IV Lessons Learned by Universities

Lessons from Building a Research Network (SUDESCA) in Central America

by Leiner Vargas Alfaro, Academic Director, CINEPE-UNA, Costa Rica

Abstract

The increasing role of innovation and innovation policies in sustainable development has been demonstrated by research activities in the Sustainable Development Strategies for Central America (SUDESCA) research network in Central America. The development of a common set of values and theoretical approaches to analyze those policies has been a specific focus topic in the SUDESCA network which includes research groups in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Denmark. The building of research capacities on innovation and sustainable development has been done under a particular set of conditions and it has, partially, achieved the initially proposed objectives.

The project

The project has succeeded in developing a network of researchers from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean focusing on rather new issues related to national, local and sectoral innovation systems and sustainable development. Even if the process of building institutional and individual capabilities has been interrupted prematurely by lack of funding, the lessons learned and the seed activities, which were carried through, have promoted new activities of applied university research, which have contributed to a redefined regional agenda for innovation and innovation policies.

The time framework and the available resources were quite limited in relation to the objectives of the rather ambitious research program, especially when considering the regional character of the research and the number of organizations involved. The coordination activities as well as the level of enthusiasm within the research groups have been quite different and, so far, the results also reflect these different levels of capacity building. The counterparts who benefited most were the International Center for Economic Policy (CINPE) and the National University (UNA) in Costa Rica in spite of the fact that the main focus of interest was Nicaragua. However, within a broader regional vision the agenda has been very much affected by nation state priorities.

The quality of the research in the network clearly improved, but it must be concluded that it takes a lot of time and long-term investments to produce important changes in the existing research agenda and the local research conditions in the Central American region. A focus on already existing promising clustering activities should be preferred to creating new programs based on very limited local capabilities. In this respect mayor lessons were learned from the experiences of the University of El Salvador.

The focus on sectors and issues of increasing political priority as environmental and local development were also sources of important lesson for the SUDESCA project. Applied research under a concrete and unifying framework such as the “systems of innovation approach” was also interesting. It has allowed the participating research groups to get into contact with new researchers and organization sharing common goals and methods.

Both the south and the north may improve their research capacity by network building and research cooperation so building capacity in developing countries is not just a transfer of a particular research technology, it is also a process of trust building and knowledge sharing and of developing a common research agenda. Learning from and with the south (the importance of intercultural learning) is a crucial lesson of the SUDESCA research network.

The network was developed with a balanced attention at both education and research capacity building. During the first phase the research activities concentrated on building basic statistics and an information background. Improving methodology as well as adapting “System of Innovation” concepts to the south were done during the first part of the second phase. The definition of local interest themes was done in cooperation between experienced researcher from Denmark and local people from Central America. During the whole second phase the learning tools were developed both within a common research activity and parallel PhD activities. This has created – particularly under the second research phase – increased trust between and within the group, not only within the south but also at the counterpart at Aalborg University (AAU).

Learning between cultures and within cultures was emphasized because of differences in language, local conditions and research orientation. For example, understanding the local conditions for research under different political and social situations was of crucial value. Qualitative research became an essential tool due to the difficulties in getting reliable statistics in Central America. Learning from doing and learning by interacting with local actors were crucial elements in the development of specific hypothesis and research cases.

Universities in Central America have been affected by different political and social events during the last century; particularly those countries north of Costa Rica due to the political and social conflicts in the sixties, seventies and eighties. They have lost much of the social trust in relation to some economic sectors and social groups. Local research capacity was reduced because a whole generation was lost and university budgets were constrained to a minimum under this political context. The concentration of SUDESCA research activities on innovation systems and sustainable development, both very relevant issues for the society, was a perfect opportunity to contribute to recovering the trust between university and society. Learning with and between social groups was an un-expected result of the project, particularly in Nicaragua, where the local group at the School of Agricultural Economics (ESECA) became part of national discussion. It was a relevant result also in El Salvador, but the results were mainly achieved by a non-governmental organization, National Foundation for Development (FUNDE). The Costa Rican case was a different because the university-society relation was clearly another from the very the beginning.

We have learned that University research agendas in developing countries should concentrate on issues where the society could benefit not only in macro-economic terms, but also in terms of local values and local groups. University capacity building is in this respect a sustainable way of affecting local capabilities in research conditions. But it is not a sufficient condition; countries need to stimulate a virtuous circle between research capacity building and development of local university conditions in order to create a sustainable process.

Finally, in relation to donor roles, we could say that a stable and long-term financial program is a very important aspect in order to get results. Once this is achieved, concentrating on local existing groups is an important aspect. Much donor help is used to build capacities almost from scratch; generally this only achieves meager results because it is a long-term process to construct local capabilities. Cooperation based on existing local capabilities should help to complement the local capabilities with external capabilities and thus reduce the risk of failure. One example is English language skills.

The Experience from an ENRECA Capacity Building Project

by Henrik Secher Marcussen, Professor, Dept. of Geography & International Development Studies, Roskilde University

Abstract

In the light of globalization processes, it is in vogue by Western nation States to emphasize how vitally important it is to give top priority politically and financially to research and tertiary education. However, often such words are not met by deeds. In the case of the developing world, the need for getting aboard the globalization train is no less urgent. The increasingly important role of China and India in the global economy bears witness to the crucial role which so far only a few developing nations have succeeded in having.

Unfortunately, however, this aspect does not play an important role in Danish aid priorities, where support to primary education is targeted, while research is funded mainly through sector-wide programmes, through applications for grant through the RUF-system (Research Council for Development Research) or by means of the ENRECA form of assistance to capacity building.

Based on a review of a Danida supported ENRECA project in Burkina Faso, it is the objective of this contribution to try to assess how relevant and how effective this form of assistance to build research capacities in the developing world is. In doing this, the contribution tries to answer four interrelated questions: (i) Has the ENRECA project succeeded in meeting its own targets?, (ii) Has the project contributed to building national research capacities, filling a role in a national research and research policy chain?, (iii) Has the project contributed to improving on Danish aid performance in the country; and (iv) Has the project assisted Burkina Faso in meeting demands arising from an increasingly globalized world.

It is the conclusion of the article that, as based on the example reviewed, none of the four questions can be answered fully in the affirmative. Instead it is argued that a fundamental review of the ENRECA concept is needed, if this form of assistance may have broader impact, within the national context as well as beyond.

Introduction

In 2000, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs decided to commission a major review of Danish development research based on the ambition, as expressed by the then Minister of Development Cooperation, Jan Troejborg, that “In the future, research will have a much stronger position in Danish aid…” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2001, p. 8). In the Chairman’s Preface to the Commission Report, it is further stated:

“At a time of rapid change in the world, and also about greater uncertainties about future development trends, it was felt opportune to appraise the role of Danish development research sector and the contribution through research, teaching and consultancy to international as well as Danish development goals, and to formulate a new strategic framework for future Danida support to guide participants in the sector.

Hence the Commission was established to learn whether anything could be done to improve learning for policy making in a rapidly changing world” (Ibid., p. 9).

The Commission report is thus based on the observation, that “…the world faces unprecedented challenges and demands for new knowledge”. And the report continues: “…knowledge is growing exponentially. The possibilities are boundless and exciting: in electronics and information technology; in biology and genetics; in materials science; in energy; even in social science.(…) The risks are real that new knowledge will increase world inequality and even deepen poverty” (Ibid., p. 13).

However, when it comes to outlining what the new vision may entail, the ambitions are dramatically reduced. Development research is about meeting development aid needs, reflecting the principles of Denmark’s development policy, and every Danida funded research effort will in the future be expected to underpin and support Danish development aid needs, ensuring an improved aid performance.

This is further corroborated in the official presentation of the overall objective of providing development research as well as in the changes in the Danish institutional development research and grant system, which has been introduced as a follow up on the recommendations made in the Commission report.

In the official presentation of the general objective of funding development research, it is stated:
“Support to development research and building of research capacity in developing countries follow the overall principles of Danish development aid. The purpose is, therefore, to contribute to fighting poverty through the building of new knowledge and capacity within relevant disciplines and areas. Development research is thus not an end in itself, but an instrument directed towards achieving the overall goals” (Research. Presentation of the Danish system of support for development research, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ web site, 2005. Translation mine).

And in the same presentation it is stressed in presenting the role of the new RUF (the Council for Development Research), that it is the objective to “ensure a continuously high professional research quality standards and to strengthen the strategic and instrumental aspects of development research” (Ibid.).

However, within the reform measures introduced following the Commission report, the ENRECA concept for supporting research capacities in the developing world remains as an important vehicle.

The ENRECA concept

The ENRECA programme was the subject of an independent evaluation in 2000. The conclusion of the evaluation was that the programme was found very valuable and the evaluation strongly recommended its main principle of building capacities through twinning should be continued. The evaluation also made a number of recommendations, in particular that closer links between the programme and other Danida funded activities, including sector wide programmes, should be strengthened.

Also the Commission in its report finds that “ENRECA is an innovative programme, but is often not related to the aforementioned programmes (the other Danida funded activities, my remark) and, on its own, is not a sufficient response to the urgent need to strengthen the research and innovation system in Denmark’s partner countries” (The Commission Report, 2001, p. 19).

The Enhancement of Research Capacities in Developing Countries was established by Danida in 1989. It is for Danida a main form of assistance to research and tertiary educational institutions, carrying with is a funding of close to DKK 60 million for nearly 50 different projects, most of which located in a partnership constellation within Danida’s so-called programme countries, and most of which in Africa. The programme includes a widely scattered fields and themes, however projects within health and agriculture being the dominant ones. Typically, an ENRECA programme is expected to have a duration of around 12 years, to ensure sustainability of activities, divided into three four year phases, running with a budget of around DKK 1.5 million per year.

It is the ambition through this partnership, or twinning arrangement, between Danish research institutions and research institutions in the developing world to provide assistance to capacity building at institutional and individual levels. However important the activity is within Danida’s overall assistance to research¹⁹, yet it is a very marginal activity within the overall Danida portfolio.

When the ENRECA programme was conceived, only few at that time discussed the process of globalization or the challenges which this process would pose for the knowledge based economy. In that light, it is obviously not fair to compare the programme, its status, function and outcome to the requirements and challenges of a globalized economy, in which the developing countries with few exceptions generally do not yet take part, yet it is not entirely beyond the point to address this issue seen on the background of the lofty goals and introductory justifications in the Commission Report, quoted above.

But it should be stressed that the ENRECA programme was seen as an instrumental effort in its own right to improve on quality of research and building research capacities as measured by own standards. Still it would also be an additional advantage if such capacity building could assist in ensuring better performance in Danida assisted programmes, although this was not a sine qua non.

The challenge for an ENRECA programme in an African context is no small task. Although highly varying, existing research infrastructure and capabilities are extremely weak, with a tendency also of reflecting different priorities and traditions of the former colonial powers. For instance, assisting primary, secondary, even tertiary, education was a much more given form of policy in former British colonies than it was in former French colonies (where the elite was educated in France at French universities), as reflected in better educational infrastructure established in both Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania²⁰.

To an extent, the situation with regard to teaching and research in Africa also reflects the often more generally made observation that the African continent is on the margins of most things. The optimism and the dramatic growth processes witnessed in South East and South Asia are a far cry from what is seen in Africa. In this context, a main problem seems to be how to avert further marginalization, socio-economic differentiation and global inequities, with Africa still representing the continent so difficult to identify on the bandwagon of growth and prosperity.

Among the pertinent questions to pose could be: How to support capacity building that will assist Africa jumping on the bandwagon? Should some of Danida’s aid priorities be redirected also towards the tertiary educational sector (at present only given priority to primary education, by means of sector programmes in selected programme countries)? And is an ENRECA programme an adequate remedy or instrument to be a factor within this challenge?

Assessing the experience from an ENRECA project in Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso belongs to one of the poorest countries in the world, according to both the World Bank World Development Report and the UNDP Human Development Report. The country is landlocked and heavily dependent on its natural resources for the survival of its inhabitants, most of whom live in a rural setting. The country’s productive resources are extremely limited, with cotton production together with mining as the most important ones. In addition, migrant work in the neighboring coastal nations, such as Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana, are providing vital remittances of cash back to the mainly rural families, ensuring a crucial injection of cash into an economy which is only integrated into the market economy to a limited extent. – Aid provides another vital means for assisting the government in running its investment programmes and ensuring a certain very basic provision of health, education and other social services, as only limited sources of state revenue are present.

The Burkinabe economy is thus highly fragile, and in addition extremely vulnerable to climate variability. Situated on the border of the most drought prone areas in Africa, the Sahel, output from the rural economy is fluctuating widely with rainfall patterns, where only rainfall well above a long-term average may secure the livelihood of its inhabitants, while in periods of weak rainfall, even drought (which is a recurrent phenomenon), poverty and famine may prevail.

It is in part on this background that the current ENRECA project has been formulated, trying to address two main development issues (although at a modest scale, within the financial provisions of the project type): On the one hand, the need to strengthen research, teaching and training within multidisciplinary environmental research, supporting the university departments ability to identify main developmental problems related to environmental degradation within the rural economy, and study these with an intention to be able to address and propose more adequate and suitable solutions to degradation issues. On the other hand, the need to address a basic and more widespread problem in the country, namely that Burkina Faso has only limited human resources at its disposal, taught and trained and with formal degrees enabling them continuously and consistently to educate new cohorts of young graduates, who can further assist the country in its development efforts.

While the situation in Burkina Faso in nearly all aspects is very basic, the general university characteristics are not completely beyond comparison with many other universities in the Francophone area. To a certain extent, at least, it may thus be said that the experience derived from the Danida supported ENRECA project may not be out of tune with the situation characterizing other universities in Francophone West or Central Africa.

The two universities in the country – Universite de Ouagadougou and the Polytechnic University in Bobo Dioulasso – are established within a French academic tradition and have only been in existence for a relatively short span of years, the Polytechnic University in Bobo Dioulasso being the most recent one, established in 1994. Although the two universities in recent years have received support from a number of donors, the funding from government sources are very restrained, salaries to teachers, researchers and other staff are very low, in most cases forcing staff to supplement income from more than one job position or, for researcher and teachers, in doing consultancies²¹, infrastructure provisions at the universities are very basic and the universities have only few among its teaching and research staff with doctoral degrees and employed at professorial levels. This also means that only few doctoral programmes exist, because such programmes require teaching and research staff with qualifications at doctoral/PhD levels. A consequence of this is that continuously, doctoral degrees are frequently sought abroad, in particular in France, the former colonial “mother” country.

The ENRECA project reviewed has tried to address some of the pertinent issues identified above, in connection with the two partner institutes, the Department of Geography at the UFR/SH²² at the University of Ouagadougou, and the Institut of Rural Development at the Polytechnic University at Bobo Dioulasso. The project commenced in 1994 and has been running for two periods, and is now in its final, phasing out stage, ending as of end-2006. The total amount granted for the project by Danida has been in the tune of around DKK 13 million.

Within an overall objective of strengthening multidisciplinary research and education at the two institutions, the ENRECA project has more specifically targeted:

• The creation of a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and Remote Sensing laboratory;
• The introduction of basic as well as more advanced courses in GIS and RS techniques, for students and teachers, trainers and researchers;
• The support to conducting field studies and field surveys for students preparing for their Diploma or Masters work;
• The holding of specialized courses on field work methodology, data treatment techniques, the use of netbased data and literature information; writing skills and (English) language training;
• The support for research conducted by research and teaching staff;
• The participation for research and teaching staff in relevant international conferences, particularly those held in the region;
• The holding at the University of Ouagadougou of regional conferences, presenting outcome of ENRECA supported research;
• The holding of workshops targeting policy decision makers and (Danida) aid personnel;
• The publication in refereed journals and other sources of publication of research results, following the French peer review-system CAMES;
• The jointly pursued research between Danish and Burkinabe partners;
• The support for PhD studies for selected Burkinabe researchers.

The ENRECA project as assessed in a national context

While the ENRECA project by and large has demonstrated that many of the outputs listed in the Project Document have been met, at least to a certain extent, still it may be questioned whether the project is sustainable in the longer term. This aspect has to do with both the way in which the partners and the partner institutions view the project now and beyond the formal termination of the project towards the end of 2006, and the broader national conditions for sustaining an ENRECA kind of project activity.

As already touched upon in the above, the expectations of staff at partner institutions, in particular senior staff, were that the project would enable to make a contribution to the meager salaries paid within the university system, seeing the project more in line with a “social development fund” rather than as a vital career vehicle. This again lead to numerous discussions and conflicts over means and end in the project and surely did not encourage general motivation or levels of activity. As mentioned by a Director attached to one of the institutions when the heating turned on: “This is not the first project of its kind, and certainly will not be the last”.

While these types of discussion left the project management in a role as controllers more than partners, and where the local management team continuously resisted playing its controlling and management role, the whole subject of discussion and controversy should be realized as a real one: No research capacities can be built, which will prove viable and sustainable, unless dedicated and motivated people are in place. Motivation and dedication, however, in a developing world context cannot be separated from the basic fact that even university staff have to live, survive and sustain the livelihood of their families, and if government regulated (university) salary structures do not allow for that (while donor driven consultancy remuneration structures do), then any ENRECA project (in which topping up of salaries are prohibited by the very same donors paying excessive consultancy honoraria) is deemed to run into similar kinds of trouble experienced in the present project. University staff is no more philanthropists than any other salaried personnel!

In this Catch 22 situation, the ENRECA project failed to address a pertinent problem, which in the course of events took over as a main controversial issue, repeated again and again, constraining, even hindering, that outcome of project investments resulted in more convincing – and sustainable results. And to the extent results from the project will be sustained, in particular the GIS and RS laboratory, this is still expected to have an effect primarily within the university system itself, rather than beyond, although in this phasing out stage, in which the project currently is, exactly efforts in trying to market and sell the services and the courses offered by laboratory staff, are seen as a potential income generating device.

But the limitations put on a project of the ENRECA type, situated in a rather typical African context, with low remuneration and incentive structures and with the funding of universities not high on the government budget spending agenda (or given priority by donors generally), these are also the limitations which constrain this form of capacity building in fulfilling their more ideal functions, namely situating such form of assistance in a larger chain structure, reaching from institutes and departments, to university level, and further on to line ministries, addressing not only research per se, but also research policy issues, research administration and, not the least, research results utilization, to the benefit of society at large.

This is an ideal model, which has been discussed for years and on the background of which “good” research assistance to broadly based capacity building in the developing world is measured. Because in this thinking, assistance to building capacities in the “local space”, at university levels, matters little, however valuable it may be seen, if not situated within and influencing the broader, nationally based research infrastructure, chain of management and decision making structures.

Within such a comparison, the ENRECA project in Burkina Faso has failed to live up to such broader national ambitions and objectives. Although the project has not been conceived of in this perspective, still the national macro-economic limitations for both university funding and the maintenance of realistic remuneration and incentive structures for university salaried staff have prevented such broader national ambitions in being met while at the same time casting in doubt prospects for viability and sustainability at university/departmental level itself.

Relations to other Danida funded aid activities

Another measure of relative success would have been if the support to capacity building at the two universities in Burkina Faso had resulted in a much more intimate working relationship with the Danida technical staff at the Danish Embassy in Ouagadougou or resulted in research results feeding directly into relevant Danida funded aid activities.

As may be recalled from the above, exactly this point seeing research capacity building as closely related to other Danida funded activities has been raised as a critical issue in the ENRECA evaluation from 2000, and reiterated as a very important element to remedy in the future, as mentioned in the Commission Report from 2001.

Certain efforts have been made on behalf of the ENRECA project in the course of its lifetime to establish better relations with both the Danish embassy and with Danida funded projects. A number of workshops have been held, presenting outcome of research, to which embassy staff has been invited, together with other stakeholders from both the aid and research community in Ouagadougou. The purpose of these workshops have been, as also reflected in titles of the workshops held, to try to build networks and relationships in order to bridge between research, aid and policy. In addition have ENRECA staff taken the initiative to meet with Danish mission staff, in particular with those professionally responsible for projects within rural development or natural resource management.

With regard to the Danida funded projects in relevant sectors, the ENRECA project has directly established through officially signed Memorandums of Understanding between project management and ENRECA researchers links which were expected to be reasonable committing and resulting in closer collaboration.

In general, such avenues for improved relations and efforts in having research to feed into the policy process have, however, shoved only limited success. The reasons for this may be many.

On the one hand, it may have been the case that the researchers have not been able to communicate effectively their messages, in forms suitable for policy making or project management. Also the researchers may have been reluctant in establishing more formal relations of collaboration in view of the stricter requirements for producing useful results within fixed periods and deadlines. And the researchers may have been viewed as less relevant and qualified to do the jobs requested, compared to others, for instance consultants or consultancy firms.

On the other hand, it seems obvious that on the “recipient” side, the situation is often characterized by excessive work loads and a time (as well as disbursement) squeeze which leave little room for afterthought and experience gathering. Awaiting responses from researchers who often deliver such with certain delays, or demanding more time to dig deeper into problems, which have shown far more complex than anticipated, may not be seen as facilitating collaboration and mutual trust. To this come a turnover in personnel at embassies and projects which in many cases require that efforts in establishing networks and partnerships need to start all over, when such relations have finally been established with some individuals, only to see them transferred to a new posting within a relatively limited time interval.

To conclude, with regard to establishing more synergies and improved, effective working relations between an ENRECA project and stakeholders within the aid, policy making or research community, the experience from Burkina Faso shows, that there is still considerable scope for improvements, and that the recommendations both of the 1990 ENRECA Evaluation and the remarks by the Commission Report in 2001 are still valid.

ENRECA projects: Building capacities to respond to global challenges?

The ENRECA project in Burkina Faso was formulated in the early 1990s and commenced its activities in 1994 at a time where globalization and the quest for feeding into a globalized knowledge economy were still issues which seemed to belong to the future, at least which did not take up as much place in current discussions and rhetoric as to-day. In retrospect, the ENRECA project in Burkina Faso may thus be termed an “ENRECA Classic” project. On this background it may seem ridiculous to try to assess the extent to which an ENRECA project could play a role in such global challenges, even more so an ENRECA project in one of the world’s poorest nations, Burkina Faso.

However, how far-fledged this may seem, still this is a perspective raised in the literature more generally, as a main justification for also this kind of capacity building project. Such views are reflected in the Commission Report quoted above and, for instance, when Thulstrup (1998, p. 90) in his introduction to an article states that “The rapid technological development of recent years has produced numerous research based products without which developing countries will be unable to compete in increasingly global markets. Technological progress has important positive aspects. In many cases the new technologies offer unique development opportunities for countries in the Third World”.

Although the best performing part of the ENRECA project in Burkina Faso consists of the establishment of a well functioning GIS and RS laboratory, using some of the most recently available ecological monitoring technology at a scale useful for university teaching and research purposes, yet it is more than doubtful that this aspect of the project, at least at present, may contribute to Burkina Faso facing some of the challenges posed by an increasingly global economy. This is, however, closely connected to the capacity building project not yet forming part of a wider national capacity effort (as referred to above).

But it is also a result of a way of conceiving research assistance as centered around aid and aid needs, and seeing research strengthening and capacity building as instrumental in assisting aid projects becoming better performers, rather than seeing the support for research as having a value in itself, as contributing to a broader defined economic growth process.

Thulstrup (Ibid., p. 91) touches upon similar aspects, when saying that:

“Research in many developing countries (particularly in Africa) is donor driven. Consequently, the changing relevance of different research fields in a given country is not only of national interest: it is also important for donor agencies.

Many of the large donors still have a strong preference for research capacity building in tropical health, tropical agriculture, and development studies, often applauded by powerful donor country lobbies in the academic environments of these traditional fields. Today, however, it is increasingly clear that the needs for research capacity building in the Third World are much wider”.

Building research capacities in a wider sense means addressing a much more fundamental, even imperative development issue, namely looking critically into prevailing, mainstream development strategies, which are nowadays supported by the whole range of donor agencies, whether multilateral, bilateral, NGOs or any other donor variant, emphasizing the very same development priorities (and often with the very same approaches and means).

Needless to say, aid in support of poverty eradication, support to good governance, democratization, decentralization, empowerment, participation, etc. cannot, and should not, be basically changed, as seen also on the background of the tremendous efforts done by donors and recipient governments alike (and also results coming forward), but why all donors should overcrowd the middle field in a way as of present, seems less obvious and justified. And why support to research capacity building should be perceived of as mainly seen within the same light and scope, aiding aid to perform better, also seems less obvious.

The clear leaning in the Commission Report, and its subsequent adaptation in Danish research policy practice, may here be viewed with particular reservation, because research capacity building will never meet its fundamental societal goal, including building capacities for meeting the challenges of the global economy (not to talk about having a place herein), without seeing capacity building in a broader perspective, more delinked from the specific requirements of the aid sector itself than at present. Seeing research capacity building mainly as mirrored on the requirements of the aid sector seems to be a misleading perspective, at least viewed in a wider national and international perspective.

And instead of mainstreaming all aid towards the common objectives, as set forth in the Millenium Development Goals to be reached by 2015 (however laudable this effort is), a greater variability and experimentation may be warranted, where the economic growth imperative be brought back in. No knowledge based economies may see the light of the day unless economic growth broadly speaking (not only “pro-poor growth”) is (re)introduced, the material productive fundament on which economic sectors develop, creating inter-sectoral linkages through effective demand in one sector for the trade and services in another, creating work places and employment, in domestic as well as export sectors, salaries, demand for consumer goods and taxable incomes with which, eventually, a state revenue can be gained, affording salaries paid based on which families can live and strive, etc., etc. Although this may also be the stated end-goal of much aid programmes, yet the focus is at present not on how best to create dynamic economic growth processes.

For research capacity building to be effective, in support of countries overall growth potential, rather than only assisting aid in becoming better, there seems to be a need for getting beyond poverty reduction per se, in combining efforts in reducing poverty with a fundamentally new drive towards more dynamic and qualitative economic growth processes.

Conclusion

In responding to the four initially posed questions, it may be concluded that in reviewing the ENRECA project in Burkina Faso, many of the objectives set forth have been met, to a certain degree, at least. On this basis, and as compared with other ENRECA projects, outcome of efforts is not insignificant.

At the same has the review shown a number of constraints and difficulties that may be typical for other ENRECA projects as well, which are closely linked to differences in perception of the project, its objectives, ambitions and working modalities. The perceptions of these issues differ widely between partners and tend to create constant problems. Such differences are in particular fostered by prevailing meagre remuneration and incentive structures at universities in the developing world, that make it difficult for research and teaching staff to sustain a decent living. Instead, externally funded research capacity building programmes are often seen as a source of supplementary income generation, rather than – as assumed in the project logic – as a means of improving academic career opportunities.

The assessment above has also shown that the ENRECA project has had limited impact in supporting national research capacity building efforts, although a potential exists within the established GIS and RS laboratory and its technological and human resource means.

While much of the justification for an ENRECA support type of activity is linked to aid practice, in this case linked to Danida funded aid programmes in Burkina Faso, also this aspect has not been faring in a particularly impressive way.

Finally, the ENRECA project has not succeeded in making Burkina Faso able to better respond to the challenges of a global knowledge economy which, however, may also be seen as far out, as this was not targeted in the original conceptualization of the ENRECA project, which may be termed “classic”. Yet, also this aspect ought to be included when formulating new, future research capacity building projects, whether in the form of a modified ENRECA type project, or in inventing completely new forms of assistance.

Thulstrup (1996) is suggesting the following levels, or stages, in a research capacity building effort, reaching from the more basic, partial capacity building within a given field, to a broader national capacity building outcome, seen as the ideal end-goal of research capacity building efforts:

• Partial research capacity in a given field is reached when researchers in that field are able to carry out research at the international level in cooperation with experienced researchers elsewhere;
• Complete research capacity in a given field is reached when researchers are able to perform all aspects of research and related training in the field, from the planning process to the dissemination of results at the international level;
• National research capacity is reached when a country is able to prioritize research activities; to effectively provide support for selected research projects; to monitor and evaluate research; to train, attract, and keep good researchers in the country; to create conducive research environments; and to apply research outcomes – both in the form of research training and results – for national development.

References

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2001: Partnership at the Leading Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development. Copenhagen, the Ministry and Danida.

Forskning (Research). Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site, August 2005.

Thulstrup, E. W., 1996: Strategies for Research Capacity Building through Research Training. In: Thulstrup & Thulstrup, 1996: Research Training for Development, Roskilde University Press,Copenhagen.

Thulstrup, E. W., 1998: Evaluation of research Capacity Building in the Third World. Knowledge and Policy, Winter 1998, vol. 10, issue 4, 90 – 101.

Notes

19 In 2000, the Danida outlay for research amounted to a total of DKK 318 million, of which the contribution to the international CGIAR system amounted to DKK 130 million, the Council for Development Research DKK 49 miillion and contributions to centres and networks a total of DKK 80 million.

20 As an indication of this, Ghana had its first Secondary School built in 1917 in Achimota, feeding into the University of Ghana, Legon (located a kilometer away) constructed as an independence gift from Britain ahead of the formal Independence in 1957.

21 Often such consultancies are paid for by donors, including Danida, at rates which compared to salaries received at the university, may seem excessive, generally disrupting, or at least making it very difficult to maintain an ambition about creating sustainability through full time staff, working full time, fully devoted as well as fully remunerated, at least to an extent where a decent living is ensured.

22 UFR/SH, meaning Unite Formation Recherche/Sciences Humaines, is the organizational form under which former institutes/departments are grouped after a university reform in 2000.

Globalisation of Tertiary Education and Research in Developing Countries – The Malaysian-Danish Experience

by Agamuthu Pariatamby, Professor and Randolph S. Jeremiah, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract

In 2000, the Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development (DANCED) funded a capacity building project at Malaysian universities in environmental management and sustainable development as a second phase of an earlier effort to develop the resource base of Danish universities in assisting developing countries manage their environmental needs. Fifteen academic staff were exposed to education and research in Denmark and over 60 staff participated in various workshops on pedagogical approaches and in technical areas organized with the assistance of Danish universities. Twelve course modules utilizing problem-based methodologies were collaboratively developed among Malaysian universities. These modules, with the extensive use of 38 case studies, have been successfully integrated within numerous master and undergraduate programmes on environmental management and technology. Eighteen joint research projects were funded to support case studies development. Thirty-nine postgraduate students experienced problem-based learning in real-life projects during three joint courses that were organized with students and faculty members from Denmark. These students gained intercultural knowledge and were exposed to Danish teaching methodologies. The courses received enthusiastic response and subsequently two more courses were organized after the project ended. External stakeholders, as the end-user of university graduates, participated in the planning process for course module development and in other project activities whereby they have built their own capacities and a closer relationship with universities has been developed. DANCED’s support framework has also included universities in southern Africa and Thailand. Under this umbrella, a linked network was developed between the 19 universities to support education and research initiatives. Seven research networks were established and now link researchers from these four countries. In 2002, Malaysian academics gained the opportunity of contributing towards a joint declaration on higher education in sustainable development, which was presented at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. Overall, a steady exchange of knowledge and experiences in environmental management was achieved. Malaysian universities have developed better capacity, intra and inter-institutional frameworks for collaborative teaching and research, and mutually recognize each other’s strengths. The relationship with Danish universities is now sustained under new phases of co-operation under projects funded by the European Union and also through other initiatives. From the Malaysian perspective the programme is considered a success in bringing a paradigm shift in teaching methodologies. It has created numerous linkages for career development and a scientific collaboration in research.

Introduction

Demands for tertiary education are increasing in view of the changing social and economic structure in many developing countries including Malaysia. A knowledge-based economy is envisioned as a goal towards achieving a developed nation status and a more competitive economy with less reliance on the industrial and agricultural sectors. With the globalisation of economies, opening of new markets and a higher presence of multinational organisations in many Asian countries, both employer and employee demands for higher qualifications are being experienced. Universities have traditionally played the role of providers of education and although this function remains the same today, graduates have greater expectations for the type of postgraduate education being offered. Universities have acknowledged the need to re-orient their education policies and enhance their capacity not only in re-training academia and in increasing the quality of programmes through the application of new methodologies, techniques and knowledge but also in utilising available tools in information technology and communication. In view of this, the globalisation of education can be seen as a strategy in response to these needs. Globalisation of universities means a growing interdependence and interconnectedness of the globe through increased movement of students and academics across boundaries with the lowering of barriers for their movements and better international communication (Verma, 2004). In a developing country, globalisation of education offers the opportunity of shared access to resources and can encourage the transfer of technology, innovative techniques and methodologies. Overall, this will help fill the gaps in knowledge and increase the capacity of education programmes at institutions within these countries. This paper aims to present some experiences, achievements and lessons learnt from working within an international collaboration aimed at developing the capacity of Malaysian tertiary education. It also poses some challenges for future collaborative activities between institutions especially from developing and developed countries. The Malaysian-Danish collaboration under the Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development (DANCED) programme is used as a case study.

Background

A specific economic framework for financing Danish environmental assistance began as a follow-up to agreed commitments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to assist developing countries in environmental development. A facility for assistance was established in 1993 and the total budget for this facility was expected to reach 0.5 per cent of the GNP by 2005. In 1999, DKK 3.2 billion was allocated and administered under three units: Danish Co-operation for Environment in the Arctic (DANCEA), Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development (DANCED) and Danish Co-operation for Environment in Eastern Europe (DANCEE). The strategy for environmental assistance for developing countries was developed under DANCED and targeted Danish Environmental Assistance (DEA) countries in Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Thailand) and Southern Africa (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland).

In 1998, DANCED provided support to a Danish consortium of universities to undertake a programme to strengthen their resource base for integrating environmental consideration in development planning and facilitating environmental assistance activities targeted at DEA countries by improving and supplementing on-going research activities. The pilot phase of this programme involved the development of relevant and extended curricula at Danish universities to support the traineeship of Danish students at DEA countries and was enhanced by activities such as educational conferences, continued education and increased mobility of students and faculty members.

As the Danish consortium of universities concluded its pilot phase and entered into the consolidation phase, DANCED provided financing to support similar university consortiums in Malaysia, Southern Africa and Thailand. These three university consortiums were established at the end of 2000 and subscribed to similar goals in building the capacity of academic staff and students and developing a resource base in environmental management and sustainable development with more specific targets corresponding to priority areas within the respective countries. The consolidation phase of the Danish consortium of universities was geared towards working in collaboration with these newly established consortiums to support their respective programmes.

The Malaysian-Danish experience

The Malaysian consortium of universities was established in August 2000 and comprised of four public universities: University of Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The objective of the programme was to improve the capacity of master programmes at these universities by developing interdisciplinary and problem-oriented course modules utilising case studies in the field of environmental management and technology. The project drew upon the resources available at the Danish consortium of universities primarily Aalborg University, Roskilde University and the Technical University of Denmark. The main activity under the programme was the collaborative development of twelve masters’ level course modules, which was supported by staff exchange and training programmes, collaborative research activities and interaction with stakeholders. The project was concluded in September 2003 after a 10-month extension period. Some of the main activities in relation to this capacity building experience are described below (MUCED, 2003).

Curriculum development

The core output of the project was the development of course modules based on problem-oriented approaches, which are now being used within masters’ level environmental programmes at the four universities. Twelve common course modules were developed collaboratively between academics from these institutions through a joint effort to utilise resources and expertise available at the respective institutions. The course and case development process was conducted through a series of workshops throughout the project period as well as on an individual team level basis where the course outline was defined and assigned to various team members. Teams consisted of between two to five members from the four local universities.

Relevant material were sourced through the numerous initiatives (study visits to Danish universities, the training workshop series, and the research components) and used within the modules. The physical process of collaborative work with Danish academics was however limited. This can be partly explained by the difficulties in coordinating such a work process between academics from different institutions in different parts of the world. Better information technology and communication tools may play an important role in enhancing the process of knowledge transfer. Malaysian academics were exposed to problem-based methodologies but there was a resistance to step out of “traditional” teaching methodologies. There are still institutional constraints in fully practicing problem-based approaches.

In general, the development of course modules that are collaboratively designed and developed can play an important role in providing curricula an international outlook as well as raising the overall quality, as these modules would be subjected to the educational requirements of all the institutions involved. However, defining commons goals in curriculum development between international institutions can be difficult due to a variety of reasons. For example, the socio-economic environment plays an important role in defining the direction of the national and institutional educational policy in a country and there can be very obvious differences between these needs in developing and developed countries. Similarly, institutions, even within the same country, have programmes that vary in structure, academic objectives and research priorities.

Study visits

Study visits are an integral component in developing collaborative frameworks between institutions in the transfer of knowledge and expertise. These visits can vary depending on the objectives of the visit and the overall scope of a programme. In the context of capacity development at institutions of higher education, some common goals are to explore areas for collaboration, new techniques and methodologies, and establish physical linkages between institutions where training and development can occur. Under this framework, 15 senior academic staff conducted two-week study visits that were aimed at gaining exposure in problem-oriented methodologies in teaching and learning, collecting relevant course material and developing potential areas of research collaboration with Danish counterparts. This was generally achieved although the objective to conduct co-teaching to provide the Malaysian academics hands-on experience in problem-based learning was not possible for all visiting academics. These visits were often shorter in duration than initially planned however obtaining good scheduling between academics and host universities can be a problem due to a variety of reasons which includes variations in semester dates and other schedules. An optimum visit must nevertheless satisfy a sufficient duration of time to achieve the objectives set out and fall within the constraints of available funding.

Prior to visits, sufficient time needs to be allocated for planning and developing the visits between both parties. Although, generally this happens, more scrutiny needs to be put on this to ensure a successful visit. An important part of the experience when visiting a foreign institution comes from intercultural exchanges. This is an important factor when the aim is to integrate foreign curriculum in local programmes. The point of departure in doing this successfully stems from being able to recognise differences in teaching and learning cultures and adapting them accordingly within local programmes and standards.

Training workshops

The training component of the project was developed to support capacity development of the academic staff at the universities. It was primarily aimed at providing hands-on training and academic resources for the course development process both on methodological approaches in teaching and learning, and specific areas of focus on environmental management and technology. Workshops were conducted on problem-based learning, teaching methodologies, and module writing specifically to assist team members in preparing their modules. In addition, short courses and workshops were organised with the participation of resource personnel from the Danish universities in the areas of Environmental Economics, Environmental Ethics, Environmental Impact Assessment, Environmental Modeling, Occupational Safety & Health, Solid Waste Management, Water Recycling & Reuse, and Water Treatment Processes. Over 60 academic staff from various Malaysian universities participated in this programme.

In general, these workshops facilitated an active exchange of information among local academics and Danish resource personnel in understanding the problems and constraints in a local context, comparing differences of these scenarios with that in Denmark and exploring new ideas and methodologies. As part of the project objectives, the participation of stakeholders were continually encouraged and these workshops were well attended by representatives from numerous research bodies, government institutions, industries, non-governmental bodies, community-based organisations etc. This also provided a valuable experience for local academics and initiated a multi-level stakeholder dialogue, which is recognised as an essential process of solving environmental problems. External stakeholders, especially non-governmental bodies and community-based organisations gained an opportunity to build their own capacities and a closer relationship with the universities was developed.

Overall, these workshops provided an excellent ground for capacity development and are an efficient solution in training a large number of personnel. By developing a relevant training programme, based on specific objectives, the collaboration with international trainers and resource personnel can effectively support international development of curricula and in research. These programmes can be more effective if they can be integrated within existing training programmes on long-term basis.

Research activities

Within the project, research activities were conducted to support the course development component particularly to establish case studies for the twelve course modules. Funding for research was limited, however existing research funding available within the Malaysian universities complemented overall research activities. A total of 29 local case studies were developed for these modules by local academics and 18 joint research projects were established. Only limited input on this was gained from Danish academics particularly due to limited funding available to establish joint projects, time constraints and scheduling to develop and coordinate these projects, and the overall focus of the project objectives and activities which was different between consortiums.

Collaboration between the consortiums was gradually developed and supported research networks between Malaysian and Danish academics as well as academics from the other consortium universities in Botswana, South Africa and Thailand. Seven research networks were established within the project period as follows, and represented the participation of 19 universities:

1. Critical Comparative Environmental Impact Assessment
2. Environmental Management Perspectives
3. Public Participation in Environmental Projects
4. Chemical Assessment of the Environment
5. Management of Resources in Urban Areas and Industries, Focus on Nutrient Recycling
6. Water Resource Management
7. Energy Planning and Technological Development

Joint field courses

Joint field courses are intensive three-week problem-based courses that are developed collaboratively between Danish and Malaysian academicians. Three joint field courses were organised from 2002 to 2004 in Malaysia on themes ranging from public participation to environmental planning, management and regulation. About 25 to 30 postgraduate students from Danish and Malaysian institutions participate in each course, which consist of one-week of lectures supplemented with field trips and two-week group project work. In total 39 students from Malaysian universities participated in these courses. Joint field courses are a means to introduce innovative teaching techniques, inter-disciplinary and problem-oriented approaches, and intercultural learning both for students and educators from these countries (Wangel et al., 2003).

The planning process for developing and implementing joint courses is an important element in organising a successful course. Course material needs to be developed collaboratively as individual academicians or institutions may have different expectations for their students. In this respect, curriculum will also need to cater to both student target groups, as different educational cultures (Wangel et al., 2003) can become very apparent when students come from a variety of educational backgrounds and nationalities. To level the playing field, introductory courses on local culture and socio-economy, intercultural learning, field research techniques and methodologies etc. play an important role in preparing students for group project work on real-life case studies within a foreign setting. Language is often a barrier to intercultural learning and this is also evident for group project work where communication between students becomes essential (Bregnhøj, 2003). However, this was not a very apparent factor in Malaysia as students from Denmark and Malaysia have sufficient command of the English language.

Overall joint field courses were a useful and unique experience for student and academic staff development. The pedagogical approach of working on real-life problems is a challenging and rewarding learning process that was previously not experienced by Malaysian students and academicians. In addition, intercultural exchanges between participants often go beyond the classroom, which itself is an invaluable learning experience. The exposure of Malaysian educators to innovative teaching and field research methodologies play an important role in building the academic capacity of local institutions on an international level. As a result, two more courses were organized.

To sustain a working programme, joint field courses need to be integrated within normal study programmes at participating universities. This would further entail allocating sufficient credit hours and schedules as semester dates vary greatly at different universities. Universities also need to develop sufficient funding and resources, internally or externally, to support and strengthen these collaborative frameworks. Host universities also play an important role in building relationships with external stakeholders i.e. research bodies, government institutions, industries, non-governmental bodies, community-based organisations etc. to support curriculum and student project work process.

Traineeship and field studies (TFS) programme

The Traineeship and Field Studies (TFS) programme was one of the main activities of the Danish consortium of universities during its pilot and consolidation phase. The aim was to train Danish students in interdisciplinary and problem-oriented project work through field studies in one of the partner consortium countries. Both a local and Danish supervisor supervised students during their three to six month stay where students experienced working on real-life problems within the social and cultural limitations of a developing country. A total of 56 students from Danish universities completed projects in Malaysia from late 1999 to mid-2004.

The TFS programme had its greatest impact on the students themselves. The experience has been enriching in terms of developing intercultural skills, hands-on experience in the area of study and increasing new knowledge. On the local side, the co-supervision of students has facilitated a physical exchange of dialogue and knowledge between the local and Danish supervisors. This can be translated into joint publications, development of new collaborative research projects and networks, as well future student supervision.

The co-supervision of TFS students exposed local supervisors to new concepts and ideas that have developed into teaching and research projects (DUCED-I&UA, 2004). This has been a two-way learning experience for both students and supervisors. Malaysian supervisors gain from experiencing how these students work which may be very different from that of local students especially in problem-based approaches and qualitative research methods. This provides a greater insight not only on how to develop new and interesting projects but also on specific techniques that are being applied. TFS students also interact at varying levels with local students where similar exchanges as well as cultural occur.

A linked university network

As an extension to the project activities of the four university consortiums in Denmark, Malaysia, Southern Africa and Thailand, a linked university network, LUCED-I&UA (Linked University Consortium for Environment and Development – Industry and Urban Areas) was developed in 2000 with the aim of coordinating mutually benefiting activities among all consortiums by prescribing common goals in education and research and intensifying collaborative frameworks. In August 2000, the first conference was held in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa in preparation of project implementation of the four consortiums. As a resolution to this conference, agreements were reached on the scope and direction of the education and research programmes i.e. staff and student exchanges, inter-disciplinary education programmes, collaborative research networks, and stakeholder participation. Subsequently, in December 2000, a workshop on research, education and planning was held in Copenhagen, Denmark as a further discussion on these items. The seven research networks that have been discussed above are a result of this as well as the frameworks for communication and collaboration between institutions.

A noteworthy achievement of the linked university network was the preparation of a joint declaration on higher education and research for sustainable development, which was presented at the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002. This was a unique opportunity for the linked university consortium to showcase the experiences of partnerships in education and research capacity building for sustainable development. A pre-summit conference was held in Kasane, Botswana in preparation of this declaration and other outputs including a publication titled “Beyond the Summit: The Role of Universities in the Search for Sustainable Futures” and a video on “Problem-Based Learning: Critical Teaching for Sustainable Development” which highlights how universities can contribute towards sustainable development.

As a climax to the projects, an international conference in Environmental Management & Technology was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia in August 2003. The aim of this conference was to collate and disseminate the wealth of experience gained through collaborative research networks and funded projects as a step towards strengthening and sustaining collaboration within the linked university network and all other relevant stakeholders. A total of 152 delegates from Botswana, Denmark, Malaysia, Thailand and South Africa attended this conference. Ninety-two papers were presented at the conference and a total of 28 of these papers were subsequently published in the Malaysian Journal of Science.

Project impact

This programme encapsulated a unique working model of inter-institutional cooperation in developing appropriate strategies in enhancing curriculum and the capacity of academics and postgraduate students through staff exchanges, training programmes and research networks at the Malaysian universities. Although it is difficult to quantify the overall impact of the programme especially in problem-based methodologies, this pilot programme serves an important learning experience for a large number of academics at the universities in collaborative networks of educational and research within an international setting. A rich exchange of different intercultural approaches and knowledge has taken place as well as a better understanding of the different needs and requirements of each country. These experiences are an important aspect of bridging tertiary education between Malaysia and Denmark and ultimately will lead to better opportunities for cooperation and the internationalisation of academic programmes.

As a result of this collaboration, prior to the end of the project period, two projects under the European Union’s Asia Information Technology and Communication (Asia IT&C) and Asian University Network Programme (AUNP) were commissioned involving Danish and Malaysian universities. The first on “Virtual Open-Access Network for Education & Training” between partners in Spain and Thailand and the second on “Water-Based Cities” with partners in Thailand. In addition to this, an Asia-Link project on “Problem-Oriented Project Based Learning in Environmental Management & Technology” with a new partner in Netherlands is expected to begin in mid-2005 and will be sustained till mid-2007.

Conclusion

cultural and socio-economic differences between institutions in different countries and regions. It is acknowledgement of what these differences mean in terms of the diverse resources available that can support the expansion of educational programmes. Universities in developing countries need to reorient their educational policies to build upon an international outlook in education and research priorities. The differences in funding capabilities between developing and developed countries will most often be a major barrier towards collaborative education and research unless external funds are sourced. The objectives for collaboration therefore need to be clear, transparent and should be mutually beneficial. Developing countries should not be used merely as training grounds for universities from developed countries or frontiers for new exploration for education, development or research purposes. There must be a commitment towards a shared responsibility for overcoming geographical boundaries in providing all students the ability to gain the best educational training available.

References

Bregnhøj, H., 2003. Preparations For The First Field Study: The Impact Of Working In Mixed-Culture Groups. Proceedings Of The International Conference on Environmental Management & Technology: A Clean Environment Towards Sustainable Development, 4 - 6 August 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Danish University Consortium for Environment and Development – Industry and Urban Areas (DUCED-I&UA), 2004. Traineeship and Field Studies (TFS) Summary Report, Danida Journal No. 104.M.7923
Linked University Consortium for Environment and Development – Industry and Urban Areas (LUCED-I&UA), 2004. Joint Research Summary Report, Danida Journal No. 104.M.79

Malaysian University Consortium for Environment and Development – Industry and Urban (MUCED-I&UA), 2003. Capacity Building in Education, Training and Research in Industry and Urban Areas in Malaysia: Completion Report, DANCED File No. 123/324-0139

Verma, R.B.S., 2004. University Education in the Era of Globalization: Some Challenges. Paper presented at the International Conference on Postgraduate Education, 26 - 27 May 2004, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

Wangel, A., J. Stærdahl, K. B. Pedersen and Maimon Abdullah, 2003. Learning By Knowledge Networking Across Cultures: The Experience Of Joint Courses In Environmental Studies For Malaysian And Danish Engineering And Science Students. Proceedings Of The International Conference on Environmental Management & Technology: A Clean Environment Towards Sustainable Development, 4 - 6 August 2003, Putrajaya, Malaysia

Capacity Building for Higher Education in Developing Countries – A Part of the Western World University Portfolio?

by Stig Enemark, Professor, Aalborg University

Abstract

“Higher education is the modern world’s basic education, but many countries are falling further and further behind”. This quote from a recent World Bank publication indicates that the role of the universities as a key driver for societal development is now widely recognized and included in the donor policies. However, donor projects are not easy to organize in this area, and the role of the western universities in this area is not easy to identify.

The paper presents a case study from Mozambique dealing with a World Bank project in Higher Education. The project was focused on qualitative reforms in the teaching and learning process in selected faculties at three public universities in Mozambique. The objective was to increase the use of student centered, project-oriented approaches, integrated with computer use, and to provide measurable increase in the proportion of students that pass rather than fail the course.

A pilot project was carried out by a Danish university consortium with the purpose of developing a full scale project to be agreed and implemented as a part of the total World Bank project. However, in spite of the fact that the project was very well received and agreed by all parties, the funding problem was never solved due to a lack of cooperation and mutual understanding between the key stakeholders in both donor and recipient countries.

The paper presents the lessons learnt in this regard. There is a need to develop a cross-sectoral understanding at national level in the donor countries in order to merge the interests of the universities, the Ministry of Science/Education and the national/international donor agencies.

It is argued that capacity building for higher education in developing countries should be a generally accepted part of the university strategy portfolio and be supported by the relevant stakeholders such as donor agencies, ministries and the trade and industries. It is important that such capacity building activities are seen as not only a key driver for societal development in the recipient countries, but also as a necessity for facilitating the building of relevant international capacity and institutional innovation in the donor countries. It is a process of mutual benefit for both recipient and donor countries.

Introduction

Higher education is increasingly seen as a priority in the policies of aid agencies such as the World Bank. It is increasingly understood that “Higher education is the modern world’s basic education, but many countries are falling further and further behind” and it is understood that “Higher education is no longer a luxury, it is essential for survival” (World Bank, 2000).

The world’s economy is changing as knowledge supplants physical capital as a source of present and future wealth. As knowledge becomes more important, so does higher education. Therefore, the quality of knowledge generated through higher education institutions, and its availability to the wider economy, is becoming increasingly critical to national competitiveness.

This poses a serious challenge to the developing world. Since many decades, most national governments and international donors have focused on primary education as a means to attain the goal of poverty reduction, while investments in higher education were considered to be less important and less beneficial to promote development. As a result, higher education systems in developing countries are under great strain.

It is argued that urgent action to expand the quantity and improve the quality of higher education in developing countries should be a top development priority. The strengths of all players, public and private, must be used, with the international community at last emerging to provide strong and coordinated support and leadership in this critical area. (World Bank, 2000).

This paper provides an insight into the needs for implementing this new agenda. The paper presents a case study from Mozambique dealing with a World Bank project in Higher Education. A pilot project was carried out by a Danish university consortium with the purpose of developing a full scale project to be agreed and implemented as a part of the total World Bank project. The case study shows that such donor projects are not easy to organize, and the role of the western world universities within such projects is not easy to identify.

Capacity building for Higher Education in Developing Countries is a complex area. It is a an on-going process that must be based on a national priority and a holistic historical analysis of the national system of higher education and its contribution to social, economic and political development. The analysis should establish clear goals and offer the ability to balance strategic direction by viewing the higher education system as a whole, determining what each part can contribute to the public good.

The role of the western universities is to facilitate this process of capacity building. This must be driven by strategic policy approaches and not solely through market driven consultancy activities. Capacity building in higher education is a two-way activity that must be seen as a necessity also in the developed countries. This calls for combined efforts of organizing the policies and priorities in both donor and recipient countries.

Case study: Mozambique

Mozambique gained its independency (from Portugal) in 1975. From the 80´s onwards, Mozambique faced a long period of economic crises, political and military instability and a civil war that ended in 1992 followed by the country’s first multiparty election in 1994.

Mozambique is located along the south-eastern coast of Africa with an area of around 800,000 sq km. It is bordered to the north by Tanzania, to the north-west by Malawi and Zambia, to the west by Zimbabwe and to the south-west and south by Swaziland and South Africa. To the east, the country is bordered by the Indian Ocean, with a coastline of almost 3,000 km.

Administratively, Mozambique is divided into 10 provinces. The capital city, Maputo, has a dominant position in terms of economic and educational conditions, and for that it also has the statute of a province. Maputo has about 1 million inhabitants while the total population in Mozambique is 16.5 million of which about 50 per cent is under 15 years. Portuguese is the official language even if it is the mother tongue of less then 2 per cent of the population.

At the end of 1992, Mozambique was classified the poorest country in the world. In the second half of the 1990´s, however, it has achieved one of the fastest rates of economic growth that has exceeded 10 per cent per year. Still, Mozambique remains an extremely poor country with an average per capita GDP of about 220 USD, and with about 70 per cent of the population living below the poverty line. The country is heavily reliant on external development assistance that in recent years has represented about 40 per cent of the total annual Government budget (Republic of Mozambique, 2000).

Higher education in Mozambique

The higher education system reflects the country’s history. At first there was only one university, established 1962 and offering courses modeled on the Portuguese system. In 1976 it was renamed into Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM) having Doctor Eduardo Mondlane as patron in honor of his multifaceted stature of nationalist, political leader and academician. During the civil war coverage remained limited. After the peace agreement 1992 UEM remained the main provider of higher education. In 1985 the Pedagogic Higher Institute was created out of the Faculty of Education at UEM as a response to the needs of raising the entry level of the students. In 1995 it was renamed the Pedagogic University (UP). There are currently ten Higher Education Institutions (HEI´s) in Mozambique as shown in the table below. The average ratio of students to full-time equivalent staff is about ten.

Institute of Transport and Communication Maputo

Due to the structure of the studies, it is difficult to estimate meaningful rates of graduation. However, at the two main public universities, the rate of graduates compared to the admission five years earlier seems to be around 50 per cent. The reasons for this low rate can be summarized in three categories:

• Institutional: poor linkages between secondary and tertiary education; inadequate curricula and teaching methods; poor planning; no research supporting the teaching; and poor infrastructure including libraries and ICT.
• Individual: teachers may not be well prepared and are too busy because of “moonlighting” activities; students in their turn may have problems of adaptation to the university life; self-exclusion; insufficient study and time management skills.
• External: Opportunities for jobs before graduation; and financial problems due to poverty and adverse social conditions. (Republic of Mozambique, 2000).

Government strategy

In October 1998 a Strategic Plan of Education (1999-2003) for Mozambique was approved. This plan sets out perspectives for the global development of the educational sector and covers in detail primary education and teacher training, and with less detail the secondary and technical education, and very little for the higher education system.

As a consequence, the Minister of Education established a consultancy task force with objective to analyze the present situation of Higher Education in Mozambique and to propose a ten-year strategic plan for this sub-sector in consonance with the strategic plan approved for the Education Sector, defining objectives, structure, scope, financing and governance.

Signaling the seriousness of its intent to address these issues, the government formed a new Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology (MESCT) January 2000. This accelerated the resulting report “Analysis of the Current Situation of Higher Education in Mozambique” (Republic of Mozambique, 2000) and the preparation of the National Strategic Plan for Higher Education 2001-2010”. The strategic plan was approved by the council of Ministers in August 2000 and forms the basis for a variety of initiatives undertaken in Mozambique higher education.

This was followed by a detailed plan of operation approved by the same body in July 2001 resulting in a ten-year program aimed at nation wide strengthening of Higher Education in Mozambique. The World Bank is one of the partners supporting the implementation of the ten-year national program through a 35 million USD project. The development objectives of this Higher Education project (HEP) are to:

• Enhance internal efficiency and expand the output of the graduates,
• Improve equitable efficiency (gender, location, and socio-economic), and
• Improve the quality of the teaching-learning process and the relevance of the curriculum.

The key performance indicators include: An increase in the absolute number of students graduating in all HEI´s (from 786 in 2000 to 1,500 in 2006); an increase in the number of students from the North and Center of the country (from 10 to 15 per cent and 30-35 per cent respectively in 2006; an increase in the admission to total enrolment rate from 16.3 to 18.3 per cent (20 per cent is ideal) by 2006; Furthermore, Curriculum changes in selected faculties should show evidence of increased use of new and updated materials and computers for information gathering and data analysis; and, finally, qualitative reforms in the teaching-learning process, in selected faculties, that provide strong evidence of an increase in the use of student centered, project-oriented approaches, integrated with computer use, and providing a measurable increase in the proportion who pass rather than fail the course. (World Bank, Project Appraisal Document, 2002).

A pilot project was undertaken by a Danish University Consortium in relation to the performance indicator regarding the implementation of “qualitative reforms in the teaching-learning process by the use of student centered, project-oriented approaches”.

The contact was established at a visit to the World Bank for promoting the Danish expertise with regard to educational consulting. The Danish University Consortium DUCED (Danish University Consortium for Environmental Development that includes seven universities in Denmark) was represented at this visit and presented their experience in educational co-operation with universities in Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland, Malaysia and Thailand under the DANCED program funded by the Danish Government. This program also includes the use of student centered and project-organized approaches, and DUCED was therefore invited to undertake a pilot study as a basis for designing a full scale project for implementing a curriculum reform in Mozambique through the use of Problem Based Learning approaches. The pilot project was then organized through funding of 100.000 USD from the Danish trust funds at the World Bank.

The project team was established to include also a representative from the UNESCO Centre for Problem Based Learning at Aalborg University (UCPBL), and from the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, in total a team of four persons.

The Team visited Mozambique at three missions conducted in November 2002, August and November 2003 to establish modalities for institutional partnering between Danish and Mozambican universities under the umbrella of the government’s strategic plan for higher education in Mozambique. The consultancy was commissioned by the World Bank as a preparatory investigation with regard to introducing a Problem-Based and Project-Oriented Learning Approach to higher education of Mozambique. The Terms of Reference, were specifically developed for this purpose.

The three missions undertaken in preparation of the PBL-Program dealt with the following issues:

• Fact-finding and identification of potential piloting partners (Mission 0, one week, November 2002).
• Profiling the faculties identified, preparing for a PBL-workshop and having initial negotiations between the ministries (Mission 1, one week, August 2003).
• Conducting the PBL workshop and following-up with selected faculties and MESCT (Mission 2, one week, November 2003).

The outcome

The final report presenting the proposal for a full scale project was presented and discussed at a fourth mission June 2004. The proposal was prepared in cooperation with the Mozambique implementation group and included ten faculties in total (seven from UEM, two from UP and one from ISRI). The project is designed for eight years with a total budget of 8 million USD. The project is designed to take place at three levels of action to be carried out in three phases as shown in the diagram below (Enemark 2004).

The faculty level is the operational/professional level concerning implementation of new educational and pedagogical methodologies at the pilot faculties. Student centered and project-organized approaches will be applied through course and curricula development in accordance with the demands of the specific professional areas. This level should be addressed through twinning arrangements between the pilot faculties and corresponding faculties in Denmark (and, possibly, Southern Africa).

The pedagogical development level is the organizational/conceptual level concerning the implementation of educational models and organizational structures in relation to student-centered and project-oriented approaches. This will aim to foster the developmental university through interaction with the outside world such as the trade and industries. This level should be addressed through cooperation between the institutions responsible for educational development at the universities involved.

The systems development level is the most general level of analysis concerning the role of the universities within the society, the statutory framework, and the cultural basis. This will include development of relevant measures for resource and quality management. This level should be addressed with assistance from the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in cooperation with the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology in Mozambique.

The phasing of the project into a two year inception phase, a three year program development phase, and a three year consolidation phase will ensure that mutual reviews are carried out prior to commencement of each phase in order to determine whether the program shall proceed.

The final project proposal was very well received by all parties: the faculties, the universities, the Ministry, and the World Bank. It was agreed that the project meets the current needs of the universities. It would enhance the quality and relevance of higher education in Mozambique, and it would fulfill the aim and objectives in the strategic plan and the World Bank project with regard to the implantation of qualitative reforms in the teaching-learning process. Concerns were raised about the duration of the project and the level of budget, and with regard to the proportion being allocated outside the country. With regard to the funding situation it was stated, that the new funds must be generated possibly by the Danish International Development Agency (Danida) if the project were to be implemented using Danish universities´ consultancy assistance. This would follow the general procedure that country donors pay.

It was intended that a memorandum of understanding be elaborated and signed as a result of the fourth mission as a basis for implementing the full scale project. However, this was postponed due to the problems of funding the project.

The funding issue

During the missions, concerns were raised several times regarding the issue of funding such a project. From the very beginning it was indicated, that the full scale program should be realized through the funding from the World Bank credit. As discussions went on, this turned out to be a matter of opinion. At a certain stage the Moz. Minister indicated, that the credit was supposed to support activities within Mozambique and was not to be used on foreign consultancies. A project like the one we were discussing was expected to be funded by national donors such as Danida and not through the WB credit. This statement is of course understandable, even if it is not in line with the understanding of which the pilot project was initiated. Furthermore, it is well known that projects in the sector of tertiary education are not included in Danida´s overall development policy and strategic action planning.

At the same time, other projects were ongoing in Mozambique regarding quality assurance for higher education, concepts of Problem Based Learning, and concepts of university financial management. These projects were funded by the Dutch and Swedish national aid agencies and were not directly related to the overall World Bank project.

In this perspective, it looks strange that a high quality strategic plan for higher education like the one in Mozambique is not linked into an internationally agreed policy of funding that accounts for the various activities. The World Bank indicated that efforts would be made to establish the necessary funding from various donors (including Danida) but so far without any positive results. The Danish project team, this way, ended up to be responsible for acquisition of funding the project. This is, however, not considered a part of the general portfolio of the Danish universities.

In conclusion, the proposal prepared by the Danish team was not initiated due to the lack of (Danish) donor funding for implementation.

Lessons learnt

Capacity building support is urgently needed for higher education in developing countries. However, such projects are always a two-way activity. Capacity building projects, therefore, must be rooted in an organizational framework in the donor country. To develop such a framework in Denmark should be considered for several reasons:

• To support developing countries through capacity building in their home country and thereby underpin the concept of developmental universities that base their priorities, curricula and research on the structural needs of society and actively address those needs.
• To enable and support active cooperation with universities in the developing countries and thereby compensate for the new policy of introducing tuition fee for students from the third world to study in DK.
• To support and further develop the efforts of internationalization at the Danish universities and thereby better understand the role of and the basic conditions for higher education and research in the modern global world.
• To enable Danish universities to take part and compete on equal conditions on the global market of consulting services within tertiary education and thereby support the wider aims of the Danish foreign policies.

Conclusions and recommendations

There is a need to commence the discussion of the role of the Danish Universities with regard to capacity building for higher education in developing countries. This is a political issue and the relevant stakeholders (the universities, the Ministry of Science, Danida, and also the trade and industries) will have to look at this from a modern and holistic view based on a more corporate responsibility.

The universities in the donor countries are not generally entrepreneurs in the sense of acting on a global market of consulting. Market oriented consultancies may be interesting for individual academics in certain professional areas with the aim of developing professional understanding and new knowledge through participating as professional experts in donor projects undertaken by the international development banks and individual country development assistance agencies. But basically, the universities are focusing on education and research as their prime activities, and this does not include market oriented consultancies.

The capacity building activities therefore must be organized as a corporate effort of all relevant stakeholders. Such capacity building activities for higher education in developing countries are at the heart of the objectives of the western world universities. This kind of consultancy or reciprocity cooperation is the direct way to voice the need for internationalization and globalization at the Western universities. And at the same time it is the direct way to support and increase innovation in the developing countries. It is, as such, a win-win situation.

Beautiful Mozambique. Photo: Stig Enemark.

References

Brito, L. (2002): Speech at the UNESCO Conference on Higher Education, Oslo.

Enemark, S., Jorgensen, H.L., Muller, J., and Meinert, M. (2004): The PBL Program – Developing Innovative Higher Education in Mozambique. Final Report from a Danish University Consultancy.

Kjersdam, F. and Enemark, S.: The Aalborg Experiment – Project innovation in University Education. Aalborg University Press, 1994.

Republic of Mozambique (2000): Analysis of the Current Situation of Higher Education in Mozambique.

World Bank (2000): Higher Education in Developing Countries – Peril and Promises. Published for The Task Force on Higher Education and Society by the World Bank. Washington.

World Bank (2002): Project Appraisal Document, Higher Education Project Mozambique.

This page is included in the publication "Capacity Building in Higher Education and Research on a Global Scale"
© The Ministry of Education 2006