Content uploaded by Terje I. Vaaland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Terje I. Vaaland on Mar 03, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education + Training
Can industry-university linkages stimulate student employability?
Esther Ishengoma Terje I. Vaaland
Article information:
To cite this document:
Esther Ishengoma Terje I. Vaaland , (2016),"Can industry-university linkages stimulate student employability?", Education +
Training , Vol. 58 Iss 1 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-11-2014-0137
Downloaded on: 23 November 2015, At: 04:17 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Robin Bell, (2016),"Unpacking the link between entrepreneurialism and employability: An assessment of the relationship
between entrepreneurial attitudes and likelihood of graduate employment in a professional field", Education + Training, Vol.
58 Iss 1 pp. -
Stephen McMurray, Matthew Dutton, Ronald McQuaid, Alec Richard, (2016),"Employer demands from business graduates",
Education + Training, Vol. 58 Iss 1 pp. -
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:314473 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Can Industry-University Linkages stimulate student employability?
Acknowledgement: We thank two anonymous reviewers for highly relevant comments and
suggestions on this paper. This study is partly funded by financial contributions from Statoil Tanzania.
Statoil employees have, amongst other participated as informants from the industrial side of the UIL.
Introduction
Developing countries are facing challenges in relation to unemployment. A soaring number of highly
educated people are therefore unemployable (Nuwagaba, 2012), while unemployment of graduates is a
rising trend (Mbah, 2014). This situation is associated with a lack of competitive skills demanded
within the labour market (Nuwagaba, 2012). Paradoxically, many of these countries also have an
excess of natural resources, e.g. oil, gas and minerals. These resources are very attractive to foreign
companies, usually multinational enterprises (MNEs), which have both the resources and motives to
improve the work-life relevancy of the higher knowledge sector.
Foreign-based companies and suppliers are highly involved in the exploration and exploitation of
natural resources in African countries. Whereas the mining industry has been continuously ongoing for
hundreds of years, the petroleum industry is relatively new to sub-Saharan nations. Oil and gas nations
such as Nigeria, Angola, Libya and Algeria have involved MNEs in the exploration and exploitation
of oil and gas resources for decades. Like these countries, new oil and gas nations such as Ghana,
Uganda, Tanzania and Mozambique are facing new challenges in applying natural resources as a
means of creating national wealth. Regardless of the maturity and technological content in the
industry, foreign MNEs increasingly face explicit expectations to involve local suppliers in the
petroleum value chain, and to recruit local people for the benefit of the host nation (Vaaland and
Owusu, 2013). However, like many emerging petroleum and mining nations, the industrial base has a
long way to go in order to be qualified as internationally competent suppliers, and to provide the
industry with highly skilled human capacities. In the early stages of the development of the petroleum
and mining sector in particular, the capacity to meet professional industry requirements is likely to be
low, especially in countries that lack an industrial base (Tordo et al., 2013). Indeed, the Tanzanian
government acknowledges the presence of skill shortages across the extractive industry (particularly
with oil and gas) value chain, although it still requires the MNEs to involve Tanzanians as their
workers and suppliers (United Republic of Tanzania – URT, 2014). It further challenges higher
learning institutions in their role to meet industrial expectations by training and educating young
people, although it acknowledges their shortages of experienced faculty members with specialized
skills in extractive industry, particularly oil and gas. It calls for partnerships with MNEs in enhancing
universities for building the competencies of Tanzanians to enable them participate in the extractive
industry as suppliers of labour, services and material inputs.
To help meet their obligations (i.e. to offer relevant education and skills for the industry) and respond
to the government call, some universities in emerging economies have established collaborative
arrangements with the industry in terms of university-industry linkages (UILs). These linkages can be
defined as interactions between all parts of the higher educational system and industrializing economy
(Ankrah et al., 2013). Many scholars (e.g. Hansen and Lehmann, 2006; Feng et al., 2011) argue that
partnerships between universities, business and civil society are prerequisites for improved economic
development. Furthermore, changes in the global economy have enabled the requirement for
flexibility, adaptability and innovation, which have led to new education and training demands in
order to be competitive (Ramdass, 2012). Many studies of UIL and their effect on economic
development have been carried out in a highly industrialized country context. Ankrah et al. (2013)
provide a list of 57 empirical studies of an academic engagement with industry between 1990 and
2011, and none of these applies a developing country context. Studies by, e.g. Alpert et al. (2009),
Perkmann et al. (2011) and Afonso et al. (2012) were conducted in relatively advanced countries,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
where universities possess a strong infrastructure for conducting research and development activities,
adequately skilled personnel and the availability of financial resources. In this context, one can assume
a more symmetrical power balance between the industry and the university, compared to the
developing country. Most of the universities in emerging economies in Africa, including Tanzania,
suffer from a weak learning and research infrastructure, limited skilled personnel and insufficient
research funds (Mpehongwa, 2013; Makulilo, 2012). The perceptions of key stakeholders (i.e.
students, industry and faculty members) on the various effects of UILs activities are therefore likely to
differ from those in developed countries.
Most of the empirical studies on UILs in developing countries have focused on factors that determined
the nature and presence of UILs. Oyebisi et al. (1996) evaluated the strength of UILs in Nigeria and
revealed established UILs in consultancy activities and limited UILs in research activities, which were
associated with, among others, a lack of institutional support. Schiller and Liefner (2007) assessed the
effects of funding reform on the development of UILs in Thailand and their benefits. They revealed
that a cut in public spending in universities has stimulated the development of UILs, though the
financial benefits to universities and the technological benefits to the industry were limited.
Brimble
and Doner’s (2007) study of UILs in the same country indicates the presence of weak to modest UILs
because of a lack of incentives and institutional support. Alves et al. (2007) claim that mind-set
divergences between academia and industry significantly hamper cooperation. Based on a survey of
faculty members in Bolivian universities, Vega-Jurando et al. (2008) also identify constraints
hampering the development of UILs. A more recent study of UILs in Tanzania by Mpehongwa (2013)
also focuses on the challenges faced in the establishment of UILs.
Other empirical studies of UILs reveal the presence of strong UILs and their potential for economic
development. Goosen et al. (2001) reveal that the presence of strong UILs in Oman could be related to
the presence of modern facilities in universities and the design of undergraduate programmes that
incorporated industrial training and universities’ policy related to the provision of training to industrial
and government personnel.
Based on a survey of 80 students in selected universities in Palestine, Rabayah and Sartawi (2008)
assessed the relationship between UILs (practical training in information and communication
technology) on students’/trainees’ future career and employability. They reported that the practical
training programme had a positive effect on employability, as more than 50% of trainees acquired the
jobs after the training. The current paper differs from the study by Rabayah and Sartawi (2008) since
the former focused on the three categories of UILs (education/training, consultancy and research),
while the latter focused on one component of UILs in training only. Hence, it is impossible to identify
which of the UILs activities are more important than others.
Based on a survey of 120 organizations that offered placement for industrial training in Ghana,
Ayarkwa et al. (2011) assessed the performance of students during the industrial training and the
effectiveness or design of the training. They revealed a high potential for students to acquire new skills
during the training, which could enhance their employability after the completion of their studies. Like
Rabayah and Sartawi (2008), this study focused on one component of UILs activities in
training/education that was based on the perceptions of the industry only.
Based on expert interviews and literature, Afonso et al. (2012) investigated UILs in Spain (albeit not a
developing country), claiming that that the participation of industry professionals in postgraduate
courses and students’ internships in companies are the UIL activities with the greatest impact on
employability.
Faced with the pressure to meet local content, and the need to produce skilled and competent people to
help facilitate the attainment of local content, both multinational companies in mining and petroleum
and local universities in Tanzania have established UILs in different spheres. Nevertheless, the types
of UIL activities with a strong positive effect on students’ employability, through equipping them with
the proper skills, competencies and attitude, are unknown.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Thus, the aim of the paper is to identify the most important UIL activities for enhancing employability
among university students as perceived from three major stakeholders: the student, the faculty member
and the industry. These are the same set of stakeholders applied in the study of Bhanugopan and Fish
(2009) investigating graduate employability and UILs in a developing country context. The industry
informants are basically recruited from large foreign- or joint-venture companies involved in the oil
and gas and mining sectors, because they are assumed to possess both the capabilities and resources of
relevance to UIL activities, as well as motives for investing in these activities. The focus is not about
the existence of UILs, nor about factors hampering or stimulating UILs, but rather the perceived value
of various linkage activities in enhancing student employability.
The rest of the paper is organized into six sections. First, a literature review is provided that covers
three aspects of UILs followed by methodology. In the third section, findings are presented and then
discussed in the fourth section. In the fifth section, implications are suggested, before the last section
concludes the paper.
Literature review
The role of the main actors in the linkages
A highly-skilled labour force that has the ability to employ new knowledge, technologies, business
improvement methodologies, and ultimately the addition of value to existing goods and services, is
developed through a broad general higher education system (Ramdass, 2012). Schuetze (2001) argues
that universities are primarily educational institutions that produce highly educated graduates. In line
with this view, Vega-Jurando et al. (2008) describe three training models related to the university:
Traditional universities build students’ skills, both conceptual and practical alike, through traditional
lectures, tutorials, seminars and workshops. Academic theories are connected to “simulated practice”
or real business cases; nonetheless, this model has received heavy criticism as being inadequate to
prepare students for modern work (Ball, 1995). In line with this, McIlveen and Pensiero (2008),
Bhanugopan and Fish (2009), Afonso et al. (2012), Nuwagaba (2012) and Torres-Machi et al. (2013)
all claim that university training is posed with an increasing challenge in adapting degrees, teaching
contents and training methods in order to meet industry demands.
Others argue that even though these
programmes provide graduates with a mix of skills and competencies required by the business world, a
large number of businesses have a wide spectrum of differing requirements. Therefore, it is impossible
to fully satisfy the training needs of all sectors (Vega-Jurado et al., 2008). Another framework
facilitates industry-academia interaction through bringing into the classroom business
managers/owners who bring in real issues that are current and significant to the company (ibid). One
of the impediments is a limited number of businesses willing to participate, not to mention interaction
challenges and hurdles between students and business personnel (ibid, Brimble and Doner, 2007).
A third model is to enable the acquisition of professional competence through separate institutions
positioned in close proximity to the university campus, so as to help facilitate student and faculty
access to its resources and to promote collaboration (Rabayah and Sartawi, 2008). This solution helps
to prevent academia from incorporating industry-specific courses, and keeps their neutrality and
conceptual-centric content intact. The content is tailor-made packages in cooperation with industry,
which provides more flexibility in meeting the changing demands and ideas identified by industries
(Vega-Jurado et al., 2008).
The continuing discussion of the role of universities has led to the introduction of the triple helix
system, in which universities are viewed as sources of regional economic development, as the
university assumes a crucial role in societies beyond its traditional functions (Etzkowitz, 2002; Saad et
al., 2008). Universities have emerged as central actors in the knowledge-based economy, no longer
confined to their traditional roles of teaching and conducting primary research (Hamdan et al., 2011),
and it is further argued that there is a growing demand on academic institutions to live up to this
expectation (Saad et al., 2008). The triple helix of relationships between university, industry and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
government could be expected to enhance the relevance of universities to developing countries as
agents of innovation and sustainable development (ibid). Developing countries should consequently
address the question of drawing a balance between the traditional objectives of skill development and
the objective of enforcing technological progress (Saad and Zawdie, 2011). In accordance with this
argument, Hamdan et al. (2011) emphasize that universities need to interact with others in order to be
relevant and progressive, and claim that a symbiotic relationship between industry and universities can
help foster economic development. It is necessary for the university to collaborate with industry to
combine efforts fostering the diffusion of knowledge.
The industry is the other main party in the UILs. The local industrial base in a developing country
context is hampered by small-scale disadvantages and a lack of operational efficiency (OECD, 2005).
Furthermore, weak organizational structures and formalities in business processes lead to a significant
gap between expectations from MNEs and the realities of indigenous firms. Hence, the indigenous
industrial actors is assumed to have limited resources to deploy into UILs
However, the industrial base also includes foreign companies, often large multinationals, and some
indigenous larger enterprises with both the resources and motives to invest in UIL linkages, not least
within energy and mining industries. “Big oil” realizes that their license to operate in this context is
dependent on a mutuality and interdependencies with society. These interdependencies can be
illustrated by initiatives from the host country in terms of local content requirements (Vaaland and
Owusu, 2013), in which the foreign company is required to: (1) include local companies in their value
chain or actively improve their capabilities and competitive power through qualifying programmes,
and (2) employ a locally skilled workforce in their operations (Tordo et al., 2013). In this perspective,
the foreign company is required to comply with formal expectations as a “license to operate” in the
country. But there is one additional argument for investing in UILs: Attractive exploration and
exploitation licenses are not solely based on technological/economic criteria, but also on how the
company contributes to capacity building within the host country. These initiatives are labelled as
social investments, and are included in the corporate social responsibility schemes of the companies.
The interdependencies with the “resource owner” and the “foreign agent” can thus be motivated by
both requirements and compliance, in addition to corporate social responsibility. Both motivations can
lead to UIL relationships of benefit to the university, as well as to the foreign company. In addition to
motives to invest in the knowledge sector, they also possess valuable technological and managerial
capabilities and resources that can add value to the knowledge sector of the host country. For the
universities, access to technological skills, systems, processes and business attitudes developed in an
international competitive environment can add significant knowledge elements into a host country
university if they are included in UIL activities.
In sum, the MNEs (and associated foreign suppliers), and possibly a few indigenous larger competitive
enterprises (if any) as well, both have motives to invest in UIL linkages and resources of value to
learning and training institutions.
Forms of UILs
Goosen et al.’s (2001) investigation of UIL linkages in Oman suggests three areas of activities,
namely: research and development projects, technical training and short courses and graduate
education. Brimble and Doner (2007) follow a similar categorization by suggesting three modality
groups of UIL linkages corresponding to the three broad missions of the university sector: (1) training
and education-related activities, (2) the provision of services and other consulting activities, and (3)
research-related activities. The content of these categories will be presented in the following based on
a brief summary of the literature.
Training and education-related activities include visits by students to industrial premises and the
organization of career talks by industrialists for university graduates (Suraweera, 1985). A second
group can be labelled as student working experience programmes or university-student internships, in
which the student, as an organized part of the educational programme, works in the company for a few
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
months under joint faculty/industry supervision (Goosen et al., 2001; Ayarkwa et al., 2012; Hamdan et
al., 2011; Alpert et al., 2009). This could also be organized as vacation employment and provision to
do research projects on industrial premises (Suraweera, 1985). A third sub-group of activities is to
involve industrial practitioners in teaching assignments through part-time assignments (Goosen et al.,
2001; Oyebisi et al., 1996; Suraweera, 1985; Toor and Ofori, 2008). Lastly, the UIL linkages can
include the organization of short refresher courses for industry personnel (Suraweera, 1985).
Services and other consulting activities can include initiatives to provide faculty members with
industrial experience through sabbatical arrangements (Oyebisi et al., 1996) or lecturers spending
short periods working in the industry (Suraweera, 1985). Others bring in personnel from industry for
helping to formulate specific university courses (ibid) and assistance in designing curriculum (Oyebisi
et al., 1996). In a third sub-group, the university provides simple technological support and advice to
firms (Vega-Jurado et al., 2008; Suraweera, 1985) or carries out feasibility reports and analytical
assignments (Oyebisi et al., 1996; Hamdan et al., 2011). Lastly, a more mutual contribution includes
the co-arrangements of workshops, conferences and seminars (Oyebisi et al., 1996; Hamdan et al.,
2011).
Research-related activities include joint research, contract research and the interchange of research
personnel (Hamdan et al., 2011; Vega-Jurado et al., 2008), which implies collaboration between a
university scientist and his counterpart in industry (Suraweera, 1985). A second group is related to
sharing physical assets such as equipment, facilities and application packages between the parties
(Oyebisi et al., 1996; Suraweera, 1985).
The literature also indicates a fourth group of UIL linkage activities that do not directly address
specific activities, but rather a more passive industrial sponsorship role: activity-based sponsoring.
Through this type of UIL support, the university is expected to develop educational capabilities and
activities through grants, gifts and donations (Surawera, 1985). This group includes sponsoring public
lectures, seminars, conferences and symposia, books and other publications, postgraduates, the
provision of fellowships or research grants for university staff, prizes, awards and competitions by
industry for students, not to mention more passive forms of donations such as endowments for
buildings and grants for the purchase of equipment to the university. The modalities of UIL linkages
are summarized in Appendix 1.
Student employability and the UILs
Employability is a concept associated with some definitional challenges. One is that the required
“skills” and “personal attributes” are likely to vary across the several stages of the employment
relationship. For example, the recruitment stage might require attributes other than the later stages of
the employment. It is therefore difficult to fully align curriculum/programmes with employability
(Bhanugopan and Fish, 2009). One narrow definition of employability is “…the possession by an
individual of the qualities and competencies required to meet the changing needs of employers and
customers, and thereby help to realise his or her aspirations and potential in work” (Lindsay, 2009, p.
43). In the following, we apply the broader definition suggested by Lindsay (2009, p. 49):
“Employability is defined as the possession by an individual of the capacity to gain employment,
sustain employment and make progress, in terms of personal and/or career development, while in
employment. The individual’s possession of this capacity is related to a number of inter-connected
individual factors, personal circumstances and external factors.”
The notion of graduate employability is increasingly relevant to institutions of higher learning and for
the industry, which demands graduates who can readily transfer into the workforce and effectively
demonstrate their employability skills (Atlay and Harris, 2000; McIlveen and Pensiero, 2008).
McIlveen and Pensiero (2008) emphasize the value of UILs toward the goal of improving graduates’
transition into the workforce, whereas student employability (in South Africa) has become an
important indicator of educational quality (Maharasoa and Hay, 2001). Mbah’s (2014) study from
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Cameroon addresses the importance of how the university and its educational system can help foster
graduate employability and improve a fragile economy. Nuwagaba (2012) finds that a soaring number
of highly educated people (in Uganda) are unemployable due to a lack of competitive skills demanded
in the labour market. In sum, the overall quality of the university and more specific student-related
activities are highly relevant and attached to graduate employability, particularly in a developing
country context.
Several studies emphasize the importance of a combination of students’ wider attributes and skills,
alongside their subject knowledge and academic skills, in order to be of immediate value to
prospective employers and enhance employability (Torres-Machi et al., 2013; Bhanugopan and Fish,
2009). The fundamental issue is how skills and personal attributes are developed through exposure to
various “learning experiences” (Bhanugopan and Fish, 2009).
These gaps between what the attributes of the student is offering after years in the university learning
domain, and the work-life demand, can be reduced by UILs. The gaps can indirectly be reduced
through collaborative research and consulting activities, but the gap can be reduced even more directly
through collaborative training and educational activities that affect the individual student (Torres-
Machi et al., 2013). Such activities can include customizing education and training to serve the needs
of the job market (Nuwagaba, 2012), and the improvement of practical and entrepreneurial skills
(Mbah, 2014).
Not all “employability”-inducing activities at a university are related to industry. Mbah’s (2014) study
from Cameroon emphasizes an inadequate student counselling that leads to students selecting the
wrong academic programmes in relation to market demand, or a pure absence of relevant programmes,
courses and subjects requested from potential employers.
Even though the MNEs and large industrial actors have a significant role in enhancing graduate
employability, some studies (e.g. McIlveen and Pensiero, 2008) emphasize the importance of engaging
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which have traditionally have been unfamiliar with- or
unable to enter the graduate recruitment market. Given the weak indigenous industrial base in
developing countries, the potential for actively engaging small local enterprises in UILs should be
considered.
The three modality groups of UIL activities and perceived effects on student employability can be
summarized in the following conceptual model:
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Methodology
The target population included employees representing the views of extractive companies, students
and faculty members from the University of Dar es Salaam and Ardhi University. More specifically,
the students and faculty members targeted were involved in academic programmes categorized into
social science (viz. business administration and economics) and mining, natural and applied science
(viz., mining engineering, mineral processing engineering, geology, engineering geology and
environmental science and technology). The selection of these programmes was based on the fact that
Collaborative training and
educational activities
Collaborative research
activities
Collaborative consulting
activities
Student e
mployability
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
they have some linkages with the resource-extraction companies and are therefore relevant for the
focus of this study, as it focused on the extractive industry. The duration for selected programmes in
social science is three years, while for those in engineering, natural and applied science, it is four
years. According to the University of Dar es Salaam’s regulations, students in selected social science
programmes are required to do their three months of practical training in companies, among which
could be the extractive companies. Students in these programmes also have very active associations
that organize exchange forums and work closely with companies. Students in engineering, natural and
applied science are required to do industrial training at the end of each of their first three academic
years. In line with their field of study, they get placement in extractive companies. As a result, the
target students for data collection were those in either the third or fourth year of their studies or in the
first year of full-time postgraduate programmes. Students in the second year of full-time postgraduate
programmes had left the university compounds for the writing of theses during the time when the data
was collected.
Tanzania has four of the oldest universities in Africa (viz., the University of Dar es Salaam, which has
been involved in nurturing all public universities in Tanzania, Ardhi University, the Sokoine
University of Agriculture and the Muhimbili Health Science). The latter two have nothing to do with
the extractive (mining, oil and gas) industry, while other universities are young and depend on
manpower from the University of Dar es Salaam. Thus, the study focused on the University of Dar es
Salaam and Ardhi University because they are the oldest institutions in Tanzania, have some
programmes related to the extractive industry and would therefore have more experience in UILs,
which would enable their staff and students to offer reliable perspectives about the role of UILs in
enhancing employability and innovation. Moreover, the choice of students in their postgraduate- and
final year (i.e. at least in the third year) of undergraduate studies is based on the assumption that with
their experience in their studies, seminars, workshops and internships in companies, they would be
able to provide objective and accurate perspectives about the role of UILs.
In 2014, there were 203 faculty members from the two universities in target programmes as instructors
and researchers, of which 121 were in social science and the rest in engineering, natural and applied
science (Table 1). In the same year, there were 720 students either in their third year or postgraduate
students in selected programmes in social science, while there were 320 in selected programmes in
engineering, natural and applied science, thereby comprising a total of 1,040 students. A list of faculty
members and students was provided by the administration offices of target departments. Based on the
lists, a simple random sampling was applied to select 100 lecturers (i.e. 49% of target lecturers) and
235 students (22% of target students) (Table 1). There was a deliberate attempt made to have more
academic members and students from engineering, natural and applied science. One hundred
employees from 20 extractive companies were targeted for data collection, though due to a lack of a
sampling framework for companies in the extractive industry operating in Tanzania, we compiled a
list of 20 firms from the website of the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (www.tpdc-
tz.com) and that of the Tanzania Chamber of Minerals and Energy (www.tcme.or.tz). The
management of the 20 companies was approached for the data collection, which selected the
employees who provided their views that represented the perspectives of the companies. Therefore, 69
employees (with at least one respondent from each of the 20 companies) filled in the questionnaire,
with the paper utilizing data from 404 respondents (Table 1).
------PLEASE SET IN TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE----
As indicated in Table 1, respondents in the three categories (students, faculty members and company
employees) were from the field of social science (29%) and engineering, natural or applied science
(71%). Approximately 54% percent of respondents were males, while the rest were females. Twenty-
nine percent of faculty members (academics) were professors or senior lecturers, whereas 79 were
lecturers or assistant lecturers. The respondents from the companies were Tanzanians (94%) and
foreigners (6%).
Based on Brimble and Doner’s (2007) framework, the UIL activities were categorized into three areas:
training and education, service and consulting activities and research. Using a structured questionnaire
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
(see Appendix 2), data collection was done by asking respondents to indicate (rate) their perceptions
on the importance of UIL activities in enhancing employability. The ratings were done on a Likert
scale of 1-5, in which a score 5 = strongly agree, a score 4 = agree, a score 3 = neutral, a score 2=
disagree and a score 1 = strongly disagree. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, whereby
mean scores for each factor were estimated and used to rank the importance of factors. Because
responses/values on factors/variables for UIL activities were not normally distributed, a Kruskal-
Wallis test, which is an alternative to a one-way ANOVA test, was applied to establish the existence
of overall differences in perceptions among the three categories of respondents. Furthermore, the
Mann-Whitney U–test, which is an alternative to a t-test, was used to determine whether the
perceptions of respondents whose academic background was social science differed from those whose
background was engineering, natural and applied science. The test for the distribution of responses
from students, employees and academics was carried out, and the results (not reported in this paper)
show that the distributions for all the activities were similarly skewed to the right for all three groups.
Findings
UILs in training, employability effect
Comparing the perceptions among students, employees (industry) and academics about the importance
of UIL activities under training reveals some interesting results. The Kruskal-Wallis test shows that
there are very significant differences (p < 0.01) on the perceptions of students, industry and academics
as to the importance of all UILs in training activities on employability (Table 2, Panel 1).
Descriptive statistics (means) indicate that the industry has a strong opinion on the importance of all
UIL training activities in enhancing the employability of students, as their average scores in all
activities are above 4. Students have weak perceptions on the importance of all UIL training activities
in enhancing employability, with their average scores ranging between 3.99 (slightly below agree) and
3.53 (slightly above neutral). Academics have strong opinions on the importance of three UIL training
activities (internship, practical training and practical support) on employability and a weak perception
of the last three activities.
------PLEASE SET IN TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE----
Results on the ranking of the importance of training activities on employability also reveal interesting
results, in which the ranking for four out of the six activities for students and academics were similar,
while the industry ranking is quite different for the two groups. Academics and students perceive
student internships in companies and the practical training of students in industry premises as first and
second, respectively, while the industry perceives them as being second and third. These results square
well with the findings by Alpert et al. (2009), which revealed that academics and students had very
strong opinions that the purpose of the internship programme should be to enhance the placement
opportunities of interning students more than the industry does.
Strong disagreement appears on the importance of short-term training to Small- and Medium-sized
Enterprises (SMEs) in enhancing employability since industry has a strong perception of this and is
ranked number 1, while the academics and students have a weak opinion of it and is ranked number 4.
The industry respondents indicate that systematic competence building activities (i.e. short-term
courses) targeted toward indigenous companies may breed the ground for future student recruitment.
On the other hand, the university informants seem to be more reluctant to this type of activity for
leveraging student employability.
It is also interesting to see that the inclusion of guest lecturers from industry into the classrooms seems
to be only modestly appreciated, particularly from the perspectives of the students.
Table 2, Panel 2 further presents the results comparing the perceptions of respondents with a
discipline background in social science, and those in engineering, natural and applied science. The
results reveal that the respondents in the two groups ranked the importance of UILs activities
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
similarly. Although respondents with a background in social science disciplines had a stronger
opinion in four out of six UILs activities than their counterparts, there was a significant difference (p <
0.05) in one activity (industrially experienced lecturers) only.
UILs in consultancy services, employability effect:
Regarding the importance of consultancy activities in enhancing student employability, the Kruskal-
Wallis test reveals that there are significant differences (p < 0.05) on the perceptions of students,
companies and faculties (Table 3, Panel 1).
Similar to the findings on UIL training activities, descriptive statistics (means) indicate that the
industry has a strong opinion on the importance of all UIL consultancy activities in enhancing
employability, as their average scores in all activities are above 4. With the exception of joint projects
between students and industry, students have weak perceptions on the importance of other UIL
consultancy activities in enhancing employability, as their average scores were below 4 (Table 3,
Panel 1). Academics have a strong opinion on the importance of joint projects between students and
industry, seminars/conferences and curriculum development, and a weak opinion on sabbatical
arrangements and lecturers’ engagement in industry consultancies in enhancing employability.
Industry assistance in modernizing and developing university curricula and programmes is regarded as
the second most valuable consultancy activity (4.13), which is especially appreciated by industry and
faculty informants, though appearing among the students with some reluctance.
------PLEASE SET IN TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE----
Although the perceptions of students and academics on the importance of consultancy activities in
enhancing employability differ significantly, they appear to position the activities in a similar pattern.
Students, academics and industry seem to strongly agree with the importance of joint projects between
industry and students in enhancing employability, as the activity is placed at numbers 1 and 2.
Students, academics and industry place consultancy assignments by faculty members at number 4
when it comes to its role in enhancing employability.
It is also interesting to see that sabbatical arrangements, in which faculty members gain practical
experience from industry, and presumably more relevant teaching, are not appreciated very much by
students for enhancing their job opportunities.
A further analysis comparing the perceptions of respondents on UIL activities in consultancy based on
discipline background still reveal respondents with a social science background to have a strong
opinion in 4 out of 5 activities (Table 3, Panel 2). The Mann-Whitney U–test showed that respondents
with a social science background had a stronger opinion on the importance of sabbatical arrangements,
in which university teachers spend time in the local industry or abroad, at seminars and conferences
arranged jointly by faculty and industry and with joint projects between students and industry than
their counterparts, and the differences between the opinion of the two groups were statistically
significant (p < 0.05). The ranking of the activities (except for the joint projects between students and
industry) was also different. While respondents with a social science background ranked seminars and
conferences arranged jointly by faculty and industry as second, their counterparts ranked it as third.
Respondents with an engineering, natural and applied science background had a stronger opinion on
the importance of industry assistance in modernizing and developing university curricula and
programmes in enhancing students’ employability than those with a social science background. The
former ranked the activity at number 2, whereas the latter ranked it at number 3.
UIL in research, employability effect
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test comparing the perceptions of students, industry and academics on
the role of UIL research activities in enhancing employability reveal that there are significant
differences (p < 0.05) among the three groups (Table 4, Panel 1).
Descriptive statistics (means) show that students have weak perceptions on the importance of research
activities in enhancing employability (Table 4). Similar to the findings on UIL training and
consultancy activities, the industry strongly believes that all UIL research activities improve
employability, with their average scores in all activities being above 4. They strongly believe that joint
industry-university research increases student employability. Surprisingly, academics and students
have a weak opinion on the role of the sharing of specialized resources in enhancing employability. A
further analysis based on the discipline background of respondents may offer additional information,
as those in the social science departments of universities may have a weak opinion because they do not
need highly specialized research facilities, while those in the natural and applied science departments
of universities may have a strong opinion (see Perkmann et al., 2011).
------PLEASE SET IN TABLE 4 ABOUT HERE----
The results on the ranking of UIL research activities demonstrate interesting results. Based on average
scores, students’ positioning of all research activities was very similar to that of industry, but quite
different from that of academics. An incongruence in positioning appears in the ranking of joint
industry-university research, which is placed second by academics, but fifth and fourth by students and
industry, respectively. Moreover, academics place the sharing of research facilities in fifth place,
though students and industry place them third. While students and industry place research for local
companies at number 1, academics place it at number 3.
Results comparing the perceptions of respondents based on discipline background reveal that those
with an engineering, natural and applied science background had a stronger opinion on the sharing of
specialized equipment than those with a social science background, although the difference among
them was statistically insignificant. On the other hand, the latter had a stronger opinion on joint
industry-university research than the former group, but the difference was weakly significant. The two
groups of respondents ranked the two research activities similarly.
Engineering, natural and applied science disciplines require labs comprising standard up-to-date
equipment for learning and research. Universities in Tanzania and other developing countries have
limited research funds, and are therefore unable to keep their labs with up-to-date equipment. Hence,
the sharing of specialized equipment with multinational companies in the extractive industry seems the
best option for enhancing the quality of education and research, and thus, the employability of
students.
Discussion
Importance of UILs in general
The results indicate that UILs are considered important. The lowest mean value among all UIL
activities is 3.7 (guest lecturers from industry) on a scale from 1-5. Most of the other activities are in
the 4-5 range, which clearly confirm the importance of UILs. This is not surprising in comparison with
previous studies on UILs (i.e. Goosen et al., 2001; Hansen and Lehmann, 2006; Vega-Jurado et al.,
2008; Hamdan et al., 2011; Ayarkwa et al., 2011; Afonso et al., 2012). These studies employed a
broader set of effects than employability, but all types of UILs have an implication on the “quality” of
the university and its output, in which the attractiveness of the students in the labour market is but one
crucial indicator.
We suggest that all UIL activities produce some effect on student employability, directly and
indirectly depending on whether the activity is specifically targeting the student, e.g. student
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
internships, or more indirectly in terms of influencing curriculum, joint research or efforts to
“industrialize” faculty towards industrial relevance and needs.
However, the motives behind UILs may differ among the stakeholders. The industry might be focused
on accessing graduates ready to fit into existing institutional frames and processes. One challenge here
is that these “motives” could be significantly different between a MNE investing in a UIL, and a
Tanzanian local firm attempting to meet international standards and a certain level of competitiveness.
The faculty’s motives for UILs can be to access industry resources for improving infrastructure and
capacities, without losing their academic independence (see Vega-Jurado et al., 2008). The student’s
motives are assumed to particularly appreciate UILs in improving their likelihood of immediate
employment. In sum, the challenge is to develop UILs to sustain a triple-helix in such a way that the
output from the university really improves human capital for economic development in a developing
country.
Differences between the three modality groups
Our findings indicate that all three modality groups play a significant role in enhancing employability.
Student internships and practical training in industry premises (education and training), joint student-
industry projects and industry assistance in modernizing curricula (consultancy services) and joint
industry-university research (research) are ranked highest among all UIL activities. These findings
corresponds with, e.g. Goosen et al. (2001), Afonso et al., (2012) and Ayarkwa et al. (2011), who
emphasize the importance of applying both direct student-oriented- and more indirect mechanisms (in
all three modality groups) to help enhance employability. We would still intuitively argue that in order
to enhance student employability, UIL activities directly involving the student should be the focus in
the short run.
The most important UILs
Student internships in companies, in the uppermost cases this refers to MNEs having formalized
internship programmes, are considered to be the most important activity (mean=4.22). These
internships are closely related to the second activity, which allows students to have practical training at
industry premises (mean=4.18). These activities receive the strongest support by both industry and
faculty, with a somewhat lower perceived effect from the students. This can be explained by a lack of
experience and understanding of how working life is outside the university, particularly in relation to
how foreign companies can provide experience for the enhancement of employment opportunities.
Joint projects between industry and students are also perceived as an important vehicle for
employability (mean=4.19). Activities can include a wide range of sub-activities such as students
carrying out specific assignments from industry and student-facilitated arrangements, in which
industry interacts with students outside the boundaries of the specific company.
The boundaries between an internship, schemes for practical training in firms and students carrying
out assignments for the industry are blurred and difficult to distinguish. An internship might contain
specific student assignments and vice versa. Hence, it might be relevant to label these activities and
schemes as internships.
The significance of internships compared to other UIL activities corresponds with findings in previous
studies (e.g. Vega-Jurado et al., 2008; Rabayah and Sartawi, 2008; Hansen and Lehman, 2006). Even
so, it should be noted that the ability to actually realize the potential of internships rests on the
assumption that these are formalized and attached to supervision from faculty and from the host
organization in order to have the desired effect (Afonso et al., 2012; Ayarkwa et al., 2011).
Internships with whom?
Our findings correspond with prior studies in that various forms of internships are considered to be the
most important UIL activity, especially when it directly improves employability. We have taken the
assumption that the industry side of the UILs is MNEs and large joint ventures with local industry,
which again welcome students into organized internship programmes. In this case, the main purpose is
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
to expose the students to a competitive environment that embraces internationally recognized tools,
business processes, organizational structures and technology. In the end, the graduating student can
improve attractiveness to local employers and improve the competitive power of the local industry.
This implies that the UILs are primarily supplying competencies from the firm to the student.
But can UILs also include “weak” local firms competitive-wise as an internship actor? In other words,
one can argue that the equation can be altered from a student adopting “global competencies” from the
MNE to bringing their university-earned skills into improvement processes in local firms, and thus
improve their employability. This from student to firm view is in line with McIlveen and Pansiero
(2008), who emphasize the importance of engaging SMEs traditionally unfamiliar or unable to enter
the graduate recruitment market, into UILs. For example, based on their existing theoretical and
conceptual skills as a part of an internship scheme to improve the marketing function in a “weak”
SME, a business student can introduce a formalized market analysis or help introduce computer
software. These skills are based on international literature and textbooks applied in the curriculum. In
accordance with this perspective, the UILs are supplying competencies from the student to the local
firm, most frequently with SMEs.
This further implies that internship programmes as part of UILs should have two distinct different
features in a resource-rich developing country. The UILs and internships can be illustrated in Figure 2:
Figure 2: UIL internship modes
MNE
STUDENT
UNIVERSITY
LOCAL SME
We propose that UILs in a developing country should include both internship adoption strategies and
internship diffusion strategies. These strategies differ from where the origin of the skill transfer is
located, either in the firm or in the university. Both strategies imply students being supported by
mentoring arrangements in line with the studies of Rabayah and Sartawi (2008), Ayarkwa et al. (2011)
and Afonso et al. (2012). We define the internship adoption strategy as “a student internship scheme
in which the dominant feature is to adopt existing skills and attitudes from the firm to the student in
order to improve employability”. The internship diffusion strategy is defined as “a student internship
scheme in which the dominant feature is to diffuse skills from the student to the local firm in order to
improve the competitiveness of the firm and improve employability”. The goal of the diffusion
strategy is to also improve employability, and to improve the competitiveness of the local firm. By
introducing both sets of internships, the university moves towards what Hansen and Lehman (2006)
label “university as a development hub”.
Implications
Based on the perceptions of UIL activities within the context of a resource-rich developing country,
four implications are suggested:
1. The university should stimulate UILs through organizational arrangements and targeted strategies to
attract both MNEs and local businesses. Barriers identified in prior studies, such as e.g. Brimble and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Doner (2007), Vega-Jurado et al. (2008) and Hamdan et al. (2011), should be reduced. This further
implies that the university should target the establishment of internships in the short run, and over time
develop other sets of UIL mechanisms. The internships should cover both adoption (for the MNE) and
diffusion strategies (for the local SME).
2. The MNEs - The MNEs should develop operational plans for the inclusion of students in internships
as part of their local content compliance and “license to operate” in a broad sense. To establish a
university liaison officer will help in reducing barriers towards university bureaucracy. Finally,
activities should be prioritized over money. The local firm plays a primary role in an internship
diffusion strategy, and should engage in student- or university-initiated internship proposals.
3. Through students organizations, students should establish relationships with local partner firms and
offer practical assistance in subjects that can improve the local SME, for example to assist in
developing business plans and budgeting.
4. Policy makers should expand the domain of local content requirements toward MNEs and other
foreign firms to include contributions through UIL linkages, and hence improve the competitiveness of
local firms and inclusion in an internationalized supply chain. Furthermore, universities should be
required to present plans to reduce barriers between universities and the labour market, while still
maintaining its ethos of fostering academic rigour and quality.
Conclusion
This paper aimed at describing various types of activities within UILs, thereby suggesting the most
relevant UIL activities in a developing country, based on the perspectives of both the university and
the foreign company. The results indicate that the most effective UIL activities that enhance students’
employability are student internships, joint student-industry projects and industry influence on
modernizing curricula and programmes. It is suggested that internship programmes should be targeted
toward two stakeholder groups in the industry, the foreign MNE and the local firms. Adoption and
diffusion internship strategies are suggested for foreign companies and for local firms, respectively, as
vehicles for increasing employability.
The findings should be interpreted with some caution, in the sense that the questionnaire addressing
the employability effects of UIL activities does not clearly distinguish between employability in the
foreign company versus employability in local SMEs. Furthermore, not all developing countries
having rich natural resources hold a strategic position sufficient to motivate MNEs to invest in UILs.
However, this weakness is considered as a minor point in the overall set of findings.
Starting with a rhetorical question, this study has indicated that UILs can help improve employability.
By designing efficient and sustainable UIL activities, the potential gain from the country’s natural
resources can contribute to economic growth through employable human capital.
References
Afonso, A., Ramirez, J. and Diaz-Puente, J.M. (2012), “University- industry cooperation in the
education domain to foster competitiveness and employment”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 46, pp. 3947-3953.
Alpert, F., Heaney, J.-G. and Kuhn, K.-A. (2009), “Internships in marketing: Goals, structures and
assessment - Student, company and academic perspectives”, Australasian Marketing Journal, Vol.
17, pp. 36-45.
Alves, J., Marques, M.J. and Saur-Amaral, I. (2007), “Co-ownership active interfaces between
academia and industry”, European Planning Studies, Vol.15, No. 9, pp.1233-1246.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Atlay, M. and Harris, R. (2000), An Institutional Approach to Developing Students’ “Transferable
Skills”, Innovations in Education & Training International, Vol. 37 (1).
Ayarkwa, J, Adinyira, E. and Osei-Asibey, D. (2011), “Industrial training of construction students:
Perceptions of training organizations in Ghana”, Education and Training, Vol. 54, Nos. 2/3, pp.
234-249.
Ball, S. (1995),”Enriching student learning through innovative real-life exercises”, Education +
Training, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 18-25.
Bhanugopan, R. and Fish, A. (2009), “Achieving graduate employability through consensus in the
South Pacific island nation.” Education + Training, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 108-123.
Brimble, P. and Doner, R.F. (2007), “University-Industry Linkages and Economic Development: The
Case of Thailand”, World Development, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 1021-1036.
CRES (2008), “Skills shortages in the global oil and gas industry: How to close the gap”, CRES and
the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, available at
http://www.cres.ch/Documents/SKILLS%20SHORTAGE%20PART%20I%20pdf.pdf. (accessed
August 20
th
, 2014).
Etzkowitz, H. (2002), “Networks of innovation: Science, technology and development in the triple
helix era”, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1
No. 1, pp. 7-20.
Feng, C., Ding, M. and Sun, B. (2010), “Selection of modes of cooperation among industries,
universities and research institutions”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 97-101.
Feng, C., Ding, M. and Sun, B. (2011), “A comparison research on industry-university-research
strategic alliances in countries”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 102-105.
Goosen, M.F.A, Al-Hinai, H. and Sablani, S. (2001), “Capacity-building strategies for desalination:
Activities, facilities and educational programs in Oman”, Desalination, Vol. 14, No.1, pp. 181-189.
Hamdan, H., Yousef, F., Abdullah, F., Nasruding, N. and Abullah, I.C. (2011), “University Industrial
Linkages: Relationship towards economic growth and development in Malaysia”, World Academy
of Science, Engineering and Technology. Vol. 58, pp. 785-792.
Hansen, J.A. and Lehmann, M. (2006), “Agents of change: Universities as development hubs”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14, pp. 820-829.
Ihua, U.B, Olabowale, O.A, Eloji, K.N. and Ajayi, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurial implications of
Nigeria's oil industry local content policy: Perceptions from the Niger Delta region”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 5, No. 3.
Lindsay, C.D. (2009), “The Concept of Employability and the Experience of Unemployment”, PhD
thesis, The Business School, Edinburgh Napier University, available at
http://www.researchrepository.napier.ac.uk/3877/1/Lindsay.pdf. (accessed September 4
th
, 2014).
Maharasoa, M. and Hay, D. (2001), “Higher education and graduate employment in South Africa”,
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 139-147.
Makulilo, V.B. (2012), “The proliferation of private universities in Tanzania: Quality compromised?”,
Wudpecker Journal of Education Research, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 51-66.
Mbah, M.F. (2014), “The dilemma of graduate unemployment within the context of poverty, scarcity
and fragile economy: Are there lessons for the university”? International Journal of Economics
and Finance, Vol. 6, No. 12, pp. 27-36.
McIlveen, P. and Pensiero, P.M.D. (2008), “Transition of graduates from backpack to briefcase: A
case study”, Education + Training, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 489-499.
Mpehongwa, G. (2013), “Academia-industry-government linkages in Tanzania: Trends, challenges
and prospects”, Educational Research and Review, Vol. 8, No. 21, pp. 2093-2100.
Nuwagaba, A. (2012), “Toward addressing skills development and employment crisis in Uganda: The
role of public private partnerships”, Eastern Africa Social Science Research Review, Vol. 28, No.
1, pp. 91-116.
OECD (2005), “The measurement of Scientific and technological activities. Oslo manual. Guidelines
for collecting and interpreting innovation data”. 3rd edition, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development. OECD Publishing, accessed Dec. 2
nd
, 2014 from
http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Oyebisi, T.O., Ilori, M.O. and Nassar, M.L. (1996), “Industry-academic relations: an assessment of the
linkages between a university and some enterprises in Nigeria”, Technovation, Vol.16, No.4,
pp.203-209.
Perkmann, M., King, Z. and Pavelin, S. (2011), “Engaging excellence? Effects of faculty quality on
university engagement with industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 40 (2011), pp. 539–552.
Rabayah, K.S. and Sartawi, B. (2008), “Enhancing the labour market prospects of ICT students in a
developing country”, Education+Training, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 244-259.
Ramdass, K. (2012), “Programme re-curriculation: An experience at the University of Johannesburg”,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 3, No .8, pp. 204-36.
Saad, M. and Zawdie, G. (2011), “Introduction to special issue: The emerging role of universities in
socio-economic development through knowledge networking”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 38,
No. 1, pp. 3-6.
Saad, M., Zawdie, G. and Malairaja, C. (2008), “The triple helix strategy for universities in developing
countries: the experiences in Malaysia and Algeria”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.
431-443.
Schiller, D. and Liefner, I. (2007), “Higher education funding reform and university-industry links in
developing countries: The case of Thailand”, Higher Education, Vol. 54, pp. 543-556.
Schuetze, H.G. (2001), “Managing university/industry relationships. The role of knowledge
management”, OECD/Japanese High Level Forum, available at
http://static.canalblog.com/storagev1/japknowledgement.canalblog.com/docs/PDF_rapport_KM_in
_japan_Univ_Hitotsubashi.pdf . (accessed August 25
th
, 2014).
Suraweera, F. (1985), “A framework for university-industry interaction in computing in developing
countries”. Computer Education , Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 135-139.
Toor, S.u-R. and Ofori, G. (2008), “Developing construction professionals of the 21
st
century:
Renewed vision for leadership”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice, Vol. 134, No .3, pp. 279-286.
Tordo, S., Warner, M., Manzano, O.E. and Anouti, Y. (2013), “Local content policies in the oil and
gas sector”, A World Bank Study no.78994, World Bank: Washington.
Torres-Machi, C., Carrion, A., Yepes, V. and Pellicer, E. (2013), “Employability of graduate students
in construction management”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice,
April (2013).
URT (2014), “Local Content of Tanzania for Oil and Gas Industry - 2014” Draft One, Ministry of
Energy and Minerals, Dar es Salaam.
Vaaland, T.I. and Owusu, R.A. (2013), “Local content in the oil and gas industries of developing
countries: A research agenda”. Competitive paper on IAABD Conference, Accra, May 2013.
Vega-Jurando, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I. and Huanca, R. (2008), “University-industry relations in
Bolivia: Implications for university transformations in Latin America”, Higher Education, Vol. 56,
pp. 205-220.
Author Biographies:
Dr.Esther Ishengoma is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Finance at the University of Dar es
Salaam Business School and a Senior Research Fellow at the GIGA-German Institute of Global and
Area Studies through research projects funded by GIGA, Alexander von Humboldt and the
Volkswagen Foundation. She has done research on university-industry-linkages, global value chains
and industry linkages, linkage banking, microfinance and enterprise development.
Dr.Terje I. Vaaland is professor at University of Stavanger within the areas of strategy and industrial
marketing and management. In recent years he has been involved in national content research and
development in emerging petroleum nations with a weak industrial base. He has been the dean at a
leading Norwegian business school, and has experience in managing oil related industry-learning
programs.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
APPENDIX 1
UIL linkage activities
Modality
group
Type of linkage activity Description of linkage activity
Training
and
education
Cooperative education Involving students spending a significant portion of their academic
programme in private companies, student working experience programmes
and student internships.
Industrial training (continuing
education)
Practical training of students and faculty on industry premises, with the
purpose of understanding the application of new technologies and methods.
Small business training Collaboration in developing and operating a programme targeting small or
nascent entrepreneurs or businesses, including short courses.
Student assignments Supporting master students with access to information sources during
assignments and theses. Provisions to stimulate students to carry out
university assignments/theses within the company.
Visiting lectureships Formal arrangements, in which private companies support staff to participate
in teaching activities. Part-time teaching, industrial guest lecturers.
Services
and
consulting
Modernizing programmes Assisting university in developing and modernizing curricula and
programmes aligned with industrial needs. Industry participation in university
boards and committees.
Technology
brokerage/licensing
Assistance in obtaining or licensing technologies and intellectual products
from the university.
Seminars and conferences Collaboration in developing seminars, conferences and symposia with the
purpose of enhancing the Tanzanian industrial base.
Sabbatical Facilitate faculty member’s sabbatical in the industry, either in Tanzania or
abroad.
Direct or indirect investments Through equity investments and venture capital schemes.
Student recruitment Participation in students arrangements, business presentations, recruitment
events, etc.
Coordination of technology-
related issues
Through such inter-organizational entities such as regional technology
councils.
Industrial extension services Including testing, calibration, repair services, production trouble-shooting and
simple design modification.
Business/consulting services From business schools, or through research parks, science parks or
incubators
.
Research
Research consulting Contractual research carried out for a private company with specified terms.
Joint or cooperative research
projects
Often carried out in dedicated laboratories, centres or institutes.
Partnership contract Long-term arrangement between a university and company to build up
research facilities.
Personnel interchange or
industrial fellowships
On a regular or long
-
term basis to sustain interchange of research personnel.
Shared equipment or facilities Loan of equipment and facilities for university research use, on a regular or
long-term basis.
Activity
based
sponsoring
Equipment donations Laboratories, teaching equipment, etc.
Endowment contributions Sponsorship of prizes, awards and competitions to students and/or faculty.
Financing professorial chairs
With relevance to local participation in the petroleum industry
.
Financing PhD candidates Salaries and expenses.
Financing master theses Travel expenses and direct costs (not salaries).
Financing foreign support
Support from foreign universit
ies
with the purpose of developing new
programmes, or to improve alignment with petroleum-related industrial
needs.
Donations for university
infrastructure
Endowments for buildings and grants for the purchase of equipment offered
to the university.
Financing stays abroad for
students or faculty.
With the purpose of increasing the local industrial base (thus avoiding “brain-
drain”).
Source: Modified from Brimble and Doner (2007).
TABLES
Table 1: Description of respondents
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Student
Company
respondents Faculty
Sum % of
total
Respon
-dents
Popu-
lation
Respon-
dents
Respon
-dents
Popu-
lation
Respon
-dents
Discipline
background
Social sciences 91 720 4 24 121 119 29.5
- Courses: Business
Administration,
Economics
Engineering/Natural
Sciences
144
320
65 76
82
285 70.5
-
Courses: Mining
Engineering, Mineral
Processing Engineering,
Geology and
Engineering Geology,
Environmental Science
and Technology
Total 235 1,040 69 100 203 404 100.0
Sample as % of population 22.60 49.26
Gender
Male 153 61 6 220 54.5
Female 82 8 94 184 45.5
Total 235 69 100 404 100.0
Employment
position
Professor/senior lecturer
N/A N/A
29
Lecturer/assistant lecturer
N/A N/A
71
Foreign expatriate
N/A
4
N/A
Local
N/A
65
N/A
Total
N/A
69 100
Sub-sector
Minerals
N/A
25
N/A
Oil and gas
N/A
44
N/A
Total
N/A
69
N/A
Table 2: Perceptions of UIL in training activities in increasing students’ employability
Panel 1: Perceptions by status of respondents
Mean (rank) by respondents
Kruskal-Wallis test:
Mean rank by status Chi-
Square Asym
Sig.
UIL activities Students Company Faculty All Students Company Faculty
Student internships in companies 3.987 (1) 4.368 (2) 4.640 (1) 4.215 (1) 172.04 214.51 259.3 48.105 0
Practical training of students in
industry premises 3.983 (2) 4.309 (3) 4.540 (2) 4.177 (2) 178.1 209.78 250.64 32.941 0
Practical support from industry to
students during their master’s
theses 3.589 (5) 4.118 (6) 4.088 (3) 3.797 (5) 171.26 233.8 228.41 29.834 0
Industrial guest lecturers and part-
time teachers from industry 3.535 (6) 4.203 (5) 3.575 (6) 3.661 (6) 182.76 258.86 190.94 26.852 0
Industrially experienced lecturers 3.914 (3) 4.304 (4) 3.866 (5) 3.970 (3) 191.51 238.55 190.83 11.025 0.004
Short courses for small businesses
and entrepreneurs 3.710 (4) 4.391 (1) 3.958 (4) 3.889 (4) 174.58 264.17 208.84 39.175 0
N 233 68 100 401 233 68 100
Panel 2: Perceptions by discipline background of respondents
UIL activities Mean (rank) by
discipline background
Mann-Whitney U–test
Mean rank by discipline background
Social
Science
Engineer-
ing, Natural
and
Applied
Science
Social science Engineering, Natural
and Applied Science
Mann-
Whitney
U-test
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
rank
Sum of
ranks
Mean
rank
Sum of
ranks
Student internships in companies
4.237 (1) 4.213 (1)
209.55 24726.50 196.71 55473.50 15570.500 .271
Practical training of students in
industry premises
4.160 (2) 4.191 (2) 206.13 24529.50 198.84 56071.50 16168.500 .530
Practical support from industry to
students during their master’s
theses
3.896 (5) 3.759 (5) 208.16 23938.50 189.48 51916.50 14241.500 .111
Industrial guest lecturers and part-
time teachers from industry
3.733 (6) 3.637 (6) 207.15 24029.00 193.47 53786.00 15005.000 .251
Industrially experienced lecturers
4.094 (3) 3.918 (3) 217.56 25455.00 191.24 53548.00 14208.000 .026
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Short courses for small businesses
and entrepreneurs
3.847 (4) 3.906 (4) 198.19 23386.00 197.92 54824.00 16321.000 .982
N 119 282 119 282
Table 3: Perceptions of UIL in consultancy services’ activities on increasing students’ employability
Panel 1: Perceptions by status of respondents
Mean (rank) by respondent status Kruskal-Wallis test:
Mean rank by status
Chi-
Square
Asym
Sig.
UIL activities Students Company Faculty Total Students Company Faculty
Industry assistance in
modernizing and developing
university curricula and
programmes
3.97 (2) 4.38 (2) 4.37 (2) 4.13 (2) 174.35 232.54 234.63 31.935 0
Sabbatical arrangements, in which
university teachers spend time in
the local industry or abroad
3.82 (4) 4.19 (5) 3.36 (5) 3.77 (5) 204.22 250.85 150.64 36.844 0
Lecturers engaged in university-
industry consultancy projects
3.74 (5) 4.26 (4) 3.84 (4) 3.85 (4) 183.16 256.06 195.91 24.258 0
Seminars and conferences
arranged jointly by faculty and
industry
3.93 (3) 4.30 (3) 4.11 (3) 4.03 (3) 187.51 237.39 208.68 12.039 0.002
Joint projects between students
and industry
4.00 (1) 4.47 (1) 4.43 (1) 4.19 (1) 175.95 241.26 236.52 32.791 0
N 234 68 99 401 234 68 99
Panel 2: Perceptions by discipline background of respondents
UIL activities Mean (rank) by discipline
background
Mann-Whitney U–test
Mean rank by discipline background
Social
Science Engineering,
Natural and
Applied
Science
Social science Engineering, Natural
and Applied Science Mann-
Whitney
U-test
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
rank Sum of
ranks Mean
rank Sum of
ranks
Industry assistance in
modernizing and developing
university curricula and
programmes
4.129 (3) 4.136 (2) 198.52 23028.00 197.78 55182.00 16122.00
0 .948
Sabbatical arrangements, in which
university teachers spend time in
the local industry or abroad
3.922 (4) 3.712 (5) 220.73 25383.50 189.40 53222.50 13601.50
0 .007
Lecturers engaged in university-
industry consultancy projects 3.853 (5) 3.846 (4) 203.04 23552.50 195.91 54657.50 15597.50
0 .542
Seminars and conferences
arranged jointly by faculty and
industry
4.227 (2) 3.961 (3) 229.86 27353.00 188.07 52847.00 13226.00
0 .000
Joint projects between students
and industry 4.319 (1) 4.138 (1) 220.38 26225.00 193.56 54778.00 14592.00
0 .023
N 119 282 119 282
Table 4: Perceptions of UIL in research activities in increasing employability
Panel 1: Perceptions by status of respondents
Mean (rank) by respondents Kruskal-Wallis test:
Mean rank by status
Chi-
Square
Asym
Sig.
UIL activities Students Company Faculty Total Students Company Faculty
Sharing of specialized equipment
or research facilities between
industry and university
3.74 (2) 4.15 (2) 3.92 (2) 3.85 (2) 185.81 234.32 202.27 10.977 0.004
Joint industry-university research 3.86 (1) 4.32 (1) 4.08 (1) 3.99 (1) 182.15 246.43 212.41 21.846 0
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
N 233 69 99 401 233 69 99
Panel 2: Perceptions by discipline background of respondents
UIL activities Mean (rank) by discipline
background
Mann-Whitney U–test
Mean rank by discipline background
Social
Science
Engineering,
Natural and
Applied Science
Social Science Engineering, Natural
and Applied Science
Mann-
Whitney U-
test
Asymp.
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
rank
Sum of
ranks
Mean
rank
Sum of
ranks
Sharing of specialized equipment
or research facilities between
industry and university
3.769 (2) 3.884 (2) 193.29 22615.00 199.28 55200.00 15712.000 .607
Joint industry-university research 4.102 (1) 3.950 (1) 215.08 25380.00 193.67 54420.00 14799.000 .061
N 119 282 119 282
APPENDIX 2
QUESTIONNAIRE
ROLE OF UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY LINKAGES IN ENHANCING STUDENTS’ EMPLOYABILITY AND
INNOVATION
Part I: Profile of the respondent
1. Name of the respondent (optional) ____________________________; Contacts (e-mail/tel.)
_________________________________________________________________________
2. Gender (tick √ any of the following): a) Male _____________; b) Female ______________
3. Status of the respondent: (tick √ any of the following)
a) Student __________ (if a proceed with question 4 in Part I, and the rest in the following Parts )
b) Lecturer __________ (if b proceed with questions 5 & 6 in Part I, and the rest in the following Parts)
c) Employee from the extractive company___________(if c proceed with questions 6 to 9 in Part I, and the rest in the
following Parts)
4. College/school (tick √ any of the following)and mention the programme you are involved in
a) College of Social Science __________, Programme/Department ____________________________
b) University of Dar es Salaam Business School ______, Programme/Department_________________
c) College of Engineering and Technology _______, Programme/Department ____________________
d) College of Natural and Applied Science _______, Programme/Department ____________________
e) College of
f) _______________________________________________________________________
5. Employment position (tick √ any of the following)
a) Professor/Senior Lecturer ___________________
b) Lecturer/Assistant Lecturer ___________________
6. Education background and area of work (tick √ any of the following)
a) Social Science (Business Administration, Economics) _________________;
b) Engineering/Technology, Applied and Natural Science, Environment ______________
7. Status of employment (employees from companies) (tick √ any of the following)
a)
Foreign expatriate
___________________
b) Local ___________________
8. Please indicate the sub-sector which the company where you are working is involved in (tick √ any of the following)
a)
Minerals
___________________
b) Oil ___________________
c) Gas ______________________
9. Please indicate the type of activities conducted by the company where you are working (tick √ any of the following)
a) Exploration of natural resources ___________________
b) Exploitation of natural resources ___________________
Part II: Education and Training
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
Please indicate your perception regarding the influence of university-industry (extractive company) collaboration in the area
of training on employability of students and innovation by putting a tick (√) in the table below. Please note 5 = strongly
agree; 4=agree; 3=neutral; 2= less disagree; 1 = strongly disagree; 0 = don’t know
5
4
3
2
1
0
A1. Student internships in companies increase the employability of the student.
A2. Practical training of students in industry premises to be exposed to practical
working conditions improves the employability.
A3. Student internships in companies increase innovation in the companies.
A4. Practical support from industry to students during their master’s theses improves
the employability of students.
A5. Company collaboration with students during their work with their master’s
thesis improves innovation in the company.
A6. Industrial guest lecturers and part time-teachers from industry improve the
employability of students.
A7. Part time-lecturers from industry teaching at a university improve innovation in
their company.
A8. Industrial experienced lecturers have a positive effect on student employability.
A9. Collaboration between university and industry in arranging short courses for
small businesses and entrepreneurs improves innovation among local companies.
A10. Collaboration between university and industry in arranging short courses for
small businesses and entrepreneurs improves employability among regular students.
A11. Limited collaboration between university and industry in the area of training
for local firms hampers their innovation.
A12. Industry-university collaboration in training increases innovation.
Part III: Services and Consulting (S)
Please indicate your perception regarding the influence of university-industry (extractive company) collaboration in the area
of Services and Consulting (S) on employability of students and innovation by putting a tick (√) in the table below. Please
note 5 = strongly agree; 4=agree; 3=neutral; 2= less disagree; 1 = strongly disagree; 0 = don’t know
5 4 3 2 1 0
A14. Industry assistance in modernizing and developing university curriculum and
programmes in line with industrial needs increases student employability.
A815. Sabbatical arrangements in which university teachers spend time in the local
industry or abroad have a positive effect on student employability.
A16. Sabbatical arrangements in which university teachers spend time in the local
industry or abroad have a positive effect on innovation in the host company.
A17. Lecturers engaged in university-industry consultancy projects improve student
employability.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
A18. Industry assistance in modernizing and developing university curriculum and
programmes in line with industrial needs will increase innovation.
A19. Seminars and conferences arranged by university and industry have a positive
effect on innovation.
A20. Lecturer’s doing consulting for industry has a positive effect on innovation.
A21. Seminars and conferences arranged jointly by faculty and industry have a
positive effect on student employability.
A22. Joint projects between students and industry (for example recruitment events)
have a positive effect on student employability.
A
23. Joint projects between students and industry ha
ve
a positive effect on innovation.
Part IV: Research Activities (R)
Please indicate your perception regarding the influence of university-industry (extractive company) collaboration in the area
of Research Activities on the employability of students and innovation by putting a tick (√) in the table below. Please note 5
= strongly agree; 4=agree; 3=neutral; 2= less disagree; 1 = strongly disagree; 0 = don’t know
5 4 3 2 1 0
A24. Research carried out for local companies by faculty members improves
innovation.
A25. Joint or cooperative research projects with industry improve innovation.
A26. Interchange of personnel between industry and university improves innovation
(for example, faculty member works in industry for a year and industry employee
works one year in university).
A27. Sharing of specialized equipment or research facilities between industry and
industry improves innovation.
A
28. Sharing of specialized equipment or research facilities between industry and
industry improves student employability.
A29. Joint industry-university research increases innovation among local firms.
A30. Joint industry-university research increases student employability.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITET I STAVANGER At 04:17 23 November 2015 (PT)
