Strengthening Higher Education Space in Africa through North-South Partnerships and Links: Myths and Realities from Tanzania Public Universities

Abstract

Governments' cuts in research and development funding for public universities in Tanzania has compelled these institutions to establish and develop extensive partnerships and links with universities, and research centers in the North. The establishment of the North-South partnerships has also coincided with the dominance of external and heavy dependence on external donors for funding of research and development activities in the majority of Tanzania public universities. This article, using the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), public university, seeks to shed light on whether or not partnerships make any significant contribution to the institution’s capacity building. The thesis of this paper is that although N-S partnerships are instrumental in institutional capacity building; they have not significantly contributed to the strengthening of higher education space at UDSM and apparently at other public universities in Tanzania because of inherent structural imbalances and inequalities embedded in the partnerships. .

Double Agendas in International Partnership Programs: A case study from an Ethiopian University

“…So, the question of developing "global thinking" and collaboration is complex. Like Ishengoma (2016) and Stein (2019), we can see how the Southern part of the world can easily become exploited by the Northern, although partnership programmes are formed with the intention of accomplishing the opposite (also in Bedenlier, Kondakci, & Zawacki-Richter, 2018).…”

“…However, these expectations also raised tensions or even a kind of double agenda on what would happen without a Northern partner, or what autonomy would be given in collaboration with a partner that risks clear domination (Ishengoma, 2016;Samoff & Carrol, 2004). Similarly, the idea of the necessity of a "global connectedness" or a kind of "global thinking" within the context of the local (Ethiopian) and the global (Northern countries) became visible.…”

“…These motives were not present in this study, and may be less common among Southern partners in general. Yet, some of the staff also tended to view the partnership programme as a source of personal income (Ishengoma, 2016). One could argue that such inclinations towards more personal financial benefits may not go with the larger and long-term institutional academic goals (Wilson, 2012).…”

“…Koehn & Obamba, 2014;Nossum, 2016;Samoff & Carrol, 2004;Stromquist, 2007) emphasise that partnerships between the Southern and the Northern institutions can be based on mutual relationships that go beyond external support and influence. Although this suggests a positive relationship, frequently this has not been the case, as the Southern institutions (often under resourced) hardly can do without this external support (Ishengoma, 2016). Others (Kot, 2015;Lizarraga, 2011;Wilson, 2012) emphasise the motives and priorities in understanding the nature of partnerships, arguing that partners' motives and priorities tend to determine the partnership's purposes, activities, and thereby its relationship dynamics.…”

“…Others (Kot, 2015;Lizarraga, 2011;Wilson, 2012) emphasise the motives and priorities in understanding the nature of partnerships, arguing that partners' motives and priorities tend to determine the partnership's purposes, activities, and thereby its relationship dynamics. These motives are sometimes complex in that partnerships include striving for mutuality (Nossum, 2016;Samoff & Carrol, 2004) but also risks of dependency (Ishengoma, 2016;Stein, 2019). This complexity can be referred to as a kind of double agenda embedded in international partnerships.…”