactory in terms of South African norms. It is worth noting that while the SET ratios of all four are satisfactory; the Cluster 1 university had the highest


60

ratio of FTE students to FTE academic staff. UDSM differed from the other three universities in having a reasonably low ratio in business and management studies.

Figure 4.8: Comparison of 2007 FTE student‐staff ratios

Figure 4.9 compares the four universities' 2007 totals of permanent academic staff and FTE academic staff. Figure 4.10 can function as a proxy of the load carried by permanent academic staff members, who are expected to be the main supervisors of research students and producers of research publications. Figures 4.9 and 4.10 show that the permanent academic staff at Johannesburg had the highest level of support from temporary and part‐time academic staff. It had in 2007 871 permanent academics and the equivalent of 2173 full‐time part‐time and temporary academic staff. UDSM had 900 permanent academics and the equivalent of a further 110 temporary and part‐time academic staff members. Its ratio of 1.1 FTE to permanent academics was similar to that of the Cluster 1 university.

14

23

13 1411

96

20 1814

40

121617

3023 20

-10

10

30

50

70

90

110

SET Bus All Hum Average



61

Figure 4.9: Comparison of totals of permanent and FTE academic staff (2007)

Figure 4.10: Comparison of ratios of FTE to permanent academic staff (2007)

4.5 Academic staff qualifications Figure 4.11 compares the 2007 proportions for the group of the permanent academic staff who have either a masters or a doctorate as their highest formal qualification. UDSM’s figure of 50% of permanent staff with doctorates is what

900

1179

871 840

1010

1580

2173

1034

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Permanent academics FTE academics

1.1

1.3

2.5

1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0


Ratio of FTE to permanent academic staff


62

could be expected of a university with a strong focus on research. The Cluster 1 university's ratio is amongst the highest in South Africa.

Figure 4.11: Comparison of highest formal qualifications of permanent academics (2007)

4.6 Research funding11 The information in Figures 4.12 and 4.13 attempts to set out the total funding which each university had available for research in 2007. The data should therefore reflect research income rather than expenditure on research. In their annual income statements, South African universities report on their research funding in terms of (a) recurrent research income and (b) research contracts for designated purposes. Stellenbosch's 2007 income statements gave its recurrent research income as 0 and its designated research contract income as R 25.4 million. Johannesburg's 2007 income statements gave its recurrent research income as R 22.7 million and its research contract income as R 7.2 million. Makerere and UDSM did not provide specific information on research funding. The following amounts were extracted from their financial data for 2006/07 and have been assumed to be research funding for the purposes of the analyses which follow:

11 It must be noted that all universities in the sample appear to use different means to estimate

their research income. For the purposes of comparison where no figures have been supplied a

percentage of university income has been used. These figures however are not reliable and

more work needs to be done in further studies to accurately track university research income.

50%

31%

18%

61%

25%

52%

20%

27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Doctorate highest Masters highest


63

Makerere: private gifts and grants = Ush 15 166 million (or 14% of total income)

UDSM: funding from donors = TZS 9 513 million (or 16% of total income). The calculations of market rate dollars are based on average exchange rates quoted by the central banking authorities of each country. The calculation of Purchasing Power Parity dollars (PPP$) is based on estimates contained in the 2008 publication on World Development Indicators (World Bank 2008). Because these estimates are based on 2005 exchange rates, the following method was used for the 2007 calculations:

The indicator set gives for each country a ratio between the PPP conversion factor and the market exchange rate. For example, the South African ratio is given as 0.61, based on a market exchange rate of R 6.4 per USD in 2005.

The 2007 calculations assume that the 2005 ratio will apply again. So the 2007 PPP conversion factor is taken to be 2005 ratio times 2007 market exchange rate. For example, the conversion factor for South Africa is calculated as 2005 ratio times 2007 exchange rate = 0.61 X 7.0 = 4.27. These calculations are based the research income totals referred to above. The amounts in local currency were converted to market rate USD and PPP$ using the methodology referred to above. The conversion rates used were these:

UDSM market rate = TZS 1 252 per USD UDSM purchasing power parity = TZS 438 per PPP$

Makerere market rate = Ush 1 822 per USD Makerere purchasing power parity = Ush 656 per PPP$

South African universities market rate = R 7.0 per USD South African universities purchasing power parity = R 4.27 per PPP$


64

Figure 4.12: Comparison of research income in market rate USD and PPP$ (millions)

Figure 4.13 is based on the income totals in Figure 4.12 and the permanent academic staff totals in Figure 4.9. The ratios show that the Cluster 1 university, Stellenbosch, had at 2007 market rate values USD 4 200 in research income available per permanent academic. The comparable 2007 market rate values per permanent academic were USD 4 900 for Johannesburg, USD 3 300 for UDSM, and only USD 700 for Makerere.

Figure 4.13: Comparison of total research income per permanent academic in market rate USD and PPP$ (thousands)

3.0

0.8

4.3

3.6

5.8

2.4

7.0

5.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0


Market rate $ PPP $

3.3

0.7

4.9

4.2

6.4

4.9

8.0

6.8

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0


Market rate $ PPP $


65

4.7 Research outputs For the purposes of this study, research outputs are measured in terms of research publications12, and doctoral graduates. Table 4.10 lists UDSM’s research publications and doctoral graduates for the years 2001‐2007.

Table 4.10: Dar es Salaam: Research outputs

Research publications Doctoral graduates

2001 40 10

2003 41 9

2005 47 7

2007 70 20

Figure 4.14 deals only with research publication units. The target is based on the assumption that a permanent academic should publish at least one research article every two years. The data in the graph show that Stellenbosch exceeded this target and that Johannesburg came close to it. The ratios of Makerere and UDSM suggest that each permanent academic will publish one research article every 10 years.

Figure 4.14: Comparison of research publication units per permanent academic

12 The research publication data presented here are based on the peer reviewed research

publications data in the Web of Science citation database within the ISI Web of Knowledge,

produced by Thomson Reuters. The database captures papers from all countries that are

published in journals that meet certain criteria of quality as determined by Thomson Reuters.

0.100.07

0.43

0.80

0.08

0.20

0.40

1.05

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20


2001 2007

Target ratio


66

Figure 4.15 sets out ratios between doctoral graduates and permanent academic staff, with the target again being derived from the research output targets used in the South African higher education system. In this case, the target takes account of the productivity of academic staff in terms of the total of doctoral graduates produced in a given year divided by the total of permanent academic staff employed in that year. The target ratio of 10% is based on these calculations: At least 50% of the permanent staff of a university should be supervising at least one doctoral student, and these students should take on average five years to complete their degrees. So a university with (say) 100 permanent academics should enrol at least 50 doctoral students, and 20% of these should graduate each year. The ratio between permanent staff and doctoral graduates should therefore be at least 10/100 = 10%. The data in the graph show that only Stellenbosch exceeded this target in both 2001 and 2007. Johannesburg’s ratios were close to the target, but the other two universities in the cluster fell well short.

Figure 4.15: Comparison of doctoral graduates in given year as % of permanent academics employed

2.4%

1.1%

8.7%

18.2%

2.2% 2.0%

8.6%

17.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%


2001 2007

Target ratio


67

5.1 Introduction In order to ensure that the core activities of teaching and research are to some extent aligned with national development priorities and can thereby contribute to development in society, universities increasingly emphasise the need to engage with relevant external stakeholders. Furthermore, much of what might be termed the development‐related activities of the university usually fall within the so‐called ‘third mission’, which is variously referred to as ‘engagement’, ‘service’ or ‘community outreach’. This could include academics serving on committees in the public or private sector, providing support to small businesses, responding to requests for short courses, or undertaking contract research for outside clients. More often than not, the economic development‐related projects and activities of the institution fall under its engagement function. In the first part of this section, we explore UDSM’s engagement with its key external stakeholders, namely government, industry and foreign donors. In the second part of the section, we turn our attention to an analysis of the extent of the connectedness of the economic development‐related centres and projects included in this study.

5.2 Engagement and linkages with external stakeholders In the strategic plan, the university’s key stakeholders are listed as government, parliamentarians, development partners, the private sector, university officials,

Part 5

The engagement and development‐related activities of the University of Dar es Salaam

AT A GLANCE

University engagement and linkages with government and industry Incentives for academics to engage in development‐related activities Coordination of development activities Connectedness of economic development‐related projects and centres to the

academic core


68

staff and students, and the general public (UDSM 2009: vi). More than once, however, the issue of the university’s lack of engagement with external stakeholders is mentioned. For example, in the introduction to the plan, it is noted that concerns were expressed by university staff about the lack of stakeholder involvement in the development and review of the previous strategic plan (ibid: 4). While it appears that there was increased internal stakeholder involvement in the development of the current plan (reference is made to focus groups with staff), there is no evidence of consultation with any external stakeholders. Later, in a section headed “Marketing and Public Relations” (ibid.: 16), the plan notes that most stakeholders who participated in the focus group discussions were of the opinion “that the University has not done very well in terms of marketing its outputs, programmes, strengths and capabilities.” Evidence for this is the low number of outreach programmes; the low volume and earnings from consultancies and contract research; and, “the inability of some undergraduate and postgraduate programmes to attract a good number of students”. With regard to linkages with outside organisations, the plan notes that while linkages with organisations outside of Tanzania have been strengthened, linkages with local institutions – central and local government, the public and private sectors, non‐governmental organisations and community‐based organisations – are still very weak (ibid.: 17) One of the strategies of the plan is to “Increase outreach community services” (ibid.: 28). One of the key ways in which the university interacts with its external stakeholders is through consultancy work. The university has a consultancy policy which was introduced in 1996 and revised in 2005. The strategic plan describes the focus of the policy as follows (ibid.: 12‐13):

The policy aims to encourage staff to participate in consultancy, facilitate the negotiation of entering into consultancy contracts, provide effective and flexible management of consultancies, define the role of UDSM management relating to risk management and accountability, provide guidance to persons using the University’s name, services, facilities, equipment, intellectual property and paid work time and contribute funds and knowledge in the course of fulfilling the mission of UDSM, including capital development activities.

According to the plan (ibid.: 13), consultancy projects increased from 308 in 1999/2000 to 718 in 2007/08. About 60% of consultancies are undertaken for foreign agencies and the remaining 40% for local clients. The plan notes, however, that the university has not been very successful in securing consultancies from the government or the public sector in general. One of the strategies of the plan is to “Increase tactics to win large jobs from the Government and the public sector in general” – from 57 in 2006/07 to 100 by December 2012 (ibid: 28).


69

5.2.1 University‐government‐industry linkages Both interviewees and the university’s strategic plan made reference to the close link between the university and the government because the institution is largely government‐funded. A senior academic, for example, described the relationship as follows:

This is a public university. It was founded by the government, it’s funded by the government, and we are almost 99% dependent on the government. So, certainly, yes, the conception, the mission, the vision are chartered out sort of nationally, you know, university education is government education – so whatever development plans there are in the government, whatever goals you have and whatever vision; right now we have what is known as Vision 2025. So definitely you can see that we are a service provider to the government, so our very existence is determined by what the government and the society at large, what the Tanzanian government wants. (Senior academic)

Respondents in different academic units reported having linkages with various government ministries or units, depending on their field of work; for example, the College of Engineering and Technology has close linkages with the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ministry of Science and Technology, as well as the Engineering Registration Board, the Institute of Engineers Tanzania, and the Contractors Registration Board. The Institute of Resource Assessment has links with agriculture while the Economic Research Bureau has linkages in the economic sector. Significantly, there was virtually no mention of linkages with industry or the private sector at the institutional level.

5.2.2 The influence of foreign donors Of particular interest to this study is the extent to which foreign donors pursue their own interests and agendas when funding the university or specific activities. According to one institutional leader, not all donor agencies take government’s priorities into account, while others do. He mentioned Sida in particular: “Like the Swedish, through Sida, actually I think are one of the biggest donors who take the proposals from local demand or research which targets development of the country”. A senior academic suggested that donors are more likely to push their own agendas with individual academics:

When it comes to the university, as such, the priorities of the university, we will normally try to keep them and to see if a


70

donor is willing to help us look at our strategic plan and priorities. But there are those donors who have special agendas and they will always go to a particular – either member of staff or a particular head of department and negotiate. (Senior academic)

Another senior academic spoke about the long history of outside agendas in Africa:

Let’s look at it from a wider perspective, look at it from a global perspective and ask yourself whether or not Africa, or the African, has been given an opportunity to assert his Africanness. [...] when you begin to talk about global history – 14th or 15th century – since then its Europe which has been calling the shots. There is a European agenda, there is an agenda in many countries – colonialism, neo‐colonialism, imperialism; right now it’s globalisation – and Africa has had no agenda, no input whatsoever. You know, there was sort of epoch‐making historical sort of landmarks. The African has never been given an opportunity to feature at any point. You know, with my country, they were sold as slaves, whatever worth they had here was taken away with colonialism and Africa was mined, literally plundered, looted. So I’m saying that, well, several African countries have tried, they have made an attempt to try to sort of see themselves from the inside, but at the same time read themselves from the outside and understand the plight, the dilemma of the African, and I don’t think any of them have been successful – [...] Nyerere, Nkrumah tragically failed; and others have failed. But these are people who were serious about looking at Africa: what happened, what went wrong? What went wrong that Africa is in the situation that it finds itself now? Something went wrong, for sure, and Africa has had no agenda in world history, none whatsoever; someone else has been calling the shots. (Senior academic)

According to the Director of Planning and Finance, they are trying to move towards institutionalising the strategic plan in terms of foreign donor funding coming into the university. She explained how this is only beginning to be possible now since, in the past, the institution’s needs were so many that they would accept any money that was offered:

You know, when you have so many needs – we have deteriorating students’ hostels, we don’t have enough teaching facilities, the laboratories are dead, the workshops are dead. You see, wherever you get funds you tend to say: yes, please


71

give me because I’m in need of this. But I think now given what we have received now in terms of a loan from the World Bank support, we can now say: [...] these are the areas that we now need support, in the next five years these are the areas that we now need support. [...] But that is not to say that we have not institutionalised it, it’s only that the needs are so many and we think that we need support in every area but we think now there are things that we say we need to come up with, like in pillar 1 we say: the access to higher education, distance‐mediated, on‐line distance‐mediated education, quality of graduates – this. Volume and quality of research and publications; we need to invest in research and not every area but probably we need to invest to address food shortage in the country, to address this and that. So I think we need really now to synthesise and to sift out issues. (Institutional leader)

The DPF director also reported that while there is some coordination between donor agencies at a national level (e.g. where donors are aware of what other donors are funding at the government level), there is no coordination in terms of what is being funded in the university (as the money is channelled via the national treasury):

All the money that we get doesn’t come through us directly, it goes through the government, it goes through the treasury so that the government can also capture it into its statistics – so we get it through the exchequer system. I think at a high level, donor coordination is there, but, no, I don’t think that the donors would really sit there and say: okay, Sokoine University of Agriculture, we gave this much – that would be enormous work. I think they leave it to their desk officers. (Institutional leader)

5.2.3 Incentives, rewards and coordination There was no evidence of specific incentives to encourage economic development‐related activities, or that the promotion policy has been adjusted to take into account these kinds of projects. The key coordinating body in the university is the Department of Planning and Finance (DPF).13 According to the web site14, the DPF, established in 2008, was the result of a merger of the former directorates of Planning and Development,

13 The Director of Planning and Finance reports to the Deputy Vice‐Chancellor for

Administration. 14 Department of Planning and Finance web site: http://dpf.udsm.ac.tz/.


72

and of Resource Mobilisation and Investments, together with the Bursar’s Office. This merger reflected the “long‐established need for integrating the university functions of planning, development, information management, financial mobilisation and investments and financial planning and reporting to one management set‐up” (DPF web site). The department’s functions are grouped into four main areas, including the following:15

Coordinating and leading overall university planning in terms of academic, financial, physical and human resources aspects;

Coordinating and leading income‐generation activities, investments and cost‐cutting measures across the university;

Coordinating and leading resource mobilisation and fund‐raising from corporate, non‐corporate, individual and group targets for university advancement; and

Overall responsibility for the financial management of the university. According to the DPF’s director, the department coordinates planning and implementation of the university’s strategic plan in various units, raising funds from different sources (e.g. government and foreign donors), and overseeing the income and expenditure on these funds. While academics are autonomous in terms of initiating and negotiating contracts with potential donors, the department has the final say from the university’s point of view – in particular, checking legalities and making sure the institution’s interests are served:

We also think at the centre we need to decentralise the management of finances. This has been a big constraint in terms of decentralisation of power and mandates because we don’t have enough resources [...] it has proved difficult in the past to decentralise the management of finances because the pot is so small, the cake is so small – you need at the centre to look at: what are the key priorities and see that the key priorities do not suffer. [...] That’s why we find ourselves at the centre deciding also on finance matters which we think should have been decided at college level. (Institutional leader)

Of particular interest to this study is the DPF’s role in ensuring a degree of alignment between the institution’s strategic objectives, academic activities and foreign donor interests. The Director of Planning and Finance described the department’s coordination role of foreign donor funds. Each donor programme has an institutional coordinator (e.g. a Norwegian support programme coordinator) who is responsible for coordinating the projects within the programme. Each project has a coordinator who is responsible for writing quarterly reports on progress with implementation. These reports must also

15 DPF web site, The functions of the Directorate: http://dpf.udsm.ac.tz/functions.php.


73

reflect on project impacts. The project reports, which include financial reports, are aggregated into an institutional report. According to the director, there are instances where grant proposals are sent back to the academics who are asked to “refine the contents of the proposal to fit into our strategic direction”. The department also negotiates, where possible, with foreign donors in terms of the proposed activity aligning with institutional objectives. She gave as an example an international agricultural institute which wanted to utilise some of the university’s land to set up a centre of excellence but deny access to research and related opportunities by the university’s staff and students:

But they also came up with things that are completely in divergence with our strategic plan. They would like to take part of the university land; they would like to bring people whom we cannot control; they would like to bring researchers onboard – I mean, full autonomy, they want to implant themselves on us and they deny us access to the research. And we are saying: this is not what we think; this is not what we want. We want to work with donors, with people with whom we can jointly pursue the interests of the university, the interests of the country, and not people who want to pursue their own vision and mission through us. To date we’ve said: no, we cannot go ahead. They are thinking of going somewhere else – so we said: these are our terms, this is what we think we should be able to do together; our students should have access to your centre of excellence, research laboratories; our professors should be able to publish, do research and publish with you. Now if you are not in terms with this we cannot let you work with us. So in that case we have been able, and I think they’ve sent it back to Washington for renegotiation, they have sent it back to their board because we said: we cannot. In that case I think we are courageous enough to say no. It was a big grant, it was a big grant but we said: no, we cannot go on. (Institutional leader)

Another coordinating body in the institution is the University Consultancy Bureau (UCB) which was established in 1993. As the name suggests, this unit is responsible for coordinating the consultancy activities within the university. The UCB’s web site16 describes its vision as follows:

The UCB’s vision is to become an entity of an institutionalised, competent, competitive consulting organ with the highest ability in the application of the state of the art technology, skills and competencies to solve and advise on socio‐economic and

16 University Consultancy Bureau web site: http://www.udsm.ac.tz/consultancy/consultancy.php.


74

technological problems facing society while its mission is to build capacity in four dimensions, namely social capital, institutional capital, human resources capital and financial capital to the highest achievable levels.

5.2.4 Summary While the institution does appear to have a history of interaction with the government, there was very little evidence of any linkages with industry or the private sector. Indeed, concerns were expressed about the limited engagement with external stakeholders in general. Foreign donors appear to play a significant funding role in the university. While some donors do assert their own agendas in the funding relationship, it appears that the Department of Planning and Finance plays an important and effective role in managing the interaction between internal institutional interests and those of the development partners.

5.3 The connectedness of development activities to the academic core A key issue for the relationship between higher education and economic development is to establish a productive relationship between knowledge and connectedness. On the one hand, if there is an overemphasis on the basic knowledge activities of teaching and research – in other words, an excessive inward orientation towards strengthening the academic core – this results in the university becoming an ‘ivory tower’. Or, if the academic core is weak, an overemphasis on knowledge results in the ‘ancillary’ role of the university (i.e. no direct role in development). On the other hand, if there is an overemphasis in the university on connecting to development activities, then it weakens the academic core and the university has little new or relevant knowledge to offer in the exchange relationship. The challenge for universities, then, is to deal with this inherent tension between ‘buffering’ (protecting) the core technologies of the institution, and ‘bridging’ (linking) those with external actors (Scott 2001: 199‐211). In reality, the boundaries between internal and external are not that clear cut. A number of theorists, such as Gibbons et al. (1994) and Scott (2001), have argued that during globalisation and its associated ‘new’ forms of knowledge production, the boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred and permeable. The higher education studies literature describes this problem in terms of the conceptual notion of ‘coupling’ (Scott 2001; Weick 1976); that is, the extent to which the core and the external (or ‘periphery’) are linked with, or connected to, one another. In ‘tight coupling’, the boundary is weak and the university is in a direct, ‘instrumental’ relationship with external actors such as government or industry. In ‘loose‐coupling’, the boundary is stronger, such as in the traditional


75

notion of the university as a self‐governing institution, which assumes an indirect contribution to development. The more complex relationship is with the ‘engine of development’ notion where there are multiple, simultaneous forms of knowledge production and exchange. For the purposes of this study, we are using the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to the relationship (and tension) between the inward focus on strengthening and maintaining the academic core, and the outward focus on linking with external stakeholders and development. We operationalised ‘connectedness’ along two dimensions. The first dimension is ‘articulation’ which has a number of aspects. Firstly, it refers to the extent to which the aims and activities of development‐related activities articulate with national development priorities and the university’s strategic objectives. Secondly, it refers to the linkages the project has with two of the groups of stakeholders in the triangle – the government (usually through specific government departments / agencies) and external stakeholders (e.g. industry, small businesses, NGOs or community groups such as fishers or small‐scale farmers). In particular, our focus is on the extent to which there are linkages with an ‘implementation agency’, (i.e. an external body which takes up the knowledge and/or its products generated or applied through research or training). Thirdly, articulation takes into account linkages generated through sources of funding in two respects: whether the project/centre obtains funding from one or more of the three stakeholder groups (government, an external funder or the university itself); and, the extent to which the project/centre develops a relationship with its funders over time. This latter aspect is determined through the nature of the financial sustainability of the project. The second dimension focuses on the extent to which development activities serve to strengthen the academic core of the university. This was operationalised in terms of the extent to which the work undertaken in projects/centres feeds into teaching or curriculum development; is linked to the formal training of students; enables academics to publish in academic publications (journals, books etc); is linked to international academic networks; and generates new knowledge (versus applying existing knowledge). These various aspects relating to articulation and strengthening the academic core were converted into indicators which could then be applied to an analysis of the development‐related projects and centres included in the study. On the basis of the indicator ratings, the projects/centres were plotted on a graph depicting the intersection between articulation and strengthening the academic core. In this section, we present the analysis of the connectedness of selected development‐related activities at UDSM. These projects, which have an economic development or poverty reduction focus, were identified by the institutional leadership for inclusion in the study.


76

It should be noted that this method of analysis is a work‐in‐progress and, in the context of this study, has two possible limitations. The first is that the method of analysis has been developed since completion of the data collection which means that there are some areas of the project data which were not explored in great detail during the interviews. We have, as far as possible, attempted to obtain this additional data from project leaders in the drafting of this report. A second limitation is that the analysis which follows is based on a small number of projects rather than a large representative sample. In addition, the projects selected have an in‐built bias since they were selected by institutional leadership on the basis of their economic development or poverty reduction focus. Despite these limitations, however, we believe that the analysis that follows is an illuminating first step towards the development of a tool which can enable institutions and donors to think critically and strategically about the implications of different models of funding and engagement or development‐related activities.

5.3.1 A brief overview of the projects

Business Development Services Incubation Programme

Location University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre (UDSM Business School)

Project manager Ms Katherine FulgenceTimeframe Established in 2005; ongoing

Type Small business support

Web site http://udec.co.tz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=64

The aim of the Business Development Services Incubation Programme is to provide support to graduates and professionals to set up and develop businesses that provide services to micro‐, small and medium enterprises. Participants in this programme are supported in two modes:

Virtual incubation services: Training in their specialist areas as well as in business management; mentorship by successful business development service providers and UDEC associates; opportunity to practice and develop competencies, networks and track records; linkages to other professional service providers; and access to equipment (computers, projectors, training room etc) at a very reasonable cost. The virtual incubation has been running since 2006.

Full‐service incubation services: Participants in this mode get all the services under virtual incubation plus office space at the UDEC Incubation Facility. This facility is still under construction and so the full‐service is yet to be launched. The intended beneficiaries of the project are students (graduate and non‐graduate in diploma or masters) in any field from a recognised university or


77

accredited higher learning institution in Tanzania. Applicants must meet a number of eligibility criteria. A selection committee, which will include some representatives from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing, will be established to select applicants as tenants for the full‐service incubation. The emphasis will be on selecting applicants whose business ideas have real potential to grow and succeed. The virtual incubation programme started with about 30 graduates who were grouped into eight companies. Of those eight, two have been successful thus far. According to the Project Manager, the main reason why the other six did not succeed has to do with lack of commitment: “You find that some of them were still employed and so they couldn’t run their own companies while at the same time maintaining their salaried job – I think that was the main reason, commitment.” The policy is that students who participate in the programme should stay no longer than two years, to make way for new applicants. A second incubation was started in 2009 which targets self‐employed graduates. Training is provided on topics such as entrepreneurship awareness, business management, business planning, and how to write a business plan. The Business Development Services Incubation Programme is one of the outcomes of the Netherlands Programme for Capacity Building in Post‐secondary Education and Training (NPT), funded by NUFFIC. The NPT is a partnership between the National University College for Education in the Netherlands, the UDSM and the Zanzibar Hotel and Tourism Institute (ZHTI), which aims to strengthen the institutional capacity of UDEC and the ZHTI to enhance the growth and competitiveness of SMEs in Tanzania. NUFFIC’s NPT funded the programme for the period 2005‐2008, with a one‐year extension to complete construction of the building and the procurement of equipment. At the time of the interview, the project manager was negotiating with the university to fund the salary of the incubator since the NUFFIC funds had come to an end. DANIDA is funding the second incubation programme for self‐employed graduates. The incubator project is part of the Ministry for Industry, Trade and Marketing secretariat – a platform for the project team to make inputs and share knowledge and experience about running incubators.


78

Business/Technology Incubator

Location Technology Development and Transfer Centre (College of Engineering and Technology)

Project leader Dr Cuthbert Kimambo (College of Engineering and Technology)

Timeframe Established in 2003; ongoingType Small business support

Web site http://www.coet.udsm.ac.tz/outreach_programmes.htm

In 2002, the government of Tanzania was in the process of formulating its SME development policy which identified business/technology incubation as one of the ways in which the policy should be implemented. The UDSM Business/Technology Incubator started with the development of an incubation concept that would be relevant for Tanzania and getting it approved nationally by relevant stakeholders. This culminated in the National Business/Technology Incubation Programme (NBTIP), for which the UDSM incubator project is one of the pilot cases. In 2003, the UDSM team began the process of identifying which areas to select to pilot the incubator and how they were going to go about it. This involved extensive feasibility studies amongst (would‐be or existing) SMEs in the three proposed areas of Kibaha, Morogoro and Lushoto. The overarching aim of the project is to pilot replicable case studies of demand‐driven business/technology incubators that are sustainable, demonstrably technically feasible, economically viable, and relevant to national policy objectives; and to enable SMEs to grow quantitatively and qualitatively. Fully‐fledged incubator offices (equipped, staffed and with facilities for meetings and training) were then established in these three locations and incubator services for tenants/clients began in January 2006. The intended beneficiaries of the project include operators of (existing or start‐up) SMEs as well as graduates from different levels of education and training institutions. All pilot incubators address problems of local economic development, improving the entrepreneurial base in the area of food processing. Incubator tenants/clients are being provided with a comprehensive range of subsidised facilities and services that include all or some of the following: modular incubator space; common (shared) administrative services; hands‐on enterprise counselling; general entrepreneurship training; specific tailormade training; technology incubation; specialist advice/external networking; assistance to access markets; access to finance/loans; and, care after ‘graduation’. In addition, each pilot incubator has been given a particular focus: processing cashew nuts and cassava, with dedicated production / training facilities in Kibaha; postharvest processing (including handling) of fruits and vegetables and the application of solar power in Morogoro; and, postharvest handling (including processing) of agricultural produce including marketing in Lushoto. The project has been co‐financed by the Tanzania Gatsby Trust, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and UDSM (staff, administrative support and facilities). Further support is being solicited from the government through its various ministries, programmes and projects such as the Ministry of Labour and


79

Youth Development, Regional and District Authorities, the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty, and the SMEs Competitive Facility (SCF), as well as other external partners including NEPAD, World Bank and TATA of India.

Small and Medium Enterprises Gatsby Clubs

Location Technology Development and Transfer Centre (College of Engineering and Technology)

Project leader Prof. AK TemuTimeframe Established in 2004; ongoing

Type Small business support

Web site http://www.gatsby.or.tz/ (The Tanzania Gatsby Trust)

In 2006, the College of Engineering and Technology conducted a nationwide survey of about 2 300 SMEs to identify what problems they experience and their ‘technology gaps’ in order for the college to identify the ways in which they could provide support and assist them to grow. The focus was on those SMEs that require some kind of (engineering) technology input. After each zone was surveyed, they held a stakeholders’ workshop for the zone to disseminate their findings, obtain feedback and to advise the SMEs in the area on the way forward. The college then worked on developing strategies for assisting these SMEs to grow. Three particular interventions emerged, one of which was the Gatsby Clubs, which would be piloted and, if successful, they would be taken over by government to run to scale in the future. The aims of the Gatsby Clubs project include the following:

To enhance saving and credit schemes;

To establish a framework for exchange of knowledge among SMEs and other stakeholders; and

To provide a vehicle that can facilitate networking and access to various technological innovations and related services to SMEs. By January 2006, six pilot clubs had been formed. These are Nyamagana and Ilemela clubs in Mwanza City, two clubs in Sengerema, and one each in Nzega and Sikonge in Tabora region. Most of the clubs work in agriculture‐related activities. Training of club members was conducted and included traditional business training, as well as issues relating to networking; problem identification and solving; and SME's rights, advocacy and policies. The initial round of training was provided free of charge to the clubs based on project funding. Where possible, the clubs pay for subsequent training sessions. The project also provides the clubs with showrooms where they can exhibit their products. In addition, one of the issues identified in the survey of SMEs was that the clubs did not have access to the capital necessary to kickstart their business ideas. It also became clear that part of the problem was that they were not registered


80

and therefore could not access loans. In order to address this problem, the project team urged the clubs to form their own service and credit societies so that they can assist each other financially, and then approached the TGT to provide loans to the clubs. Owing to financial difficulties, the TGT was only able to finance a few entrepreneurs. The project is funded by the Tanzania Gatsby Trust which is a local charitable trust organisation established in Tanzania in 1992 with the support of the UK‐based Gatsby Charitable Foundation. However, TGT funding for this project came to an end because the trust changed its strategic direction towards cotton and textiles. The UDSM pays most of the project team’s salaries. The idea is that the SMEs in the clubs become self‐sustaining through their income‐generating activities.

Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems in Less Favoured and High Potential Areas of Tanzania and Malawi

Location Institute of Resource Assessment

Project leader Dr Amos Majule

Timeframe 2007 to 2011

Type Collaborative participatory action research project

Web site http://ccaa‐agrictama.org/

This participatory action research project aims to facilitate a process of interaction and learning whereby information/knowledge from different sources (local, national, regional and international) is shared and used in novel/effective ways by stakeholders in agricultural innovation systems to better adapt to climate change and variability. The overall objective is to strengthen the capacity of individuals, organisations and systems within the agricultural innovation systems in less favoured areas (semi‐arid Central Zone Tanzania and Chikwawa/ Karonga, Malawi) and more favoured areas (Southern Highlands, Tanzania and Mulanje/Mzimba, Malawi) of Tanzania and Malawi to adapt to the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change and variability. The districts involved in the project were identified on the basis of the intensity of agriculture and the problems which have been identified in relation to climate change. The specific aims of the project include the following:

Strengthen farmers’ capacity to access and use quality information, training and products in order to adapt to climate change and climate variability;

Strengthen the capacity of private and public sector stakeholders to make agricultural innovation systems work more efficiently, equitably and responsively to climate change and climate variability; and

Learn and share lessons for scaling up successful strategies for capacity strengthening (individuals, organisations and systems) within agricultural innovations system to adapt to climate change and climate variability.


81

This is a collaborative project between the Institute of Resource Assessment, the National Resources and Environment Centre at the University of Malawi, and the Natural Resources Institute at the University of Greenwich (UK). The project team includes a broad range of researchers with different perspectives from the physical, natural and social sciences, and the process of working together is expected to enhance the capacity of scientists to contribute to the understanding of the process of adaptation to climate change. The key activities in the project include the following:

Project inception workshop, including preparation and reporting;

Literature review (livelihood strategies, vulnerability, climate change/ variability, innovation, service provision);

Situation analysis and baseline survey;

Stakeholder consultation;

Training of key actors in participatory monitoring and evaluation; and

Developing strategies for sharing the lesson learning. The project was initiated by staff from the above‐mentioned collaborating organisations on the basis of a response to a call for proposals from the IDRC’s Climate Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) programme in 2006. The project team also set the agenda for the project. The project is funded by the UK Department for International Development via the CCAA programme.

*** The key features of these development‐related projects/groups are summarised in the table below. The projects/centres have been categorised according to type. Three fall into the category of small business support, and one is a collaborative action research project. The economic development focus of most of the projects/centres is on providing training, mentoring and/or support for small business development. The action research project focuses on strengthening the capacity of farmers and other stakeholders in agricultural innovation systems. In terms of the initiation and agenda‐setting of the projects, it is interesting to note that while all of the projects are funded by foreign donors, amongst others, it was generally the project staff in the university who were responsible for setting the terms of the project aims and activities.


82

Table 5.1: Overview of the development‐related projects

Project/centre Classification Funder(s) Beneficiaries External linkages Initiation/ agenda‐setting

Economic development focus

Business Development Services Incubator

Small business support

Foreign donors Students from accredited higher learning institutions in Tanzania

Other organisations in Tanzania involved in business incubation

Outcome of the project manager’s involvement in an international partnership

Training, mentoring and incubation services for students wanting to start their own businesses



Foreign donors and the university

Start‐up or existing SMEs

Other universities, NGOs and private bodies dealing with SME support or incubation

Staff in the university Support and use of facilities to SMEs in target groups

SME Gatsby Clubs Small business support

Foreign donor and the university

SMEs in Tanzania Another university in Tanzania

Staff in the university Training, support and facilities to SMEs in target groups

Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems

Collaborative participatory action research project

Foreign donor Farmers in target districts; stakeholders involved in agricultural innovation systems in Tanzania and Malawi

Research institutes, NGOs and government agencies in Tanzania and Malawi; international NGOs and universities

Collaborating researchers in response to call for proposal

Strengthening the capacity of farmers and stakeholders in agricultural innovation systems to adapt to climate change


83

5.3.2 Articulation Table 5.2 below summarises interviewee’s responses to the question about the extent to which the project/ centre aims and objectives were in response to / articulated with the university’s strategic objectives (as contained in the institution’s strategic plan), as well as the country’s national development priorities. Methodologically, we do recognise that project leaders might have drawn these links more strongly in retrospect than originally was the case in order to give the impression of greater articulation. A deeper exploration of the circumstances of the initiation and agenda‐setting of the project would have enabled us to see these linkages more clearly ourselves. Nevertheless, the reported linkages are sufficient for a first‐level analysis. As can be seen from Table 5.2, all of the projects reported articulation of project aims to specific national priorities and policies, and three of the four to institutional strategic objectives, albeit broad ones. Table 5.3 indicates the extent to which each project or centre had linkages with an external agency that has or will directly or indirectly ‘implement’ (or utilise) the outputs. Table 5.4 summarises the comments made by project leaders about the financial sustainability of the projects. Finally, Table 5.5 summarises the total articulation ratings for the six projects/centres.


84

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities

Project/centre Funder(s) Initiation/ agenda‐setting

Institutional strategic objectives National priorities


Foreign donors Outcome of the project manager’s involvement in an international partnership

None reported The development of the incubator is part of the implementation of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing’s Small and Medium Enterprise Development Policy. The policy, amongst other things, envisages the development of business/ technology incubators as a means to facilitate enterprise start‐ups and/ or growth.

Business/ Technology Incubator

Foreign donors and the university

Staff in the university The incubator project gives expression to two of the three core missions of the university, namely research and providing a service to the public, particularly in the form of technology transfer.

The incubator is seen as a contribution to the implementation of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Marketing’s Small and Medium Enterprise Development Policy. The policy, amongst other things, envisages the development of business/ technology incubators as a means to facilitate enterprise start‐ups and/ or growth.


85

Table 5.2: Articulation with institutional objectives and national priorities (continued)

Project/centre Funder(s) Initiation/ agenda‐setting

Institutional strategic objectives National priorities

SME Gatsby Clubs Foreign donor and the university

Staff in the university The project responds directly to a number of the strategic objectives in the university’s 'UDSM‐2000' Institutional Transformation Program including (a) Improved volume and quality of research, technology development, innovations and publications which entails, amongst others, enhancing the performance of SMEs through technology transfer, including technology incubation and innovation systems and innovative clusters; (b) improved marketing of outputs and public relations including, amongst others, expanded volume and activities of incubator projects and Gatsby/SME Clubs; and (c) gender balance and mainstreaming – the project is contributing to improving the gender imbalance in the technology–based SME sector as female entrepreneurs were given priority.

(a) The Tanzania Development Vision 2025 defines as the overall national development goal ‘to attain sustainable human development’. To this end, the Vision recognises that knowledge management, creation and application are critical for sustained economic growth and improved living standards in an increasingly globalised economy. (b) The Sustainable Industrial Development Policy (1996‐2020) recognises the role of the private sector as the principle vehicle in carrying out direct investment in industry, with specific emphasis on the promotion of SME, encouraging informal sector businesses to grow and formalise, and on measures to enable indigenous entrepreneurs, including women, youth and other disadvantaged groups, to take part in economic activities. (c) The national SME Development Policy aims to create an enabling business environment as well as to strengthen and network institutions that can address the constraints and at the same time seize the opportunities that determine the growth and the standard of performance of the SME sector.


Foreign donor Collaborating researchers in response to call for proposal

The project links to the objective in the institutional strategic plan to enhance the capacity of university academic staff to excel in research and training. The IRA research agenda is also reflected in the project.

The basis for the project reflects the National Agriculture and Livestock policy. It has been developed based on the NAPA (National Adaptation Program of Actions) for Tanzania and Malawi which prioritise agriculture as among the most vulnerable sectors to climate change. It is in line with green revolution on agriculture, or Kilimo Kwanza.


86

Table 5.3: Initiation/agenda‐setting, funding sources and implementation agencies

Project/centre Initiation/agenda‐setting Funder(s) Implementation agencies


Outcome of the project manager’s involvement in an international partnership

Foreign donors None reported


Staff in the university Foreign donors and the university The SMEs in the three pilot incubator districts.

SME Gatsby Clubs Staff in the university Foreign donor and the university The SMEs participation in the clubs.


Collaborating researchers in response to call for proposal

Foreign donor Various government agencies and policy‐makers at the district level that are linked to the farmers in the project are participating in the project.


87

Table 5.4: Financial sustainability of the projects/centres

Project/centre Classification Timeframe Funder(s) Financial sustainability



2005, ongoing Foreign donors NUFFIC funding for 2005‐2008; DANIDA funding for second incubation programme. Short courses run through the incubator project charge fees. In terms of sustainability, the hope is that because the committee will select incubatees with good and growth‐oriented businesses, the incubatees will manage to pay for the service. However, the sustainability of the programme will also depend on the ability of the government / university management to employ a good incubator manager, and availability of other stakeholders who can devote their time for the growth and sustainability of the programme.



2003, ongoing Foreign donors and the university

The last tranche of foreign donor funding (from the Carnegie Corporation) ended in March 2009 when the incubator projects were still in process. The project has to seek additional external funding in order to sustain the project into the future. Further support is sought to integrate the incubator concept with teaching at the university especially through incubation of university graduates.


2004, ongoing Foreign donor and the university

TGT funding for incubation programme and students' projects ended in December 2008, and for support to SME clubs in December 2009. The ideal is that the SMEs in the clubs become self‐sustaining through their income‐generating activities.



2007‐2011 Foreign donor Project funding ended in March 2011. The project is engaging with SADC to obtain funds to scale‐up the project to additional areas. They are also bringing Botswana on board. A key part of the future sustainability of the project is the training and capacity building of the farmers as well as the local policy‐makers, which will hopefully enable them to run with these initiatives in the future.


88

Table 5.5: Articulation rating (maximum score = 13)

Project/centre Business Development Services

Incubator Business/Technology Incubator SME Gatsby Clubs


Institutional objectives 0 1 2 1

National priorities 2 2 2 2

No. of funding sources 1 2 2 1

Funding sustainability 2 2 2 2

Implementation agency 0 2 2 1

Total articulation rating 5 9 10 7

Key:

Institutional objectives / National priorities: 2 = Direct (link to specific strategic objective or national priority) 1 = Indirect (broad/general reference) 0 = None (no reported link) No. of funding sources: 1 for each of the following: University; Government; Foreign donor; Income generation Funding sustainability: 1 = Once‐off, short‐term (a project that is one year or less in duration and which receives only one round of funding) 2 = Long‐term but capped (a project that is more than one year in duration and which receives one or more rounds of funding, but the funding is capped) 3 = Ongoing (a project which receives ongoing funding, e.g. from the university or from income generation) Link to implementation agency: 2 = Direct 1 = Indirect 0 = None


89

5.3.3 Contribution to strengthening the academic core Table 5.6 below summarises the information pertaining to each of the projects with regard to their connection to the academic core activities of the university. ‘Core strengthening’ activities include the generation of new knowledge; the involvement of students in the project as part of their formal training; project knowledge and experience feeds into teaching and curriculum development; project knowledge and experience is published in academic publications; and, the project is linked to international academic networks. In order to rate the extent to which the projects contribute to strengthening the academic core, each of the five factors highlighted above were assigned a value of 1 when present. The results are captured in Table 5.7. Perhaps not surprisingly, the research project had the strongest connection to the academic core of the university, including formal training of students, generating new knowledge, producing academic publications and linking to international academic networks. The business support projects, and especially the Gatsby Clubs, had lower academic core ratings.


90

Table 5.6: Contribution to strengthening the academic core

Project/centre Classification New/existing knowledge

Link to academic core Link to international academic networks Student involvement Teaching/curriculum Publishing



Apply existing knowledge

Students are targeted for business support

The project manager teaches on the mainstream entrepreneurship course at UDSM.

Not yet No

Business/ Technology Incubator



Some undergraduate students have done their research work on aspects related to the incubator and a few postgraduate students have utilised some of the data and information from the project for their own studies

The project has not yet linked project knowledge and teaching / curriculum development yet. This is expected to be done in the ongoing curriculum review exercise.

Yes, but only in the initial stages of the project

Yes



Currently, the final‐year engineering students are linked to SMEs with whom they must work and help to solve some of their problems. This forms part of their formal training.

Experience from the incubators could contribute to the curriculum review in the College of Engineering following the tracer study planned for 2010.

Not yet No



Generate new knowledge

Three masters students have linked their research work to the project. Two have graduated thus far.

None reported Yes, a number of academic publications

Yes


91

Table 5.7: Strengthening academic core rating (maximum score = 5)

Project/centre Teaching / curriculum

development

Formal training of students

Generate new knowledge

Academic publications

Link to international academic networks

Total rating

Business Development Services Incubator 1 1 0 0 0 2

Business/Technology Incubator 0 1 0 1 1 3

SME Gatsby Clubs 0 1 0 0 0 1

Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems 0 1 1 1 1 4

Key: 1 = Yes 0 = No


92

5.3.4 Analysis of the connectedness of development projects/centres In order to analyse the development projects identified for the study, we operationalised the notion of ‘connectedness’ along two axes – the first, articulation, refers to the extent to which there is some coherence between the development projects/centres and the objectives and priorities of government and the institution, as well as linkages between the project and key external stakeholders, and especially implementation agencies. The second axis considers the extent to which the development projects/centres serve to strengthen or weaken the academic core of the institution. The total ratings for each project in terms of its articulation and contribution to strengthening the academic core of the university are summarised in Table 5.8 below. Using these ratings, each of the projects is then plotted on the articulation and academic core axes in Figure 5.1.

Table 5.8: Summary of ratings

Project/centre Articulation

(score out of 13)Academic core (score out of 5)

Business Development Services Incubator 5 2

Business/Technology Incubator 9 3

SME Gatsby Clubs 10 1

Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems 7 4


Figure 5.1: Plotting the development‐related projects

Key: BDSI Business Development Services Incubator BTI Business/Technology Incubator GC SME Gatsby Clubs SAS Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems

Following the analytical proposition, our assumption would be that for development‐related projects to make the most sustained contribution to development they would best fall within the top right‐hand quadrant in the graph; in other words, their activities articulate with national priorities and institutional strategic objectives; they have close linkages with key external stakeholders, especially any implementation agencies; and they contribute towards strengthening the academic core of the institution, rather than weakening it. As can be seen from Figure 5.1, only one of the projects – the Strengthening Agricultural Systems research project – falls within the top right‐hand quadrant of the graph. This project scored the highest in terms of contributing to strengthening the academic core insofar as it generated new knowledge, has

BDSI 2, 5

BTI 3, 9

GC 1, 10

SAS 4, 7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct articulation

Indirectarticulation

Weakening academic core

Strengthening academic core


94

postgraduate student research linked to the project activities, has produced a number of academic publications and is linked to international academic networks. It is perhaps not surprising that the activities of the other three projects, all of which are categorised as ‘small business support’, do not contribute much to the academic core. The SME Gatsby Club project scores well on the articulation rating – its aims and objectives articulate strongly with both institutional objectives and national priorities, and it has direct links to its implementation agencies (the SMEs themselves). However, this project scores the lowest on the academic core axis as its only real link with the core is through the formal training of some engineering students. Whilst these projects no doubt made a direct contribution of some kind to economic development in some aspect, the extent to which this contribution can be considered sustainable is questionable since the academics involved in these projects are, through their participation, taken away from the core business of the university. Furthermore, reflecting on the information provided in sections 3.3 and 5.2, it is our contention that where projects are located on the articulation and academic core axes has more to do with the choices of individual academics, academic units and donors than it does on a particular institutional approach. We could also argue that the scattered picture which emerges points to a number of tensions facing the institution including, for example, the imperative to generate third‐stream income or to partner with external stakeholders to enhance the relevance of university activities, versus strengthening the academic core activities of the university.


95

6.1 Introduction A vast amount of data has been gathered and presented in the preceding sections of this report. But what does this tell us about the possible contribution that higher education in Tanzania can make to the country’s economic development? In order to answer this broader question, we return to the key concepts and questions which were summarised in section 1.1.3. Here, our point of departure was that higher education’s role in and contribution to economic development can best be understood by investigating the following three interrelated factors:

The nature of the pact between the universities, political authorities and society at large;

The nature, size and continuity of the university’s academic core; and

The level of coordination, the effectiveness of implementation, and connectedness in the larger policy context of universities. Furthermore, these factors need to be considered in relation to various contextual features including local circumstances, institutional characteristics and external relations. By way of concluding this report, we review and analyse the data presented in order to answer the following questions:

1. How does Tanzania fare on the preconditions for an effective and productive relationship between higher education and economic development identified in the international case studies (see Pillay 2010b)?

Part 6

Key findings

AT A GLANCE

Macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Tanzania

The nature of the pact around the role of higher education in Tanzania The strength of UDSM’s academic core The connectedness of the university’s development‐related activities to the

academic core


96

2. To what extent is there a pact between key stakeholders (national and institutional) in Tanzania about the role of higher education in general, and in relation to economic development in particular?

3. Does UDSM, as a specific case, have capacity to make a contribution to economic development in terms of: a. The nature and strength of the academic core, and b. The connectedness of its development‐related activities to the academic

core?

6.2 Some macro‐observations about higher education and economic development in Tanzania Pundy Pillay’s investigation of three systems (Finland, South Korea, North Carolina state) suggested a number of ‘preconditions’ for an effective and productive relationship between higher education and economic development (Pillay 2010b). These were summarised in section 1.1.2. How does Tanzania fare in meeting these preconditions?

1. High quality schooling. Although statistics are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that the participation rate at the secondary level is extremely low. Access and equity (in terms of gender) at the primary level have reached commendable levels. However, the proportion of the primary school‐leaving cohort that is able to enter secondary schooling is extremely low, mainly because of low levels of public investment. There is evidence that the primary education system is relatively efficient. Repetition rates are low and the survival rate to the last grade of primary schooling was 83% in 2006 (the average for sub‐Saharan Africa was 67% and that for developing countries, 81%) (UNESCO 2009).

2. Effective economic and education planning. There is no official commitment to economic and education planning, although the link between economic development and education, especially tertiary education, is recognised. For example, the Tanzania Development Vision 2025 recognises the role of tertiary education in developing the critical human resources necessary for development.

3. The role of the state. The state plays an important role with respect to funding, as well as encouraging private sector provision of higher education. In fact, state funding is relatively high compared to other countries in the region. However, the state is dependent on donor funding for a significant part of its budget, including that of higher education.


97

4. Partnerships. In general, no evidence could be obtained of partnerships between the state, the universities and the private sector.

5. Institutional differentiation. There is little evidence of differentiation amongst universities.

6. Quality of higher education. The WEF is highly critical of quality in the Tanzanian education system. However, the country has performed relatively well in regional tests of proficiency of primary children in reading and mathematics. In the 2005 SACMEQ assessment, Tanzania was outperformed in reading only by Kenya and the Seychelles amongst East and Southern African countries, and in mathematics by Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique and Seychelles. It would appear that Tanzania has developed a relatively successful (in terms of access and quality) primary education system but has not been able to expand quantitatively or qualitatively beyond this level.

7. Funding. State funding of tertiary education is relatively high in regional terms but it is not clear whether outputs and outcomes are commensurate with the levels of investment.

8. Innovation. Tanzania has not invested sufficiently either in its universities or its private sector in terms of research and innovation. R&D investment approximates only about 0.2% of GDP, well below the developing country benchmark of 1%.

6.3 Evidence of a pact around the role of higher education in Tanzania? For the purposes of this study, we use the definition of a pact provided by Gornitzka et al. (2007: 184):

A ‘pact’ is a fairly long‐term cultural commitment to and from the University, as an institution with its own foundational rules of appropriate practices, causal and normative beliefs, and resources, yet validated by the political and social system in which the University is embedded. A pact, then, is different from a contract based on continuous strategic calculation of expected value by public authorities, organised external groups, university employees, and students – all regularly monitoring and assessing the University on the basis of its usefulness for their self‐interest, and acting accordingly.

The key actors of the pact are national, institutional and external stakeholders. It is assumed that the stronger the pact between universities, university


98

leadership, national authorities and society at large, the better the universities will be able to make a significant, sustained contribution to development. Our interest is in exploring the extent to which there is a pact around the role for higher education in economic development in Tanzania. Key to the development of such a pact is agreement or consensus that there should be a role and then about what that role should entail. In order to investigate this aspect, we have sought to address the following questions:

1. Is there a role for knowledge production and for universities in the national development plan?

2. How do the relevant national authorities and institutional stakeholders talk about and conceptualise the role of universities? The role of knowledge and universities in national and institutional policies and plans were operationalised into a series of indicators. These indicators were then rated on a 3‐2‐1 scale by three of the researchers. The indicators and the ratings (indicated by shading) are presented in Table 6.1 below. At the national level, Tanzania is increasingly aware of putting a higher premium on human capacity development. In the ‘Developmental Mindset and Empowering Culture’ goal in Vision 2025, key factors include a broad human development strategy, a learning society, and education as strategic change agent. This is reflected in the somewhat positive ratings for the concept of a knowledge economy featuring in the national development plan, and a role for higher education in development in national policies and plans. However, in the Vision 2025 four obstacles to achieving this are mentioned, including donor dependency, low capacity for economic management, failures of good government, and ‘ineffective implementation syndrome’. These problems are reflected in the weak ratings about spots of capacity in the department of education and unsystematic steering. In summary, at the national level there is certainly an increasing awareness of the importance of the knowledge economy, but policies, resources and incentives are not allocated accordingly. In addition, the higher education system is not sufficiently differentiated, and has a very low participation rate. At the institutional level, the university is beginning to make the transition from a traditional undergraduate teaching institution to having a more direct impact on development. While there is a strong narrative amongst institutional stakeholders about the role of the university in development, this role has not yet been clarified, nor is it strongly reflected in institutional policies or structures (mainly ad hoc staff initiatives). The notion of the knowledge economy is rather absent in university leadership discourses, but there is a more concentrated attempt to link research to economic development. In terms of linking teaching programmes to the labour market there is considerable emphasis on entrepreneurship, but there are not systematic, university‐wide linkages to business. There is a strong influence of the MDGs,


99

driven by development aid, and these activities are increasingly better institutionalised.

Table 6.1: Role for knowledge and universities in development in Tanzania

National Rating = 5/6

The concept of a knowledge economy features in the national development plan

3 StrongAppears in a number of policies

2 WeakOnly mentioned in one policy

1 Absent Not mentioned at all

A role for higher education in development in national policies and plans

3 PrevalentClearly mentioned in development policies

2 Weak

1 Absent

Institutional Rating = 3/6

Concept of a knowledge economy features in institutional policies and plans

3Features strongly in strategic plan and/or research policy/strategy

2Vague reference in strategic plan or research policy

1 Not mentioned at all

Institutional policies with regard to the university’s role in economic development

3Institutional policy

2Embedded in strategic plan, research policy etc

1 No formal policies

FINDINGS:

At the national level, the importance of the knowledge economy was weak, but the importance of higher education was strongly reflected in national policy statements.

Contrastingly, at the institutional level, there was only vague reference to the knowledge economy and no formal policies regarding the university’s role in development.

There was no broad agreement that knowledge, and by implication higher education, is key to development.

6.3.1 Notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development How do national and institutional stakeholders conceptualise the role of higher education and the university in development? And, to what extent is there consensus or disjuncture between the national and institutional levels? Our conceptual framework for addressing these questions comprises four notions of the relationship between higher education (especially universities) and national


development. These four notions17, which are elaborated upon below, emerge in the interaction between the following two sets of scenarios:

Whether or not a role is foreseen for new knowledge in the national development strategy; and

Whether or not universities, as knowledge institutions, have a role in the national development strategy. These two sets of scenarios, and the concomitant four notions of the role of universities, are depicted in Figure 6.1 below:

Figure 6.1: The four notions of the role of knowledge and universities in development

The four notions are elaborated as follows:

17 These four notions are based on ideas developed by Maassen and Cloete (2006) and Maassen

and Olsen (2007).

AncillarySelf‐

governing

Instrument Engine

University not part of development strategy

No/marginal role for new knowledge in development

strategy

Central role for new knowledge in development

strategy

University part of development strategy


101

The university as ancillary: In this notion, there is a strong focus on political/ideological starting‐points for development. Consequently, it is assumed that there is no need for a strong (scientific) knowledge basis for development strategies and policies. Neither is it necessary for the university to play a direct role in development since the emphasis is on investments in basic healthcare, agricultural production and primary education. The role of universities is to produce educated civil servants and professionals (with teaching based on transmitting established knowledge rather than on research), as well as different forms of community service.

The university as self‐governing institution: Knowledge produced at the university is considered important for national development – especially for the improvement of healthcare and the strengthening of agricultural production. However, this notion assumes that the most relevant knowledge is produced when academics from the North and the South cooperate in externally‐funded projects, rather than being steered by the state. This notion portrays the university as playing an important role in developing the national identity and in producing high‐level bureaucrats and scientific knowledge – but not directly related to national development; the university is committed to serving society as a whole rather than specific stakeholders. This notion assumes that the university is most effective when it is left to itself, and can determine its own priorities according to universal criteria, independent of the particularities of a specific geographical, national, cultural or religious context. It also assumes there is no need to invest additional public funds to increase the relevance of the university.

The university as instrument for development agendas: In this notion, the university has an important role to play in national development – not through the production of new scientific knowledge, but through expertise exchange and capacity building. The focus of the university’s development efforts should be on contributing to reducing poverty and disease, to improving agricultural production, and to support small business development – primarily through consultancy activities (especially for government agencies and development aid) and through direct involvement in local communities.

The university as engine of development: This notion assumes that knowledge plays a central role in national development – in relation to improving healthcare and agricultural production, but also in relation to innovations in the private sector, especially in areas such as information and communication technology, biotechnology and engineering. Within this notion the university is seen as (one of) the core institutions in the national development model. The underlying assumption is that the university is the only institution in society that can provide an adequate foundation for the complexities of the emerging knowledge economy when it comes to producing the relevant skills and


102

competencies of the employees in all major sectors, as well as to the production of use‐oriented knowledge. Table 6.2 below summarises the notions of the role of higher education held by national and institutional stakeholders, and indicates whether the notion is strong, prevalent, present or absent altogether.

Table 6.2: Comparing national and institutional notions of the role of higher education in Tanzania

Notions National stakeholders Institutional stakeholders

Ancillary Ambiguity about being an ancillary and an instrument

Trying to move away from this position

Self‐governing No obvious tensions Some staff still support indirect contribution to development

Instrument for development agendas

Strong opinions about not enough application of expertise of staff for development

Strong awareness linked to consultancy and donor projects

Engine for development Mentioned in some planning documents

A discourse developing but not reflected in policies

Key:

Strong Prevalent Present

FINDINGS:

In terms of notions of the role of the university in development, at the national

level there was considerable ambiguity about the role of the university – being an ancillary and needing to be an instrument of development.

At the university level, there was a strong leaning towards an instrument for development notion, but a very weak discourse about the engine of development notion.

At neither national nor university levels was there agreement about the role of the university in development. It is quite surprising that amongst university leadership there was such low support for a knowledge economy approach.

6.4 The academic core of the University of Dar es Salaam The university’s unique contribution to development is via knowledge – either transmitting knowledge to individuals who will go out into the world and contribute to society in a variety of ways (teaching), or producing and


103

disseminating knowledge that can be applied to the problems of society and economy (research, engagement). Part of our conceptual framework for understanding what impacts on a university’s ability to make a sustainable contribution to development therefore focuses on the nature and strength of its knowledge activities. According to Burton Clark (1998), when an enterprising university evolves a stronger steering core and develops an outreach structure, its heartland is still in the traditional academic departments, formed around disciplines and some interdisciplinary fields. The heartland is where traditional academic values and activities such as teaching, research and training of the next generation of academics occur. Instead of ‘heartland’, we use the concept ‘academic core’. According to our analytical assumption, it is this core that needs to be strengthened if flagship universities – such as those included in this study – as key knowledge institutions, are to contribute to development. While most universities also engage in knowledge activities in the area of community service or outreach, our contention is that the backbone or the foundation of the university’s business is its academic core – that is, its teaching via academic degree programmes, its research output, and the production of doctorates (those individuals who, in the future, will be responsible for carrying out the core knowledge activities). Furthermore, in societies where there is a strong pact between higher education and society, the universities have been able (and allowed) to develop a strong core of academic activities that forms the basis for all their activities. Our interest in the academic core of the UDSM has the following two dimensions:

1. What is the strength of the academic core of the institution? 2. Has the academic core been strengthening or weakening in recent years?

In Part 4 of this report, we presented a detailed profile and analysis of the nature and strength of the UDSM academic core. The analysis was undertaken on the basis of seven key indicators (see Table 6.3 below). The rating of the UDSM indicators was undertaken on the basis of a cluster analysis which included South Africa’s 22 contact universities and the seven other African universities included in the study.


104

Table 6.3: University of Dar es Salaam: Rating of the academic core

Indicator Strong (3) Medium (2) Weak (1)

1 Science, engineering and technology enrolments and graduations

Proportion of SET enrolments = 36%. Graduate output rate good.

2 Postgraduate / undergraduate enrolments ratio Masters / PhD enrolment ratio

Proportion of postgraduates in enrolment increased to 15% in 2007. But proportion of doctoral enrolments remained low.

3 Teaching load: Academic staff / student ratio

Overall ratio of 14:1 in 2007

4 Proportion of academic staff with doctorates

50% with doctorates

5 Research income per permanent academic staff member

Detailed information not given, assumed to be inadequate

6 Doctoral graduates Graduates in 2007 constituted 2.18% of permanent academics

7 Research publications Output of publications per academic (0.08) plus research graduates only 33% of target rate

The following observations can be made about the academic core data for the UDSM:

1. SET enrolments – The university’s SET enrolments grew from 4 200 in 2001 to 6 600 in 2007. The average annual SET growth rate was 7.8% over this period, which was only half the growth rate of total enrolments. UDSM’s proportion of SET students as a consequence dropped from 52% in 2001 to 36% in 2007. Its SET graduation rate, however, improved over this period.

2. Postgraduate enrolments – UDSM’s proportion of postgraduate students in its total enrolment grew from 9% in 2001 to 15% in 2007. This resulted from a rapid increase in masters enrolments, which grew from 552 in 2007 to 2 165 in 2007. The masters graduates total did not increase at the same rate as the enrolment total. The masters graduation rate remained, however, satisfactory.


105

Doctoral enrolments increased from 54 in 2001 to 190 in 2007, but still had a share of only 8% of the masters plus doctors total. This implies that the flow of masters graduates into doctoral studies may not be high enough to sustain strong research activities. Doctoral graduation rates furthermore remained low over the period.

3. Teaching load – Between 2001 and 2007, the university’s FTE academic staff total grew at an average annual growth rate below that of the rate of growth in FTE students. Its FTE student to FTE academic staff ratio was nevertheless a favourable one, rising from 11:1 in 2001 to 14:1 in 2007. UDSM’s permanent academics must, in 2007, have had teaching loads which should have enabled them to engage in research activities, including the supervision of research students.

4. Qualifications of staff – In 2007, 50% of UDSM’s permanent academic staff had doctorates as their highest formal qualifications. This is a proportion which matches those of South African universities which are strong in research.

5. Research funding – UDSM did not provide clear information on research funding. On the assumptions made in the analyses, its research funding might not be sufficient to sustain strong research activities.

6. Doctoral graduates – Doctoral graduates increased from 10 in 2001 to 20 in 2007, which is a doubling, but from a very low base. A very positive development is that doctoral enrolments tripled over the same period. The rather low ratio of 2.18% of doctoral graduates to permanent academic staff means that the university cannot reproduce itself.

7. Research outputs – In terms of research publications, UDSM's output is low. Its 2007 ratio of publication units per permanent academic was, at 0.08, well below the ratio of 0.50 which has been set as a target for South Africa’s research universities. In terms of input variables, UDSM has teaching loads which should enable its academic staff to support research activities. It also has a high proportion of academic staff with doctorates. In terms of output variables such as the production of research publications and of doctoral graduates, the university’s performance was unsatisfactory. The key factors that seem to be weakening the academic core are (a) the decline in the proportion of SET students, (b) the low proportions of masters and doctoral students, (c) the low numbers of students in the doctoral research stream, (d) the low output of doctoral graduates, (e) a shortage of research funding, and (e) the poor output of research publications. A positive development is that UDSM is experiencing a rapid growth in masters enrolments which could lead to a growth in research programmes.


106

FINDINGS:

The knowledge production output variables of the academic core do not seem strong enough to enable UDSM to make a sustainable contribution to development.

The university is not significantly changing from a predominantly undergraduate teaching institution.

On the input side, UDSM scores strongly on three input variables (SET enrolments, staff teaching load and staff qualifications), but weak on the knowledge production indicators (doctoral graduation rates and research output).

The most serious challenges to strengthening the academic core seem to be to translate input strengths to output productivity.

6.5 Coordination and connectedness Knowledge policies have become increasingly important in the context of the knowledge economy. Broadly speaking, knowledge policies refer to political mechanisms (such as policies and incentives) that are aimed at improving the (knowledge) capacity of a country to participate in the global knowledge economy. Such policies thus relate to the higher education and science and technology sectors, and to high‐level skills training, research and innovation. The coordination of knowledge policies can take place at the level of both policy formulation and policy implementation. In this project ‘coordination’ is used to refer to more structured forms of interaction, mainly between government and institutions; in other words, the knowledge policies and implementation activities of different government departments, particularly departments of education, science and technology, and research councils. Of specific interest to this study is the coordination of knowledge policies across ministries involved with higher education, science, technology and innovation, as well as those responsible for economic development or planning. Implementation can be regarded as a component of the coordination of government policies and is a complex combination of agreement (relevant parties support the policy) and capacity to design and apply the implementation mechanisms or instruments. At the national level we looked at the role of the ministry responsible for higher education, steering and funding. At the institutional level, indicators dealt with aspects such as units or structures to implement strategic plans, incentives and rewards, special teaching and research programmes that link to economic development and funding support for research.


107

Another key issue for the relationship between higher education and economic development is to establish a productive relationship between knowledge and connectedness. On the one hand, if there is an overemphasis on the basic knowledge activities of teaching and research – in other words, an excessive inward orientation towards strengthening the academic core – this results in the university becoming an ‘ivory tower’. Or, if the academic core is weak, an overemphasis on knowledge results in the ‘ancillary’ role of the university (i.e. no direct role in development). On the other hand, if there is an overemphasis in the university on connecting to development activities, then it weakens the academic core and the university has little new or relevant knowledge to offer in the exchange relationship. The challenge for universities, then, is to deal with this inherent tension between ‘buffering’ (protecting) the core technologies of the institution, and ‘bridging’ (linking) those with external actors (Scott 2001: 199‐211). For the purposes of this study, we are using the term ‘connectedness’ to refer to the relationship (and tension) between the inward focus on strengthening and maintaining the academic core, and the outward focus on linking with external stakeholders and development. In this section, we address the following three questions relating to coordination and connectedness:

1. Does government coordinate policies and steering mechanisms that enable the university to contribute to development?

2. Does the university connect to external groupings in ways that promote development?

3. Do development activities in the university strengthen or weaken the academic core?

6.5.1 Knowledge policy coordination and implementation At the national level, there are limited formal linkages or coordination between the different stakeholders in the pact. Specifically, there is no real linkage between economic development and higher education planning at the ministerial level, and higher education issues are limited to only one ministry. And, while there are some formal structures linking universities to national authorities, there is no meaningful coordination between the two. In summary, at the national level, the lack of policy linkages and coordination will make implementation very difficult to achieve.


108

Table 6.4: National coordination of knowledge policies


Economic development and higher education planning are linked

3 SystematicFormal structures Headed by senior minister

2 SporadicClusters / forums

1 Weak Occasional meetings

Link between universities and national authorities

3Specific coordination structures or agencies

2Some formal structures but no meaningful coordination

1 No structures, and political rather than professional networks

Coordination and consensus building of government agencies involved in higher education

3Higher education mainstreamed across government departments

2Intermittent interaction with ineffective forums

1 Higher education issues limited mainly to one ministry or directorate

FINDINGS:

At the national level, there seem to be many informal interactions, but few

institutionalised processes of coordination.

While there are considerable personal networks between government officials and particular university leaders, it is not clear whether these contribute towards strengthening the institution or the sector.

Apart from donor agendas, there was no evidence of specific incentives to encourage economic development‐related activities, or that the promotion policy has been adjusted to take into account these kinds of projects.


109

Table 6.5: Implementation of knowledge policies and activities


Role of the ministry responsible for higher education

3Organised ministry with capacity to make predictable allocations

2Spots of capacity with some steering instruments

1 Weak capacity with unpredictable allocations

Implementation to ‘steer’ higher education towards development

3 StrongInstruments such as funding / special projects that incentivise institutions/individuals

2 WeakOccasional grants for special projects

1 Absent No particular incentive funding

Balance / ratio of sources of income for institutions

3Government, fees and third stream

2Mainly government plus student fees

1 Mainly government with external funders

Funding consistency 3A stable, transparent public funding mechanism based on criteria agreed upon by all actors involved

2Funding allocations somewhat predictable but do not allow for long‐term planning nor reward enterprising behaviour

1 No clear funding or incentives from government

Institutional (UDSM) Rating = 10/18

Specific units, funding or appointments linked economic development

3Specific units, funding or appointments

2Economic development initiatives aspect of a unit or appointment

1 Mainly ad hoc, staff‐initiated operations

Incentives and rewards for development‐related activities

3Incentives / counts towards promotion

2Some signals but largely rhetoric

1 No mention

Teaching programmes linked to the labour market

3Targets for enrolments in fields considered to be of high economic relevance

2Some programmes in response to specific industry requests

1 No new programmes linked to labour market

Special programmes linking students to economic development

3Entrepreneurship, work‐based learning and/or incubators for students mainstreamed

2Ad hoc programmes

1 No special programmes

Research activities are becoming more economy‐oriented

3Research policy/strategy has an economic development focus

2Some research agendas have an economic development focus

1 Ad hoc project funding

Levels of government and institutional funding for research

3High

2Medium

1 Low


110

FINDINGS:

At the national level, the Department of Education is beginning to develop some capacity and steering, but this clearly needs to be strengthened.

At the institutional level, UDSM has one of the biggest entrepreneurship work‐based programmes in the HERANA sample of institutions. However, while the university does have development‐related structures and special programmes linking it to development initiatives, the problem is that in too many cases these initiatives are driven by individuals rather than being institutionalised. Also, these special implementation efforts need to be more connected.

The university, within tight budget constraints, is trying increase research related to development activities. However, research related to development is not significantly rewarded through incentives beyond the traditional academic promotion system.

6.5.2 Connectedness to external stakeholders and the academic core At the institutional level, in the UDSM’s current strategic plan (2009), a wide range of external stakeholders is listed – from parliamentarians to the general public. However, in interviews there was frequent mention of a lack of engagement, even in the formulation of the plan itself. In the plan it is also mentioned that the university has not done well in marketing its outputs. While it was noted that linkages with organisations outside of Tanzania had been strengthened, linkages with local government, private sector, non‐governmental and community‐based organisations are still weak. The main form of engagement is through consultancy projects which, according to the strategic plan, have more than doubled over the past decade (although this is probably an undercount, as is the trend in terms of consultancies worldwide). More than 60% of all consultancy projects are undertaken for foreign agencies and the plan notes that the university has not been very successful in securing consultancies from the government or the public sector in general. Foreign donors appear to play a significant funding role in the university. While some donors do assert their own agendas in the funding relationship, it appears that the Department of Planning and Finance plays an important and effective role in managing the interaction between internal institutional interests and those of the development partners. Apart from project‐related linkages with donors, there are some direct links between specific academic units or institutes and government ministries, such as the College of Engineering and the ministries such as Infrastructure and Science and Technology, the Institute of Resource Assessment and the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Economic Research Bureau within the Ministry of


Economic Affairs. Significantly, there was virtually no mention of formalised linkages with the private sector or industry. With regard to the connectedness of development‐related activities to the academic core, the articulation and academic ratings applied to the four projects/centres (section 5.3) are presented again in Figure 6.2 below.

Figure 6.2: Plotting the development‐related projects at the University of Dar es Salaam

Key: BDSI Business Development Services Incubator BTI Business/Technology Incubator GC SME Gatsby Clubs SAS Strengthening Local Agricultural Innovation Systems

Following the analytical proposition, our assumption is that for development‐related projects to make the most sustained contribution to development they would best fall within the top right‐hand quadrant in the graph; in other words, their activities articulate with national priorities and institutional strategic objectives; they have close linkages with key external stakeholders, especially

BDSI 2, 5

BTI 3, 9

GC 1, 10

SAS 4, 7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Direct articulation

Indirectarticulation

Weakening academic core

Strengthening academic core


112

any implementation agencies; and, they contribute towards strengthening the academic core of the institution, rather than weakening it. As can be seen from Figure 6.2, only one of the projects – the Strengthening Agricultural Systems research project – falls within the top right‐hand quadrant of the graph. This project scored the highest in terms of contributing to strengthening the academic core insofar as it generated new knowledge, has postgraduate student research linked to the project activities, has produced a number of academic publications and is linked to international academic networks.

FINDINGS:

Projects/centres that are considered by university leadership to be strongly connected to development tend to score well on the articulation indicators – in other words, they reflect national priorities (and to a lesser extent institutional objectives), have more than one funding source and, in some cases, plans for financial sustainability, and may have a connection to an implementation agency.

However, only one project is rated as strengthening the academic core, indicating something of a disconnect.

The SAS project scores high on both articulation and strengthening the academic core. The challenge is to increase the number of projects that do both.

6.6 Concluding comments There is evidence to suggest that after independence and during the socialist period in Tanzania, there was a pact about the importance of higher education, although there was perhaps a lack of clarity about exactly what the role of higher education was. In addition, it seems that this tacit agreement fragmented during the ensuing political fragmentation and as a result of the ‘anti‐higher education policies’ of the World Bank, amongst other influences. Currently, there is considerable evidence to show that there is broad agreement at national and university levels that education in general, and higher education in particular, is important for development. However, this has not necessarily been translated into clear notions of the role of higher education, nor into coordinated policies and implementation plans on how to make it work. While there are certainly some capacity and funding constraints, it is also more than that. A more fundamental problem appears to be that there is not a long‐term cultural, socio‐economic and political understanding and commitment between universities, political authorities and society at large of the identity or vision of


113

universities, what is expected of universities, and what the rules and values of the universities are. The academic core of the UDSM has some considerable input strengths on which the institution can build; the challenge is to translate these into stronger outputs. From the study of the development projects it also seems that while the projects are strongly articulated to development needs, more could be done to strengthen the academic core of the university, which will enable it to make a more sustainable contribution to development.


114

List of sources

CHET (2010) Cross‐National Higher Education Performance Indicators. DRAFT. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Clark B (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational pathways of

transformation. Pergamon: IAU Press Cloete N, Maassen P, Pillay P, Bailey T, Pinheiro R and Muller J (2010) Higher Education

and Economic Development: Analytical Framework. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

CoET (2006) Technology Development and Transfer Centre Brochure. Dar es Salaam:

College of Engineering and Technology, University of Dar es Salaam DPF (2009) The historical perspective of the University of Dar es Salaam. Dar es

Salaam: Department of Planning and Finance web site: www.dpf.udsm.ac.tz Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartsman S, Scott P and Trow M (1994) The

New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. California: Sage Publications

Gornitzka Å, Maassen P, Olsen JP and Stensaker B (2007) ‘Europe of knowledge’:

Search for a new pact. In: P Maassen and JP Olsen (eds), University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht: Springer, pp 181‐214

INSEAD (2010) Global Innovation Index Report 2009–2010. INSEAD Business School Ishengoma JM (2010) Higher Education Financing in Tanzania. In Higher Education

Financing in East and Southern Africa. Pundy Pillay (ed). Cape Town: African Minds

Juma CC (2005) Going for Growth: Science, technology and innovation in Africa. Report. Harvard: The Smith Institute

MEC (1995) Education and Training Policy. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Ministry of

Education and Culture Mkude D (2009) Background information on the University of Dar es Salaam.

Document prepared for research team prior to the site visit. MSTHE (1999) National Higher Education Policy. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Ministry of

Science, Technology and Higher Education


115

MLYD (2000) The National Employment Policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Labour and Youth Development

OECD (2008) Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. Paris: Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development Open Directory Project (2010) Economy of Tanzania. Available at

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Africa/Tanzania/Business_and_Economy/Economic_Development/ [accessed 14 April 2010]

Pillay P (2010a) Higher Education and Economic Development: A literature review. Cape

Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation Pillay P (2010b) Linking Higher Education and Economic Development: Implications for

Africa from three successful systems. Cape Town: Centre for Higher Education Transformation

Scott WR (2001) Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education International TCU (2005) Tanzania Commission for Universities Strategic Plan for 2005/06 – 2009/10.

Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Commission for Universities TEZ (2010) Tanzania Economic Forum. Available at

http://www.tanzaniaeconomicforum.co.tz [accessed 7 April 2010] UDSM (2007) Institutional self‐assessment of the University’s mission in relation to the

civic role in and social responsibility to society, with a specific focus on two self‐initiated global projects. An Institutional Assessment Report prepared for the Talloires Network. University of Dar es Salaam

UDSM (2008) UDSM Research Policy and Operational Procedures. Dar es Salaam:

University of Dar es Salaam UDSM (2009) UDSM Five‐Year Rolling Strategic Plan 2008/2009‐2012/2013. Dar es

Salaam: University of Dar es Salaam UNDP (1990) 1990 Human Development Report. New York: United Nations

Development Programme UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009. Overcoming barriers: Human mobility

and development. New York: United Nations Development Programme UNESCO (2008) 2008 EFA Global Monitoring Report. Paris: United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation


116

URT (2000) Tanzania Development Vision 2025. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania

URT (2005) National Higher Education Policy. Dar es Salaam: United Republic of

Tanzania URT (2005) National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP). Dar es

Salaam: United Republic of Tanzania, Vice‐President’s Office, June 2005 URT (2008) Education Sector Performance Report 2007/08. Dar es Salaam: Education Sector Development Programme, United Republic of Tanzania Utz A (2006) Fostering Innovation, Productivity, and Technological Change: Tanzania in the Knowledge Economy. Washington DC: World Bank Institute WEF (2009) The Global Competitiveness Report 2009‐2010. Geneva: World Economic

Forum WEF (2010) The Global Competitiveness Report 2010‐2011. Geneva: World Economic

Forum Weick K (1976) Educational organisations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21:1‐19 World Bank (2006) World Bank Development Report 2006: Equity and Development.

Washington DC: The World Bank World Bank (2007) The Knowledge Economy. Washington DC: The World Bank World Bank (2008) 2008 World Development Indicators. Washington DC: The World

Bank


117

Appendix 1: List of interviewees

University of Dar es Salaam

Prof. M A H Maboko (Deputy Vice‐Chancellor: Academic Affairs)

Dr Sylvia Shayo Temu (Director of Planning and Finance)

Prof. C Mwinyiwiwa (Acting Director of Research)

Prof. F W Mtalo (Principal: College of Engineering and Technology)

Dr Ulingeta Mbamba (Associate Dean: University of Dar es Salaam Business School)

Ms Katherine Fulgence (Business Development Service Incubation Programme)

Dr A T Kamukuru (Faculty of Aquatic Sciences and Technology)

Dr Cuthbert Kimambo (Business Technology Incubation, College of Engineering and Technology)

Prof. N N Luanda (Dept of History, College of Arts and Social Sciences)

Dr A E Majule (Institute of Resource Assessment)

Dr Daniel Mkude (Dept of Linguistics)

Dr C L Nahonyo (Head: Dept of Zoology)

Dr Simon Ndaro (Kinondoni Integrated Coastal Area Management Programme, Faculty of Aquatic Sciences and Technology)

Prof. James Ngana (Institute of Resource Assessment)

Dr A K Temu (Tanzania Gatsby Trust, College of Engineering and Technology)

Mr Elia Yobu (Programme Officer: University of Dar es Salaam Entrepreneurship Centre)

Tanzania national stakeholders

Wilbard Abeli (Director for Higher Education, Ministry of Education and Vocational Training)

Fatima Kiongosya (Director of Planning, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs)

Dr Bohela Lunogelo (Executive Director: Economic and Social Research Foundation)

Mr Daniel Magwiza (Deputy Secretary: Grants, Finance and Administration, Tanzania Commission for Universities)

Prof. M H Nkunya (Executive Director: Tanzania Commission for Universities)

Denis Rweyemamu (REPOA – Research on Poverty Alleviation)

Grace Shirima (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training)


118

Appendix 2: Cluster analysis methodology and data

A K‐means clustering analysis was applied for the identification of four statistically significant and distinct clusters. Averages for 2005 to 2007 were used for input variables as well as non‐financial output variables. Financial data for 2007 were used. Original values for all variables were statistically scaled to make the data comparable and to ensure equal weighting for all variables. The following input variables were used for the clustering analysis:

% headcount enrolments in science, engineering and technology (% SET)

% masters and doctoral headcount enrolments (% M & D students)

Inverse of the student: academic/research staff FTE ratio (inverse of stud: staff FTE ratio)

% of permanent academic/ research staff with a doctoral degree (% staff with PhD)

% private income

Total income per FTE student (purchasing power parity dollar thousands) (income per FTE)

Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power parity dollar thousands) (staff cost per FTE). The following output variables were used for the clustering analysis:

Graduation rate (number of graduates in a given year/ enrolments in a given year x 100)

Research outputs (doctoral graduates + research publications). The data values are shown in Table A2.1 over page. Figure A2.1 lists the universities in the four clusters and plots the means for each cluster.


119

Table A2.1: Cluster analysis data table

INPUT INDICATORS OUTPUT INDICATORS

Total 2007 head counts (thousands)

Averages for 2005‐2007 2007 only

2007 income 2007 expenditure Averages for 2005‐2007

% SET % M & D students

Student: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE(purchasing power parity

dollar thousands)

Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power

parity dollar thousands)

Graduation rate

Weighted research output per permanent academic

LARGE CONTACT

Tshwane University of Technology

51 38% 3% 31 12% 16% 10.5 81.0 19% 0.27

University of Pretoria 49 38% 15% 18 38% 40% 24.8 92.8 24% 1.36North West University 45 20% 8% 30 43% 37% 12.6 106.2 24% 1.17University of Johannesburg 42 31% 5% 16 18% 27% 15.9 46.0 23% 0.94University of Nairobi 39 30% 16% 16 71% 34% 9.9 58.7 16% 0.45University of KwaZulu Natal 38 32% 14% 18 30% 37% 21.2 96.1 21% 1.07Makerere University 34 31% 7% 18 31% 15% 5.9 48.7 26% 0.51

MEDIUM CONTACT

Cape Peninsula University of Technology

29 48% 2% 26 11% 27% 15.3 98.1 22% 0.20

University of the Free State 25 29% 12% 17 49% 30% 18.2 73.6 21% 1.27University of the Witwatersrand

25 48% 23% 11 45% 51% 39.7 96.7 21% 1.52

Walter Sisulu University 24 26% 1% 30 9% 5% 8.7 108.6 12% 0.05Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

24 30% 7% 29 34% 25% 18.4 120.1 23% 0.82

Stellenbosch University 23 41% 22% 16 61% 51% 36.4 90.9 25% 2.03Durban University of Technology

23 48% 2% 28 7% 11% 12.4 108.9 20% 0.14

University of Cape Town 21 42% 18% 13 58% 42% 40.0 99.3 26% 2.13University of Dar es Salaam 18 39% 10% 15 50% 16% 8.6 44.1 24% 0.40University of Ghana 26 18% 6% 29 47% 15% 6.3 68.5 20% 0.53

SMALL CONTACT

University of Limpopo 16 44% 11% 16 16% 19% 21.3 77.5 21% 0.31Vaal University of Technology

16 48% 1% 31 12% 13% 11.4 81.5 15% 0.12

Eduardo Mondlane University

16 50% 3% 12 19% 14% 5.6 24.9 8% 0.03

University of Botswana 16 25% 23% 17 20% 10% 14.8 85.6 22% 0.27University of the Western 15 31% 10% 19 43% 41% 22.3 84.0 20% 0.91


120

INPUT INDICATORS OUTPUT INDICATORS

Total 2007 head counts (thousands)

Averages for 2005‐2007 2007 only

2007 income 2007 expenditure Averages for 2005‐2007

% SET % M & D students

Student: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE(purchasing power parity

dollar thousands)

Academic staff costs per FTE academic (purchasing power

parity dollar thousands)

Graduation rate

Weighted research output per permanent academic

Cape University of Venda 12 31% 3% 34 35% 14% 10.0 100.3 16% 0.24Cape University of Technology

10 45% 3% 28 29% 14% 13.0 79.2 22% 0.32

Mangosothu University of Technology

10 59% 0% 44 5% 13% 10.6 140.9 17% 0.03

University of Zululand 9 16% 5% 32 38% 30% 15.9 95.9 21% 0.70University of Fort Hare 9 18% 6% 21 19% 37% 15.6 94.2 20% 0.45University of Mauritius 8 42% 15% 16 45% 6% 3.7 20.9 27% 0.94Rhodes University 6 22% 14% 17 50% 29% 26.9 107.7 32% 1.65

Notes: 1. The calculation of purchasing power parity dollars (PPP$) is based on estimates contained in the World Bank’s (2008) World Development Indicators report.

Because these estimates are based on 2005 exchange rates, the following method was used for the 2007 calculations: The indicator set gives for each country a ratio between the PPP conversion factor and the market exchange rate. For example, the South African ratio is

given as 0.61, based on a market exchange rate of R 6.4 per USD in 2005. The 2007 calculations assume that the 2005 ratio will apply again. So the 2007 PPP conversion factor is taken to be 2005 ratio times 2007 market exchange

rate. For example, the conversion factor for South Africa is calculated as 2005 ratio times 2007 exchange rate = 0.61 x 7.0 = 4.27. 2. The financial data for the following three universities were based on the following assumptions:

University of Nairobi: academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure Eduardo Mondlane University: academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure University of Dar es Salaam: (a) academic staff costs assumed to = 35% of total expenditure; (b) private income = donor income.


121

Figure A2.1: Plot of means for each cluster

% SET% M & D students

Inverse of stud: staff FTE ratio

% Staff with PhD

% Private Income

Income per FTE

Staff cost per FTE

Graduation Rate

Weighted Research Outputs

Cluster 1 0.27 1.54 1.04 1.00 1.33 1.78 0.50 1.03 1.72

Cluster 2 0.19 ‐0.10 0.78 ‐0.23 ‐0.72 ‐0.58 ‐1.25 0.10 ‐0.53

Cluster 3 ‐0.86 0.04 ‐0.37 0.46 0.47 ‐0.14 0.22 ‐0.14 0.11

Cluster 4 0.84 ‐1.07 ‐1.00 ‐1.14 ‐0.89 ‐0.49 0.58 ‐0.63 ‐0.86

‐1.50

‐1.00

‐0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00Cluster 1

Cluster 3

Cluster 2

Cluster 4

Cluster 4 Tshwane University of Technology,

Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Walter Sisulu

University, Durban University of Technology, Vaal University of

Technology, Central University of Technology, Mangosothu University of Technology

Cluster 3 North West University, University of Nairobi, University of KwaZulu ‐Natal, University of the Free State, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, University of Ghana, University of the Western Cape, University of Venda, University of Zululand, University of Fort Hare

Cluster 2 University of Johannesburg,

Makerere University, University of Dar es Salaam, University of Limpopo, Eduardo Mondlane

University, University of Botswana, University of Mauritius

Cluster 1 University of Pretoria,

Witwatersrand University, Stellenbosch University, University of Cape Town, Rhodes University


122

Appendix 3: Academic core rating descriptions

Indicators Strong (3) Medium (2) Weak (1)

1 Strong science and technology

SET enrolments growing, and SET share of enrolment shape increasing. Graduation rates of cohorts of SET students minimum of 70%.

SET share of enrolment shape steady. Graduation rate of cohorts of SET students 60% to 70%.

SET enrolments static, and SET share of enrolment shape declining. Graduation rate of cohorts of SET students below 60%.

2 Increased postgraduate enrolments and outputs

Postgraduates at least 25% of total enrolment. Masters and doctoral enrolments and graduates increasing. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments no more than 5:1. Ratio of graduates in year to enrolments in same year: masters 25%, doctorates 20%.

Postgraduates as proportion of total enrolments above 10% and increasing. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments no more than 10:1. Ratios of graduates to enrolments: masters 20%, doctorates 15%.

Postgraduate enrolments and graduates grow at average annual rate below that of undergraduates. Postgraduates 10% or less of total enrolment. Ratio of masters to doctoral enrolments above 10:1.

3 Teaching loads of academic staff

FTE academic staff ratio close to growth in FTE students. FTE student to academic staff ratios maximum of 15:1 for SET, and maximum average of 20:1 for: all programmes.

FTE students grow at faster rate than FTE academic staff. FTE student to academic staff ratios close 20:1 for SET, close to 30:1 for all programmes.

FTE students grow at faster rate than FTE academic staff ratio. FTE student to academic staff ratios more than 20:1 for SET, and 30:1 for all programmes.

4 Qualifications of academic staff

At least 50% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

Between 30% and 50% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

Less than 30% of permanent academic staff have doctorates.

5 Availability of research funding

Annual research funding of at least USD10 000 per permanent academic.

Annual research funding of between than USD 2 000 and USD 10 000 per permanent academic.

Annual research funding of less than USD 2 000 per permanent academic.

6 Doctoral graduates Doctoral graduates in given year = 10% or higher of permanent academic staff.

Doctoral graduates in given year between 5% & 9.9% of permanent academic staff.

Doctoral graduates in given year < 5% of permanent academic staff.

7 Research publications

Ratio of 0.50 or higher of publication units per permanent academic.

Ratio of publication units per permanent academic between 0.25 and 0.49.

Ratio of publication units per permanent academic < 0.25.

Date post:	26-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hoangnhan
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

CASE STUDY: and of Dar es Salaam - CHET | Center for ... Study - Tanzania... · UNIVERSITY OF DAR...

Documents