Chapter 11
How will the understandings and practices of the knowledge productions I am carrying out in this book look like in low income countries? For sure the context sensitivity is an absolute must. There is no time for the western linear model, where the resources in the universities, however scarce, have to be utilized not tomorrow but today. In this chapter I will give some aspects on why and how initiatives from universities for trying other models like mode 2 knowledge production, inclusive innovation and cluster development are relevant, important and have a proved success record.
When Society Speaks Back – the relevance issue
Voices of society
Universities are relatively neutral bodies / platforms in political contexts that can differ profoundly. Please note relatively. The universities have to manoeuvre strategically, though, in order to be durable. In low income countries with more or less stable political systems the university is a vital asset for social, cultural and economic sustainability and development. The universities in these countries face challenging demands to have their outcomes used in society for economic growth, challenging of more reasons than e.g. in Europe. This means that the ‘voice of society’ in science argues for use of the very limited public resources in ways benefitting the people as soon as possible, if not immediately. Society speaks back in demand for relevant knowledges for survival and better living conditions. This is a strong incentive for finding other ways than a dominant linear way of disseminating R&D results, which often takes too long time and is not always efficient or context relevant.
The increasingly acknowledged non linear knowledge production processes stress the importance for us to assess the unknown, unspecified, uncontrollable, irregular in both research and political spheres. What follows for all actors is to admit there is knowledge limits in research. Sheila Jasanoff is emphasizing the practice of ‘technologies of humility’ in favour of ‘technologies of hubris’ in the dialogue between science and society. Jasanoff (2003, p.225) addresses the driving force for society to speak back in stating that uncertainties and risks are part of the modern human condition, woven into the very fabric of progress. The problem we urgently face is how to live democratically and at peace with the knowledge that our societies are inevitably ‘at risk’.
Society and university initiatives
Technical Transfer
Technical transfer is still a dominant concept and practice within the western hemisphere universities. It is a concept of a linear paradigm - knowledges and technologies are produced at universities and research institutions, transferred with or without IPRs133 to society with political approval if legislations or the political agenda require, and finally reaching the end user. The linear paradigm seems to prevail at least as long as the traditional, disciplinary (mode 1) university as well as certain economic-political actors dominates. Some of the impacts are frequently weak relevance to society needs, lack of efficiency, low level of trust within society actors, increased gap between different groups of society, weak capacity for evolving innovations and innovation systems.
In Sweden the technical transfer paradigm has been characterized by week context sensitivity and the faith in universal solutions. Technical transfer, in the linear mode, from a Swedish situation to contexts of low income countries in e.g. Sub Sahara regions includes few success stories. These experiences might be one of several reasons why the Swedish aid activities have moved from concrete practice to abstract policy during the last five decades (Kjellqvist 2013). A technical “transfer” in a non-linear mode and more of technical co-development between actors in high and low income countries call for approaches of “polycentric, interactive and multiactor processes for knowledge production” (Jasanoff 2003) including technology production.
Society Speaks Back
In almost every nation there is a notion of economic and cultural importance, when it comes to the role of universities. Knowledge as the main product of universities creates wealth in societies and stability. Universities can be seen as threats in dictatorships and assets in others and still universities are one of the most stable institutions in societies regardless political situation. In western societies and elsewhere the one, who is paying the bill for universities, is the government, read tax payers. The voices of the latter is increasing in strength or as Nowotny et al already (2001) highlighted
In modern times, science has always ‘spoken’ to society; indeed science’s penetration of society is close to being a defining characteristic of modernity. But society now ‘speaks back’ to society. This, in the simplest terms, is what is meant by contextualization. (p. 50)
The twin notions of ‘science speaking to society’ and ‘society speaking back to science’ are obvious. ‘Society’ is requiring and required to take part not only in the input phase but in the whole process (which more likely is non-linear) up to the output and outcomes of results.
I have experienced on a municipal level in a Swedish context how society, represented by the local government, explicitly manifested the need in being involved or at least have an insight in the whole input-operation-output process. The need for this involvement comes from the budgetary process in local government to have local tax resources approved for the input of research funds and infrastructure requests of the university. What the mayor and local government directors need are good arguments for the relevance of this ‘investment’ in order to convince the local parliament to vote in favour of it. For this argumentation to be successful, the mayor of Karlshamn clearly announced, “input is not enough”.
Since tax payers via the government are paying universities, the primacy of identifying the problems to be solved by research and higher education can no longer primarily be in the hands of science only. The loud university voice of ‘curiosity driven’, free research is loosing listeners, more likely in contexts of scarce societal resources. The relevance issue is becoming crucial – research for whom and with what resource priorities.
Mode 2 always existing
Co-evolving processes are important where relevance and contexts of application and implication constitute the essential elements. The frame of understanding co-evolution includes the triple helix concept (Etzkowitz, Leydesdorff, 1997), which gives us some comprehension of the structure of the actors involved. The main actors are universities (knowledge institutions), industry (private sector) and government (on any level). But the triple helix concept does not contribute with the core answer to how the co-evolving / triple helix process is carried out. One answer to the ‘how’ question can be found in the research processes termed mode 2.
The former Swedish Council for Planning and Co-ordination of Research (FRN) initiated and financed a study that resulted in the publication The new production of knowledge (Gibbons et al., 1994), where the research process mode 2 was thoroughly described. Another publication advancing this discussion followed in Re-Thinking Science – knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty (Nowotny et al. 2001). Characteristics of mode 2 includes eg context of application, trans-disciplinarity, much greater diversity of sites of knowledge production, highly reflexive, accountability, novel forms of quality control, socially robust knowledge, and context of implication. The strong and hostile reactions from the dominant university (mode 1) representatives showed that the mode 2 understandings were and are really touching the raw nerves of the main academic discourse. The representatives of mode 1 representatives are more focused on disciplinarity, internally driven taxonomy of disciplines, neutrality, objectivity, context of discovery, hegemony of theoretical or experimental science, and a sharp divide of basic and applied research. But as Gibbons explained, mode 2 knowledge productions have always existed and mode 1 is a very efficient specialization of knowledge production. This specialization finds its roots in the scientific revolution in the 1600s (Merchant, 1980).
The co-evolution is not only a hand in hand process between actors within and outside universities. It is an integrating process between mode 2 researchers, predominantly mode 1 researchers and partners in society. One example from the Katwe Salt Lake cluster in Uganda (see chapter 15) is given by the issue of salt crystallization. A research team at KTH (Royal Technical University, Stockholm) is working on salt crystallization processes at different international sites. In one of their projects they used Katwe Salt Lake in Uganda as a case. They didn’t collaborate closely with the salt extractors at the lake. They took water samples from the lake and brought home for studies at their laboratories at KTH. Their main priority was the basic, disciplinary (mode 1) research on crystallization frequencies of the salt. The results of their research show the salt crystallizing in sequences / fractions, where the sulphur containing fraction crystallize first followed by the chloride containing and last the carbonate containing fraction. There are not very distinct borders between the fractions, but as a first recrystallization this first refinement step to remove more of the sulphur containing salt is a great achievement compared to the existing local situation. In order to have a so called table salt for human consumption the sulphur needs to be removed, as the added iodine chemically bonds to sulphur and can thus not be absorbed by humans. A low tech method can be used to detect the sulphur fraction and when the crystallization is about to move over to the wanted chloride fraction. The researchers suggested that the differences could be tasted with the tounge. This example134 shows how mode 1 research can be linked to a distributed knowledge production of high context relevance i.e. a mode 2 approach.
Research support, societal relevance and aid
Academic Research and Societal Relevance
Helga Nowotny (2001, 1994) emphasized that knowledge seems to be accepted or approved not on the grounds of claims of higher scientific authority but on grounds of negotiations. This comes from a desire of knowledge to be open and sensitive to many interfaces, where contemporary knowledges are created in heterogeneous contexts. In our professional and daily lives we have to make choices just to be forced to make still other choices, which are not only technical but refer to all uncertainties to be taken into account and be responsible for.
In East African countries like Tanzania and Uganda the missions of the national public universities are clear and explicit about their role in society. In Tanzania the University of Dar es Salaam, UDSM, states its mission in 2013 as being “the unrelenting pursuit of scholarly and strategic research, education, training and public service directed at attainment of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development of Tanzania and the rest of Africa.”
The focus of the relevance issue is public service and equitable and sustainable socio-economic development. The needs of the public have thus a broader context than commercial markets only.
This became explicit to me when I participated in the international academic audit of UDSM, Tanzania in 2004. I learned the importance of capacity building for research and education and for the outreach to society and identified needs. The outreach facilities were technical transfer units at UDSM, substantial amount of consultancy and the innovation and cluster programs (ISCP-Tz) supported by Sida135 and starting in 2004. The consultancy by UDSM research staffs refers to the fact that much of competence needed by firms and organizations was (is) gathered at UDSM. There are other reasons as well such as UDSM allowing some percentage of the work hours for consultancies to increase the very low salary given by the state in the context of scarce resources. The National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty, MKUKUTA136, conducted a kind of base and frame for the audit mentioned as well as at present time for the outreach functions of UDSM. MKUKUTA forms part of Tanzania’s efforts to deliver on its national Vision 2025137 and is since 2005 focused on growth and reduction of poverty; improved quality of life and social well-being; and governance and accountability.
It is interesting to note that Economic Report on Africa 2013138 states the following
Africa’s industrialization is likely to take place in a changing globalized economy full of uncertainties. African governments should therefore work together to develop a united vision on how to influence the global economic agenda and, in so doing, shape the outcomes of globalization itself. The time has come for Africa to stop being a bystander to its own destiny. (p 14).
This is argued when
Africa maintained well above global average growth in 2012, despite deceleration in the world economy….West Africa recorded the highest growth followed by East, North, Central and Southern Africa. (p 39)
In Uganda the Makerere University is formulating its mission 2013 as “to provide innovative teaching, learning, research and services responsive to National and Global needs”. The overall aim of its research and innovation policy “is to reinforce vigorously the university’s status as a major international university that sustains and adds value to the Ugandan culture, to the natural environment and to the economy and society of Uganda and the wider world. The university, therefore, shall put in place a research agenda with priorities that address national and global challenges.”
Aid and Research
Sweden’s Policy for Global Development (PGU) was approved by the parliament in 2003. The Swedish government reports to parliament on the PGU biennial. In 2007 the Swedish government (conservative at that time) presented a more specific policy for Africa139, where it emphasized the importance
to support Africa’s own research development, by among other things promoting initiatives aimed at creating fora for collaboration between research, industry and society. This type of network, which is largely lacking, is a prerequisite for African countries to develop research results, conquer new technologies and develop products and solutions.
Sida is in an international context one of few governmental aid agencies giving long term support to research capacity building in collaboration with low income countries. The mission of Sida is to reduce poverty in the world on behalf of the Swedish parliament and government. Sida contributes to implementing PGU.
During the years 2001 to 2006 I was a member of the Sida research board appointed by the Swedish government. The research unit at Sida at that time was SAREC140 responsible among other issues for capacity building of universities in the collaborating countries. The participants of the board were researchers with mainly strict disciplinary backgrounds and came predominantly from old and well established universities in Sweden, some few from nearby countries, and all with extensive experiences of collaboration with low income countries. I felt odd in this board not because of less experience in low income countries but because I was (am) an explicit transdisciplinary, mode 2 researcher and also as I was the only person coming from a technical faculty. The work in the board and with linked committee obligations was a true learning experience not the least because of all very competent staff members at SAREC.
I volunteered to engage myself particularly in following more closely the SAREC support to the technical faculties in East Africa - Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique. It was in this context I got involved in the support of SAREC to the programs of development of innovation systems and clusters (ISCP) starting in 2003141. When proposals for these programs was up for decisions at the board I expected a hard discussion and resistance from my board colleagues because of the inter-, and transdisciplinary character as well as the proposals’ radical break with a traditional linear paradigm of use of research results. However, the decisions went smoothly to approval with very few discussions. My understanding of the reason is the well prepared, substantial and precise documents for decision formulated by specific, skilled and experienced SAREC staff members. The strategy was to take decisions step by step instead of a joint, big program, which was planned from the beginning. This strategy had both its pros and cons. On the positive side was that the concept of innovation, which was new in a Sida context at the actual time, could have time to find its format. The stepwise strategy also facilitated the possibility to handle all uncertainties in a program, which was new of its kind and started in processes not yet known in practice in East Africa. The negative side was lack of needed flexibility in waiting for new decisions, while the program processes accelerated. It later turned out that the reorganisation of Sida with the closing of SAREC and loss of skilled SAREC staff was a disaster for the ISCP. However, the fundaments for the program in East Africa and from 2008 also in Bolivia were in place and sustainable enough, while Sida funding was integrated with less resources in bilateral research agreements (for Uganda and Bolivia) and in specific arrangement with the Swedish embassy in Mocambique. Rwanda later came on board in the innovation supporting initiative at the university of Rwanda because of specific circumstances.
Dissolving the linear paradigm
As indicated above the linear model for diffusion and use of research results is in question and about to transform into other procedures in emerging collaborating universities or developmental universities (Arocena & Sutz 2011). A different university culture is needed for more immediate benefit to society especially in society contexts with limited resources. This brings us back to the issue of ”a new kind of more mature partnership”, that Helga Nowotny (2005c) was emphasizing and stating in “science can no longer expect unconditional support on the part of society for whatever it wants to do, nor unconditional acceptance of its authority”.
It seems easier to dissolve the linear paradigm in low income countries, where the public good is a question of survival more than the commercial benefit of a few.
In order to move from the linear model of knowledge production and as well as of innovation development and evolution, it is not enough to link academic research with private sector and industry. It requires at least three key players, that is university, industry and government, which constitutes the triple helix model presented above. In order to come closer to innovation issues I want to use the general understanding of the Triple Helix model from Triple Helix Research Group142.
The Triple Helix concept comprises three basic elements: (1) a more prominent role for the university in innovation, on a par with industry and government in a knowledge–based society; (2) a movement toward collaborative relationships among the three major institutional spheres, in which innovation policy is increasingly an outcome of interaction rather than a prescription from government; (3) in addition to fulfilling their traditional functions, each institutional sphere also “takes the role of the other” performing new roles as well as their traditional function. Institutions taking non-traditional roles are viewed as a major potential source of innovation in innovation.
The Triple Helix model is a frame and a boundary object (Star & Griesemer 1989), on which involved actors can join and find out understandings and roles in always complex contexts and circumstances. That is a big step forward in the process of dissolving the linear paradigm. But it is not enough. As mentioned earlier, the Triple Helix model does not by itself means that we all know how to work together and develop the integrating process, which brings us to mode 2 again.
In the discussion concerning mode 2 and the role of future (and present I would say) universities Arie Rip (2002c) argues that
indigenous (and local) knowledge has become important, and creates a challenge to Western-science-as-we-know-it. Underlying world-views are now being articulated, and this raises the question about the world view embedded in Western science. Multi-culturalism is not the answer to this question, but is definitely the site to explore possible answers. The African Renaissance movement, and the official recognition in New Zealand of Maori approaches to knowledge production are two of such sites. Clearly, science in the 21st century will not be like science-as-we-know-it.
One concrete way to test and practice the distributed knowledge production and inclusive innovation as indicated in mode 2 research is cluster development based in Triple Helix contexts.
Cluster and Innovation System
In the Sida supported cluster development in East Africa and Bolivia cluster initiatives are used. A Cluster Initiative may be initiated by government or academia or a private sector development agency. Innovation-driven actors from different sectors aim to support renewal and competitiveness industry, firms and farms. A decisive factor for the development of the Cluster Initiative (CI) is cluster facilitation supporting the decision making and collective action among the stakeholders in the CI. The Cluster Initiative is not the cluster itself. The core of the cluster is the firms, companies, often small and micro firms in East Africa clusters. The CI consists of all the companies and organizations that are linked together – in collaboration and competition – in value creation. The CI is the conscious attempt and activity to mobilize and organize all the actors and resources to make individual companies and firms in the cluster more innovative and competitive.
An integrating process is taking place in successful cluster initiatives. The roles of the actors get increasingly clearer and the integration of different support systems evolves. The integration also means an emerging innovation system including all different actors, on local, regional and/or national level. These parallel processes can be experienced in Uganda at local level (see chapter 14, 15) but also at national level. In the latter case the results of the innovation system and cluster program (ISCP-Uganda) motivated the Uganda President to support this cluster program in 5 years starting July 2010. The resource originates from the national government budget. This situation is relatively unique for university programs supported in addition by foreign aid. The resources were allocated by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives with a memorandum of understanding between Makerere University, where the cluster secretariat was placed, and the Ministry. A national steering committee for the cluster program includes representatives from the triple helix actors. The Uganda context however implicates a number of challenges such as weak or absent institutions, financial systems etc. In spite of that, the Uganda example constitutes condition for an emerging innovation system needed for a more sustainable situation of socio-economic development.
The experience presented above gives us an example of how ‘society speaks back’ in a constructive way. It is not until concrete and tangible results are demonstrated to the local and national government they become willing to invest. The cluster program with comparably small amount of support from Sida thus constitutes one successful activity giving relevance to the government and society.
Robust knowledge
Academic research within cluster collaboration is at danger, if it is not deeply anchored in the local context. The danger comes from the context of extremely scares resources and little space for risk taking, if any, within the cluster. The cluster members in East Africa are mostly poor people with family responsibilities.
If a resource, vital for the cluster firms, is found to be profitable, chances are that more powerful external actors see opportunities to exploit, buy land or property, introduce more high-tech methods or go into business in ways that do not benefit the local economy and the cluster members. Situations are also such that, when the cluster firms become more profitable, the risk increases for external interests to manipulate the cluster members and take over. This can be observed both in Uganda and Tanzania.
Robust knowledge for socio-economic sustainability and development relies on context sensitivity. There are numerous examples of genuine context sensitivity and knowledge among participating researchers and students from East Africa and Bolivia in the cluster programs existing now more than 10 years. The learning processes born from context specific knowledges are vital for results people can rely on and build their futures upon.