JOHNSON MUCHUNGUZI ISHENGOMA (PhD) UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

1. INTERNATIONALIZATION OF TANZANIA HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH NORTH-SOUTH PARTNERSHIPS & LINKS: EXPERIENCES FROM THE UDSM JOHNSON MUCHUNGUZI ISHENGOMA (PhD) UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

2. Organization • 1. Introduction & Overview • 2. Basic Facts and Figures about PHE in TZ; • 3.South-North Partnerships & Research Links, Aid Flows, Donor Funding for Research at the UDSM • Implications for added value to internationalization at the UDSM • 4. Food for Thought vs. Conclusions in the form of critical questions to enable us evaluate the added value of partnerships & links.

3. 1.0. INTRODUCTION • This paper sheds light on whether a plethora of N-S partnerships & links at UDSM have added any significant value to the internationalization of the University. • Thesis: Partner. & links haven’t added significant value ‘cause of the nature & modality of partners: 1-way indirect aid project/program modality which has limitations in terms of impact & sustainability(Ishengoma, Forthcoming) • Fragmentation & lack of synchronization.

4. 2.0. PHE in Tanzania: Some Basic Facts & Figures • 11 PU; total enrollment 84,717 students (72.3%) of total enrollment. • Each individual university has a specific unit to manage univ-wide partnerships & links as a part of central adm. managed by administrative officer, not trained in the field. • Academic units and academics also establish their own partnerships; not necessarily synchronized with univ-wide partnerships; not reported or recorded.

5. 2.0. Basic Facts Cont………. • 2001-2006, PHE sector was among the top 5 largest recipient of external donor aid supporting also part. & links (US$ 9.2 m a yr); SA (US$ 17.4 m); Ghana (17.1m);Mozambique (US$ 11.3 m); & Ethiopia (US$ 11.3 m) (World Bank, 2010). • Low research outputs in terms of # of articles indexed in the internat. database-despite of extensive donor funding for research • Major players & drivers of TZ partnerships are bilateral & multilateral donors & orgs., individ. private foundations in the North & foreign HEIs

6. 3.0. North-South Partnerships & Links: Experiences from UDSM • 2007 UDSM redefined its functions “to establish mutually negotiated, beneficial and durable links with HEIs & research nationally, regionally and globally” hence new impetus on the UDSM North-South partnerships and links. • The Cooperation, Links & Projects Office coordinates university-wide partnerships & links. • 80% of the prescribed activities of the Office predominantly focus on student/academic staff exchange. • EFAU monitors funds from donors linked to partnerships & links.

7. 3.0. North-South Partnerships at UDSM Cont…… • Academic units & individual members of the academic staff estab links & partnerships which might not necessarily be synchronized with those of the University-more often individual links & donor-funded consultancies/research are not reported to the Links Office. • Largest & oldest university-wide partnerships: PHEA; SIDA-SAREC (defunct) & NORAD/NUFU

8. 3.0. North-South Partnerships at UDSM Cont……. • PHEA is the largest university-wide partnership operating mainly through project/program modality as indirect aid; sponsoring a plethora of unsynchronized & fragmented activities-some with no bearing to the UDSM core mission. Table 1.doc • Project/program in most cases in indirect aid form is most preferred modality of donor-funded partnerships & links at the UDSM • The modality has some inherent shortcomings with implications to added value.

9. 3.0. North-South Partnerships at UDSM Cont………. • From 2000-08, UDSM received a portion of a total of US$ 2,062,800 from PHEA to support various collaborative activities & partnerships with other universities in Africa & USA where all private foundations supporting PHEA are based. • These kinds of partnerships benefits most host institutions of partnership activities through administrative and overhead costs. Table 2.doc

10. 3.0. North-South Partnerships at UDSM Cont………………. • In 2007, UDSM has more than 100 university-wide active partnerships & links with other universities and multi-lateral companies world-wide-mainly in the form of programs. • Major focus of partnerships: (1) Academic/student exchange (2) Joint research (3) staff development & training (4) Establishing new programs and (5) Joint organization of lectures, conferences, workshops & seminars.

11. 3.1. Partnerships through Donor-Funded Research & Consultancy at UDSM: Any Added Value? • Donor-funded research & cons. are ideally strategies for international collaboration & internationalization of knowledge production between universities in North & South; but • Overdependence of South universities for donor research funding-see Table 3- could be counterproductive to intellectual freedom which is critical for mutual research partnerships between S& N universities.

12. 3.1. Continued………………………………….. • Self-censorship among the academics & adherence to TORs to appease donors to get more donor-funded research & cons adversely impacts intellectual freedom among academics in the South. • Donor-funded/contracted research//consultancy leaves little room for researching on important development issues & leaves no room for South researchers to experiment with new methodologies or challenge mainstream methods & approaches (Samoff & Carrol, 2002).

13. 3.1. Continued………………… • Donor-funded research, research partnerships and cons. are also a subtle causes of internal brain in South universities. • Academicians in the South spend more official time on donor-funded research and partnerships because they pay more than what their employers pay, monthly or annually. • The UDSM like other PUS relies on external donors for research funding. Table 3.doc

14. 4.0. Food for Thought vs. Conclusions: Do Partnerships and Links between African Universities (South) with Universities in the North Have Any Added Value for Internationalization, Mutual International Collaboration & Capacity Building? • Characteristics of “good” academic partnerships & links: • (1) Involve collaboration that has mutual benefits that contribute to the development of institutional capacities at both institutions (donor & recipient HEI);

15. 4.0. Food for Thought Cont………… • Respects sovereignty & autonomy of both institutions and is itself empowering; & • Characterized by equality, democratic participation of both partners and shared responsibility (Samoff &Carrol, 2002). Critical Questions: • To what extent are these N-S partnerships & links which are fundamentally grounded in the assumptions & practices of foreign aid for any developing country meet the above criteria?

16. 4.0. Food for Thought Cont………… 2.Who really benefits most from these partnership & links? 3. Does everyone (both partner institutions) equally benefit from these partnerships & links? 4. What is the nature and form of these partnerships; sustainability and long-term impact on universities in the South? 5. How and to what extent are the partnerships & links between N & S HEIs organically fitted in the development path & mission of universities in the South?

17. 4.0. Food for Thought Cont………….. • The preferred project/program modality of partnerships & links between N & S universities has shortcomings which might limit the effectiveness of these partnerships: • Uncoordinated interventions by different actors in the same university in the South-each donor following independent systems and procedures for mgt & evaluation; • Reduced efficiency and devpt effectiveness because of fragmented interventions; and

18. 3. Lack of synchronization of interventions among donors & actors (AFRODAD, 2007). • The above observations gives us a hint on whether or not partnerships and links between North & South universities have added value to the internationalization and capacity building in the South. ishe2004@yahoo.com THANK YOU