The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of University-Industry Collaborations on Quality Assurance in Two Nigerian

Home , Federal University Dutse, University of Jos, University of Maiduguri

The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of University-Industry

Collaborations on Quality Assurance in Two Nigerian-Publicly Supported Universities

A dissertation presented to

the faculty of

The Patton College of Education of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Education

Adedayo Ogundimu

December 2016

This dissertation titled

The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of University-Industry

Collaborations on Quality Assurance in Two Nigerian-Publicly Supported Universities

ADEDAYO OGUNDIMU

has been approved for

the Department of Educational Studies

and The Patton College of Education by

Emmanuel Jean Francois

Assistant Professor of Educational Studies

Renée A. Middleton

Dean, The Patton College of Education 3

Abstract

OGUNDIMU, ADEDAYO, Ed.D., December 2016, Educational Administration

The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of University-Industry

Collaborations on Quality Assurance in Two Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities

Director of Dissertation: Emmanuel Jean Francois

The National Universities Commission (NUC) has observed that the quality and focus of training offered by Nigerian universities in recent times are not in tune with the needs of the country. Studies have also reiterated the above problems as well as their causes. These include decline in real value of government budgetary allocations for higher education; compromised university autonomy; deterioration of physical structures; incessant student and faculty strikes as well as the lack of modern teaching, learning and research resources. It has thus become necessary for Nigerian universities to consider the possibility of collaborating with industries for research and innovation as one of the feasible means of boosting their access to teaching, research and learning resources.

This non-experimental, quantitative research used a questionnaire survey to collect data from students and faculty of two publicly-supported Federal Universities in

Nigeria with a view to examining the perceptions of the participants on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in the universities.

Collected data was analyzed using the SPSS Version 21 software to run appropriate statistical tests and to count, classify and explain the perceptions of all the participants with respect to each of the research questions. 4

Findings show that university-industry collaborations in general hold good potential impact for quality assurance with regard to the facilitation of access to teaching and learning resources. With regard to higher education policy and practice, it is recommended that future studies be conducted with the aim of putting in place a modality for developing frameworks for a national scholar-practitioner policy on preparation, purpose and practice. Such a platform could encourage publicly-supported universities to partner with industry while at the same time meeting the challenges of carrying out collaborative action research and innovation activities aimed at arriving at a national agenda for human capital development and economic growth. 5

Dedication

This doctoral dissertation is dedicated to the nostalgic memories of my loving mother,

Esther O. Soyemi and my grandmothers, Comfort O. Ogundimu and Emma O. Soyemi

who all made untold sacrifices to ensure that, against all odds, I received basic

elementary education, and to every struggling mother who, in like manner, is currently paying the huge price of parental involvement aimed at ensuring the academic success of

their children.

Acknowledgments

My journey towards a doctoral degree at Ohio University would not have been possible but for the involvement and commitments of my mentors, teachers, friends and family. I would therefore like to start by expressing gratitude to my doctoral dissertation chair, Dr. Emmanuel Jean-Francois who, in spite of his very tight schedules, tutored, mentored and encouraged me throughout my dissertation journey. Equally important are my departmental and program faculty members first among whom is Dr. Krisanna

Machtmes: a great mentor and transformational educational leader par excellence. My thanks also go to Dr. Dwan Robinson, Dr. Bill Larson, and Dr. Francis Godwyll. I cannot fail to acknowledge the support and encouragement I have enjoyed from Dean Middleton and Dr. John Henning. They have both been there for me at critical moments. Most importantly, I am very grateful to the members of my dissertation committee – Dr.

Carolyn Bailey Lewis, Dr. Edna Wangui and Dr. Charles Lowery. Their invaluable contributions are acknowledged and highly appreciated.

As the saying goes, behind every successful man is a woman of substance. To this end I say a big “thank you” to my wife, Dr. Nancy Katu-Ogundimu for her support and encouragement. I also appreciate the patience and understanding of my children: Adeola

Olufemi Ogundimu who had successfully held the fort for me in Nigeria since 2010;

Adesola Olulayo Ogundimu my brilliant critic and academic challenger and my “baby girl”, Damilola Ogundimu. I greatly appreciate the prayers and counsel of Pastor and

Sister Crable (Athens Ohio) and Pastor Soji Oluwasina (Nigeria). To my good friends and encouragers, Riki and Mathieu Brugman (Netherland), Dr. J. Kehinde Popoola of 7

Morris College, Sumter, South Carolina and Mr. Solomon B. Aiyeru, I also say “thank you”. Lastly and most importantly, I return all glory and appreciation to the Almighty

God, the Source of all good things. 8

Table of Contents

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Dedication ...... 5 Acknowledgments...... 6 List of Tables ...... 12 List of Figures ...... 13 Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 14 Background ...... 14 History of Higher Education in Nigeria ...... 16 The first generation universities ...... 16 The second and subsequent generations of universities in Nigeria...... 17 Higher Education in Nigeria – A Profile ...... 18 The Nigerian education policy ...... 18 Purpose ...... 18 Objectives ...... 19 Strategic objective of the Nigerian vision 20:2020 ...... 19 Four-year strategic plan for the development of the education sector (2011 – 2015) ...... 20 Organization and Structures ...... 21 Types of Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria ...... 21 Key Stakeholders in Higher Education in Nigeria ...... 22 Government-Supported (Public) Universities ...... 23 Curriculum and Instruction ...... 26 Problem Statement ...... 26 Significance of Study ...... 30 Purpose of Study ...... 31 Research Questions (R.Q.) ...... 31 The triple helix university-industry collaborations (UIC) framework ...... 32 The survey...... 32 Limitation of the Study ...... 33 9

Delimitation of the Study ...... 34 Definition of Terms ...... 35 Chapter Two: Literature Review ...... 37 Introduction ...... 37 University-Industry Collaboration and the Production of Highly Skilled Work-Force 39 Higher Education and Workforce/Human Capital Development ...... 42 Current Socio-Economic and Political Contexts of Higher Education in Nigeria ...... 43 Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Contemporary Times ...... 44 Quality assurance and governance of higher education ...... 48 Quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria ...... 49 University-Industry Collaboration ...... 50 University-Industry Collaborations – A Win-Win Situation for All Concerned? ...... 51 University-Industry Collaborations – The Dream and the Nightmare (a Caveat) ...... 54 University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria ...... 56 Limitations to UIC in Nigeria ...... 59 Conceptual Framework ...... 60 The triple helix concept – a trans-national framework ...... 60 Two perspectives of the triple helix concept ...... 61 The neo-institutional perspective ...... 62 The neo-evolutionary perspective ...... 63 Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 65 Introduction ...... 65 Research Design ...... 65 The triple helix concept of university-industry collaborations ...... 66 Research Questions ...... 67 The Research Setting ...... 68 Target population ...... 68 University students ...... 68 Faculty ...... 69 Demographic composition in the universities ...... 70 Overview of student/teacher ratio in federal universities ...... 70 10

Research Locations – The Universities of Ibadan and Jos ...... 71 Rationale for Selecting the Universities ...... 75 Sampling/Recruitment of Participants ...... 76 Stratified sampling selection criteria...... 77 Stratification/selection method...... 77 Participants’ eligibility ...... 77 Instrument of Data Collection...... 78 Ethical Consideration/Protection of Human Subjects ...... 80 Data Collection ...... 81 Validity, reliability and pilot testing of the research instrument ...... 81 Validity...... 81 Reliability ...... 81 Pilot testing of the research instrument ...... 82 Data Collection ...... 82 Data Analysis ...... 83 Statistical Tools ...... 84 Summary of Data Analyses Tools ...... 86 Chapter Four: Findings ...... 88 Introduction ...... 88 Demographics ...... 89 Validity and Reliability of the Data ...... 90 Instrument validation - pilot testing...... 90 Reliability of the data ...... 91 T-test assumptions ...... 93 Testing of assumptions – normality ...... 93 Results ...... 95 The Research Questions (R.Q.)...... 95 University-industry collaborations...... 95 UIC and Quality Assurance ...... 104 Summary ...... 112 Weak Linkage between University and Industry ...... 116 11

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 117 Introduction ...... 117 Summary of the Study ...... 117 Overview of the problem ...... 117 Purpose statement ...... 118 Review of the methodology...... 118 Major Findings ...... 118 Findings Related to the Literature ...... 119 Unanticipated Finding ...... 121 Weak linkage between industry and universities...... 121 Implications for Theory, Practice and Policy ...... 122 Recommendations for Further Research ...... 124 Conclusion ...... 125 References ...... 127 Appendix 1: Informed Consent to Participate in Research (Adult Subjects) ...... 147 Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire ...... 149 Appendix 3: IRB Protocol Approval ...... 152

List of Tables

Page

Table 1: Types of Federal, Publicly-Supported Universities in Nigeria as at 2014 ...... 24 Table 2: Student/Teacher Ratio in Federal Universities, (2001-2006) ...... 71 Table 3: Statistical Methods...... 86 Table 4: Demographic Profile of the Participants ...... 90 Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test...... 91 Table 6: Tests of Normality ...... 94 Table 7: Perceptions of Students on University-Industry Collaborations ...... 95 Table 8: Perceptions of Faculty on University-Industry Collaborations ...... 96 Table 9: Group Statistics – Differences in Students and Faculty’s Perceptions of Practices/Approaches of University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria ...... 98 Table 10: Preferences of Students Regarding the Approaches of UIC in Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities ...... 100 Table 11: Preferences of Faculty Members Regarding the Approaches of UIC in Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities ...... 101 Table 12: Group Statistics - Differences between Students’ and Faculty Preferences Regarding Approaches of University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria...... 102 Table 13: Students’ Perception of the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level...... 105 Table 14: The Perception of Faculty on the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level of UIC Linkages in Nigerian Universities ...... 106 Table 15: The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level of UIC Linkages in Nigerian Universities ...... 108 Table 16: Students and Faculty’s Perceptions of the Potential Impact of University- industry Linkages on Quality Assurance in Nigerian Public Universities ...... 109 13

List of Figures

Page

Figure 1: The Triple-Helix Model ...... 39 Figure 2: UIC as a Planned Process for Higher Education Quality Assurance, Innovation and Economic Growth ...... 40 Figure 3: History of the University of Ibadan ...... 73 Figure 4: History of the University of Jos ...... 74

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

That humanity in contemporary times lives in a global world system and that economic growth is increasingly being driven by knowledge generation and application has become a universal social fact that could no longer be wished away (Duderstadt,

2007; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 1996; Smith,

2007; World Bank, 1999). This truism becomes even more evident with the incursion of information and telecommunication technologies (IT) into the most remote part of the globe. Through the IT revolution, time and space, language and cultures no longer hinder international business and international relations. In the words of Larsson, (2001), the globalization race comprises mainly of

the process of world shrinkage, of distances getting shorter, things moving closer.

It pertains to the increasing ease with which somebody on one side of the world

can interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on the other side of the world (p.

9).

Consequently, the contemporary global world system has taken international business and social relations to an unprecedented pedestal in which most economic activities and allied transactions have equally gone global. This is made evident through the ubiquitous networking of goods and services in the global marketplace. This fact is brought home by Osland (2003) who observes that “…. many business people and

…business scholars accept globalization as a fait accompli whose presence and benefits are largely unquestioned” (p. 138). This development is backed up by evidence from 15

OECD countries where investments in the knowledge base facilities of most countries

(higher education, research and development, IT and computer software, etc.) equal or exceed investments in physical equipment (OECD, 2001).

Given the above scenario, any developing country that intends to stay afloat in the highly competitive world market system cannot afford not to incorporate high quality trans-national education contents into its national curriculum. Indeed, the fundamental role played by higher education in the construction of the knowledge-based economy and society in all nations has been acknowledged by the World Bank (1999). More specifically with regard to Nigeria, Ejere (2011) observed that there is a need for the country and its citizens to become competitive in the 21st century global economy which is powered by high skills and knowledge. This point is further supported by Subair

(2008) who acknowledged the important role that university education plays in producing high quality graduates that form the bedrock of the intellectual and professional life of the country as a whole. For this reason, the need for all countries – developed and developing alike - to produce high quality graduates and skilled manpower, equipped with strong capacities to adopt and master the state-of-the-art technologies, cannot be over-emphasized (Hoekman, Maskus & Saggi, 2005). According to Smith (2007), such highly skilled human resources are instrumental to generating the technological innovations and local capacities required for national economic growth. This becomes even more pertinent for Nigeria in view of the dwindling fortunes of the country as a result of the reduction in oil revenue which hitherto was the major source of Nigeria’s national income. 16

From the foregoing, it goes without saying that Nigeria’s capacity to produce highly skilled manpower (university/technical graduates) in line with the current practices in the global education system has become a major factor that would determine its ability to weather the storm in the national and global markets of goods and services (Federal

Ministry of Education, 2011). Consequently, it no longer remains a matter of conjecture that Nigerian universities and other tertiary education institutions should be prepared to access and retain up-to-date teaching and research resources required for the production of highly skilled manpower (e.g. lecture rooms, laboratories, libraries, instructional technologies as well as highly qualified, world class professors). The extent to which such resources are being accessed by Nigerian universities through university-industry collaborations as well as the potential impact of such partnerships on quality assurance of

Nigerian university education is the main focus of this study.

History of Higher Education in Nigeria

The first generation universities. The existence of tertiary education in Nigeria is closely related to activities of the British colonial administration in Nigeria. However, the first University in Nigeria, the University of Ibadan was established as an affiliate of the University of London. It was the first of its kind. According to Ogunu (1990),

University education in Nigeria commenced with the establishment of the

University College, Ibadan (U.C.I.) in January, 1948 as a College of the

metropolitan University of London. The University College became independent

of London University in 1962 and became a full-fledged University of Ibadan (p.

1). 17

The University of Ibadan was internationally acclaimed for its academic excellence and the high quality of graduates it had produced over the years. As observed by Aminu (1983), given the very high standards the University of Ibadan has set earlier in its history, the institution could rightly claim to have given credibility and international recognition to higher education in Nigeria.

Between 1948 when the University of Ibadan was established and 1964 (18 years), Nigeria had only five universities. According to Adeogun, Subair & Osifila

(2009), two of these universities – the University College, Ibadan and University of

Lagos were federally owned, while the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka were owned respectively by the regional governments of the North, West, and the East respectively. In his classic work on the history of Nigerian higher education, (1971)

Fafunwa observes that “although student population for degree courses gradually increased while Ibadan was the only higher education institution, the figures rose phenomenally when the other four institutions were established” (p. 193). These pioneer universities were all known as first generation universities in Nigeria.

The second and subsequent generations of universities in Nigeria. By the mid-

1970s during the third national development plan (1975 – 1980) seven more universities were established by the Federal government while also taking over the four pre-existing regional universities. The second generation universities include Ado Bayero University

Kano, Universities of Calabar, Ilorin, Jos, Maiduguri, Port-Harcourt and Sokoto (Ajayi &

Ekundayo, 2008). These are all known as the second generation universities. As a result 18 of continuously high demands for university education, the third generation of universities were established in Nigeria between 1980 and 1990. These include Federal

Universities of Technology in Akure, Bauchi, Owerri, Makurdi and Yola while State universities were also established around the same time at Akwa-Ibom, Cross River

Ekpoma, Imo, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo and Uyo (Anyambele, 2004). The universities established between 1991 and the present date are classified as the fourth generation universities. They include the National Open University as well as State and privately- owned universities (Ajayi & Ekundayo, 2008). As at 2014, Nigeria has 126 universities made up of 39 Federal universities, 37 State universities and 50 private universities

(Nigerian Embassy in Berlin, 2014).

Higher Education in Nigeria – A Profile

Nigeria has a national education policy. The higher education policy is an integral part of the Nigerian Education Policy as formulated by the Federal Ministry of Education and other national stakeholders.

The Nigerian education policy. According to UNESCO (2010), the national policy on education in Nigeria was enacted in 1977 and has undergone several revisions with that of 2004 being the most recent.

Purpose. As spelled out in its guiding principle, the main purpose of the Nigerian education policy is to provide every citizen with knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that could enable him or her to derive maximum benefits from being a member of the

Nigerian society. Thus, the ultimate aim of the national education policy in Nigeria like 19 many other countries, is to empower citizens to lead a fulfilling life and contribute to the development and welfare of the community (UNESCO, 2010)

Objectives. The objectives of the Nigerian education policy include; (a) the inculcation of national consciousness and national unity; (b) the inculcation of correct types of values and attitudes for the survival of the individual and the Nigeria Society; and (c) training for understanding the world around. In addition to the purpose and objectives of the national education policy in Nigeria, there is another policy tagged

Vision 20:2020 which aims at improving the nation’s prospects for achieving the

Millennium Development Goals and creating employment in a sustainable manner

(UNESCO, 2010, p. 2).

Strategic objective of the Nigerian vision 20:2020. In order to meet the nation’s long term (broad) objectives one of the major challenges that needs to be overcome is the nation’s need to raise the quality and standard of education to what obtains comparatively at the international levels. A singular strategy to be employed for this purpose involves redesigning the school curricular at all levels to meet the labor market demands as well as the benchmarking of the quality of education in line with global standards (UNESCO,

2010). To this end therefore,

the Education National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions Act

No. 16 of 1985, together with the 1999 Constitutions empowers the Minister of

Education to ensure that minimum standards are set, maintained and constantly

improved in all schools of the Federation (p. 1). 20

Four-year strategic plan for the development of the education sector (2011 –

2015). Based on the long term strategic objective of the Nigerian education policy, the

Federal Ministry of Education (2011) came up with a four-year strategic plan for the educational development in Nigeria. The major thrust of the strategic plan is on the criticality of education to the long term human development and economic growth of

Nigeria. According to the 2011 plan,

Education is critical for the long-term success of Nigeria. The country’s ability to

stay competitive in a knowledge-driven world is dependent on the development of

the right skills at different levels of human endeavor. At the moment, the

challenge of doing this is quite immense because Nigeria is decades behind in the

provision of the ideal environment for the development of the required skills (p.

10).

Other highlights of this strategic plan include (1) strengthening the institutional management of education; (2) access and equity; (3) Standard and quality assurance; (4)

Teacher education and development; (5) Technical and vocational education and training;

(6) Funding, partnerships and resource mobilization (p. 10).

While the Federal Ministry of Education (2011) conceded that access and equity as well as quality assurance remain major challenges in the Nigerian education sector, finding solutions to the other four focal areas highlighted above will set the stage for the country to effectively support its human capital/work force needs if the country is to meet its developmental objectives. To this end, it is imperative for Nigeria to achieve the following as from 2015: high-skilled world-class manpower; world class (educational) 21 institutions with world class infrastructure; world class learning resources and world class teachers.

Consequent upon the above, the Plan mapped out well-defined strategies and initiatives to strengthen the role of the Federal Ministry of Education and also identifies the responsibilities of relevant stakeholders towards meeting the set national workforce development goals.

Organization and Structures

Nigeria runs a federal system of governance with 36 states and a Federal Capital

Territory in Abuja. Consequently, the federal system of governance plays a major role in determining the management structure of the education in the country. With regard to the provision of university, technological and professional higher education services, the federal and state governments are (concurrently) at liberty to legislate, establish and manage institutions of higher education while the Federal Ministry of Education is charged with the responsibility of harmonizing education policies and procedures of all the states in Nigeria. (UNESCO, 2011).

Types of Higher Education Institutions in Nigeria

Higher education (also known as tertiary education) is provided by universities, polytechnics, colleges of technology and colleges of education. A detailed picture of the type of higher education and training offered by each of these institutions is well painted by (UNESCO, 2010) as follows:

Colleges of education offer three-year programs leading to the award of the

Nigerian Certificate in Education. A Technical Teachers Certificate requires one 22

additional year of study beyond the Certificate in Education. Polytechnics and

colleges of technology award national certificates and diplomas, namely: the

National Diploma, after two years of study following the senior secondary school;

and the Higher National Diploma, awarded after a further course of two years’

duration. A Professional Diploma requires an additional one and a half years of

study. At the university level, programs leading to a bachelor’s degree normally

last four years (five to six years in the case of medicine, surgery, veterinary and

dentistry). Postgraduate diploma programs normally last one year. The duration of

master’s degree programs is one to two years; doctoral degree programs usually

require two to three years of study (p.8).

Key Stakeholders in Higher Education in Nigeria

According to the Federal Ministry of Education (2011), the key stakeholders in higher education in Nigeria are the National Council of Education – made up of the

Federal Minister of Education and State Commissioners for Education; the Joint

Consultative Committee on Education comprising of professional officers of the federal and state ministries of education. Also, the Nigerian Educational Research and

Development Council which is responsible for developing curricular for use at all levels of the educational system.

Other stakeholders in education in Nigeria include the National Universities

Commission which is a parastatal and think tank of the Federal Ministry of Education. Its functions include the approval of courses and programs in all the universities; determination and maintenance of minimum academic standards; monitoring of 23 universities; accreditation of academic programs and the provision of guidelines and processing of applications for the establishment of private universities (Federal Ministry of Education, 2010). There is also a centralized testing body charged with the conduct of annual, nation-wide entrance examinations to all Nigerian universities, polytechnics and colleges of education - Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (Federal Ministry of

Education, 2010).

Government-Supported (Public) Universities

Nigeria has about 128 approved universities 39 of which are Federal Government- supported, 39 State-owned and 50 privately-owned (Nigerian Embassy in Berlin, 2014).

In essence therefore, ownership of universities in Nigeria could be categorized into three

– Federal Government Universities, State Government-owned and privately/parochial universities While the Federal Ministry of finance provides funding to all Federal

Universities, the National Planning Commission and State Ministries of Planning approve educational plans (National Universities Commission, 2014). Table 1 below shows the types of Federal Universities in Nigeria as at the end of 2014.

Table 1: Types of Federal, Publicly-Supported Universities in Nigeria as at 2014 Type and name of University Year Established/ Generation Total % Conventional Universities 1. University of Ibadan, Ibadan 1948 – 1st 2. University of Nigeria, Nsukka 1960 – 1st 3. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife 1962 – 1st 4. Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria 1962 – 1st 5. University of Lagos, Lagos 1962 – 1st 6. University of Benin, Benin City 1970 – 1st 7. Bayero University, Kano 1975 – 2nd 8. University of Calabar, Calabar 1975 – 2nd 9. University of Ilorin, Ilorin 1975 – 2nd 10. University of Jos, Jos 1975 – 2nd 11. University of Maiduguri, Maiduguri 1975 – 2nd 12. Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto 1975 – 2nd 13. University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt 1975 – 2nd 14. University of Abuja, Abuja 1988 – 3rd 15. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi 1988 – 3rd 16. University of Uyo, Uyo 1991 – 4th 17. Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 1992 – 4th 18. National Open University of Nigeria, Lagos 2002 – 5th 19. Federal University, Lokoja, Kogi State 2011 – 5th 20. Federal University, Lafia, Nasarawa State 2011 – 5th 21. Federal University, Kashere, Gombe State 2011 – 5th 22. Federal University, Wukari, Taraba State 2011 – 5th 23. Federal University, Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State 2011 – 5th 24. Federal University, Dutse, Jigawa State 2011 – 5th 25. Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Ebonyi State 2011 – 5th 26. Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State 2011 – 5th 27. Federal University, Otuoke, Bayelsa State 2011 – 5th 28. Federal University, Birnin-Kebbi, Kebbi State 2013 – 5th 29. Federal University, Gashua, Yobe State 2013 – 5th 30. Federal University, Gusau, Zamfara State 2013 – 5th 30 77

Federal Universities of Technology 1. Federal University of Technology, Owerri 1980 – 3rd 6 15.3 2. Federal University of Technology, Akure 1981 – 3rd 3. Modibbo Adama University of Technology, 1981 – 3rd Yola 1982 – 3rd 4. Federal University of Technology, Minna 1992 – 4rd 5. Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, 2007 – 5th Umudike 6. Fed. University of Petroleum Resources, Effurun Federal Universities of Agriculture 1. University of Agriculture, Makurdi 1988 – 3rd 2. Federal University of Agriculture, Akure 1988 – 3rd 3. Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 1988 – 3rd 3 7.7 Total number of Federal Universities 39 100% Source: Nigerian Embassy Berlin (2014) 25

According to UNESCO (2010), the quality assurance of education in Nigeria is to be guaranteed through the establishment of the

Education National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions Act

No. 16 of 1985, together with the 1999 Constitution. These legal frameworks

empower the Minister of Education to ensure that minimum standards are set,

maintained and constantly improved in all the schools of the country…. In 1993,

the National Minimum Standards and Establishments of Institutions Amendments

Decree No. 9 was promulgated. It provides for religious bodies, non-

governmental organizations and private individuals to participate in the provision

of tertiary education (UNESCO, 2010; pp. 3 - 4).

However, as indicated in the Federal Ministry of Education (2012) 4-year strategic plan document, quality assurance constitutes a major challenge to the education system in Nigeria. Some of the challenges include low standard and quality of educational institutions and their products, infrastructural decay and obsolete facilities, poor teaching quality, cultism, examination malpractices and maladministration. These problems are further compounded by what the Federal Ministry of Education (2012) describes as “insufficient quality assurance mechanisms” (p. 35).

At the higher education (or tertiary) level additional concerns about quality assurance include; instability of the academic calendar; infrastructural decay and obsolescence of equipment; outdated curricular which are largely irrelevant to national needs and global competitive demands; non-professionalization of education quality assurance practice; absence of a comprehensive standard and quality assurance policy 26 document; lack of synergy among relevant stakeholders in quality assurance; weak support structure for students industrial work experience scheme (SIWES); inadequate deployment of ICT for teaching and learning purposes; inadequate capacity of educational institutions to undertake internal/comparative quality assessment (Federal

Ministry of Education, 2012, p. 36.)

With regard to quality assurance in the universities, the National Universities

Commission (NUC) is charged with this responsibility (NUC, 2015). To this end the

Commission has a Department of academic Standards made up of a number of divisions as follows:

Curriculum and Instruction

According to the National Universities Commission (2014), the curriculum and instruction for all Nigerian universities are designed in line with Nigerian education policy. The Academic Standards Department of the National Universities Commission is charged with this responsibility. The Department has two divisions namely,

Undergraduate Curriculum Development Division and Postgraduate Curriculum

Development and Planning Division respectively.

Problem Statement

According to the National Universities Commission (NUC) (2015), the quality and focus of training offered by Nigerian universities in recent times are not in tune with the needs of the country and the consequence of this is the high unemployment rates among Nigerian graduates. Most of these graduates have been described as unemployable, especially in the science and technology fields. Secondly, study findings 27 indicate that the quality of the graduates produced by Nigerian universities in the recent times has depreciated considerably due to decades of development and decline of the

Nigerian university system (Eribo, 1996). Based on the above, the research problems statement is broadly summarized below. Each of the problems is directly interlinked and inter-related with others.

Consistent decline in government funding of Nigerian universities at a rate far lower than the UNESCO-approved minimum (Afuwoqi & Wu, 2011; Akeusola &

Ofulue, 2011; Ekundayo & Ajayi, 2009; Eribo, 1996; Saint, Hartnett & Strassner, 2003).

1. The quality and focus of training offered by Nigerian universities are not in tune

with the needs of the country (National Universities Commission, 2015).

2. Largely unemployable university graduates.

Many other studies have reiterated the above problems and the causes of this undesirable development. These include decline in real value of government allocations for higher education in the face of increasing enrollments (up to 79%); deteriorating working conditions and downward pressure on staff salaries; compromised university autonomy; incessant student and faculty strikes; political repression on campus; growing corruption; cultism and human rights abuses (Akeusola & Ofulue, 2011; Ekundayo &

Ajayi, 2009; Saint et al., 2003).

Other factors listed as responsible for the falling standards of university education in Nigeria include unplanned expansion, unnecessary duplication of courses and programs, deterioration of physical structures and facilities, lack of teaching-learning and research resources, massification of student enrolment, other social ills etc. (Idaka, 2013). 28

However, perhaps the most compelling causes of low the quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria is the dwindling resources of the universities as evidenced by lack of sufficient funding which, in turn affects efficiency, equity, quality and governance

(Anasi, 2012; Babarinde, 2012; Ekundayo & Ajayi, 2009).

In a World Bank-sponsored status report of higher education in Nigeria, Saint et al., (2003) pointed out the low levels of investment in research capacity and education as evidenced by the dwindling volume of scientific publications when compared to India,

Indonesia and South Africa; the insignificant research budget allocation to Nigeria’s federal universities; neglect of technical education by policy makers as well as an education system which is orientated to the teaching of traditional hand skills that are divorced from labor market requirements. A major conclusion of the Saint et al.’s (2003) status report of higher education in Nigeria indicates that the “elements of a national innovation system are clearly not yet in place” (p. 4).

Given that one of the most critical pre-disposing factors to the falling standards of education in publicly-supported universities in Nigerian is the decline in real value of government allocations for higher education, it is pertinent for such universities to spread their tentacles to access teaching, research and other learning resources to industries and organizations in their domains, as is the case in many countries. For instance, research findings support the fact that UIC could be a win-win situation for the organizations involved in the collaboration (Lee, 2000; Prager & Omen, 1980). This is especially true in contemporary times as a result of the rise of a global knowledge economy which has 29 intensified the need for strategic partnerships that should go beyond the traditional funding of ad-hoc research projects.

While acknowledging the fact that academic institutions are basically in the business of education, training and extension of fundamental knowledge, Prager and

Omenn (2015) observe that many universities and industrial firms in the United States have established relationships that are, in varying degrees, found to be beneficial to both parties. Some of these relationships include corporate contributions to university funds, procurement of university services, cooperative research and other significant research partnerships.

In a similar vein, Lee (2000) reports that in a study of 100 academicians accessing research funding, funds for laboratory equipment and gaining practical perspectives on academic research in order to test theories were some of the stated goals for collaboration. A typically successful win-win collaboration for innovation was that between Washington University and Monsanto. It is a partnership in which the two institutions, through a grant provided by Monsanto, partnered for basic research to develop and commercialize pharmaceutical products. Through this university-industry partnership, an annual research grant of 2-9 million dollars saw assistant professors having 40 percent of the grant, while 35 percent and 25 per cent of the fund went to associate and full professors respectively. In return for providing the research grant,

Monsanto had the right of first refusal with regard to the licensing and development of new innovations because of the research grant provided. The two institutions conceded 30 that their collaboration was a win for all the involved partners (Business-Higher

Education Forum, 2001).

In view of the foregoing research evidence at the international level, it appears that University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) in Nigeria could be one of the feasible means of achieving increased funding and quality assurance. To this end, and in view of the research problems stated above, understanding the perception of faculty and students in Nigerian universities will provide information on the extent to which (underfunded) publicly-supported universities have been able to boost their access to teaching, research and learning resources, and by implication, their quality of teaching and learning through their engagement with industries in line with the Triple Helix (Leydesdorff, 2012) UIC framework. Such a collaboration is indeed desired by the government in recognition of the need to produce high quality labor force in a knowledge-driven world. This goal is contained in the current policy document of the Federal Ministry of Education’s (2011) known as the Four-year Strategic Plan for the Development of the Education Sector.

Significance of Study

In addition to contributing to literature on University-Industry Collaborations

(UIC), a hitherto little-researched area of study in Nigeria, this study is also significant for informing higher education policy with regard to the relevance of UIC in facilitating access to alternative sources of funding, teaching and learning resources and boosting quality assurance. This is very much in consonance with Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of

Education’s goal of producing high quality work force that could meet the current and 31 future job requirements at home as well as at the international level in an emerging, globalized knowledge-driven economy.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of the spin-offs of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in Nigerian universities. To this end, the respondents that participated in this study consist of 182 university students and 80 faculty members. The two groups of participants were equally selected from two publicly funded universities in South-West and North Central Nigeria respectively.

Research Questions (R.Q.)

The research questions for this study emanate from the purpose of the study and reflect the research problems stated above. The research questions are couched in the

Triple Helix UIC framework (Leydesdorff, 2012) and are listed as follows:

1. What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices and

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

2. Are there differences in students and faculty’s perceptions of practices and

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

3. What are the preferences of students and faculty regarding approaches of

university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

4. Are there differences between faculty and students’ preferences regarding

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria? 32

5. What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential impact of

university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher education in

Nigeria?

6. Are there differences in perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential

impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher

education in Nigeria?

The triple helix university-industry collaborations (UIC) framework. The

Triple Helix UIC framework has a unique feature which makes it appropriate for this study because a significant body of the concept, according to Leydesdorff (2012) has been made to go through theoretical and empirical research and development over the last

20 years. Thus, the Triple Helix concept “provides a general framework for exploring complex innovation dynamics and for informing national, regional and international innovation and development policy-making” (Triple Helix Research Group, p. 1).

In view of the fact that the purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of students and faculty members in two Nigerian publicly-supported universities on the potential impact of UIC on quality assurance of Nigerian universities the study collected data from the two sets participants (students and faculty) from two Federal universities.

Thereafter, the study employed the non-experimental, quantitative research design. An online survey questionnaire was employed to collect data from the students and faculty members of the two participating universities respectively.

The survey. A survey questionnaire comprising of 34 items was administered to a total of 300 participants made up of 200 students and 300 faculty members - drawn in 33 equal numbers from each of the two participating universities; i.e. 100 X 2 students and

50 X 2 faculty members respectively. A total of 269 questionnaires were completed and returned by the respondents. Seven out of these were invalid because they have missing responses to some of the questionnaire items. The instrument comprised of three sections namely: demographics; university-industry collaborations and quality assurance. The 34 items in the survey questionnaire were generated from the research questions listed above. While a purposive, stratified sampling method was used to select all the respondents who are faculty members, the purposive, stratified random sampling was employed for student participants from both universities. The items included in the survey questionnaire are designed to solicit responses from the subjects in line with the research questions.

Limitation of the Study

This study has a number of limitations. For instance, in the selection of faculty members, the study adopted purposive, stratified sampling method while for the student participants, a purposive, stratified random sampling method was adopted. This might to some extent, limit the generalizability of the study findings to larger populations outside

Nigeria. However, since this study is more or less exploratory in nature, the findings could stimulate ideas and prompt the need for future studies on the impact of UIC on quality assurance in higher educational institutions on a large scale elsewhere. Also, the study focuses on Federal, publicly funded universities. No attempt is made to include

State or Private Universities. Similarly, the concept, university-industry collaboration which is couched in the Triple Helix UIC framework (Leydesdorff, 2012), is being 34 proposed because it is a little-explored alternative avenue for universities to access funds, teaching, research and other learning resources in Nigeria. However, it is by no means the only viable means through which universities and other higher education institutions in could access much needed resources. Other limitations of the study include limited funding, the time frame and geographical spread.

Delimitation of the Study

The study is limited in scope as its concentration is on the problems facing university education in Nigeria with specific focus on publicly-supported, Federal

Universities as against private and state government-owned universities. Neither does the operational setting of the study extend to Polytechnics, Monotechnics, Colleges of

Education, Professional Trade and other institutions of higher education.

Also, the choice of research questions which are a function of the research purpose and problems are restricted to access to teaching, research and other learning resources vis-à-vis the role such resources could play in improving quality of teaching and learning in the universities under study. While the only stakeholders studied are mainly the students and faculty members in the universities, other stakeholders like the industries, the Ministry of Education and its regulating agencies, government officials and senior university administrators and parents did not form part of this study.

Obviously, these group of stakeholders are potential subject areas for future research and studies. However, suffice it to say that the limited scope of this study remains a reflection of the clearly stated purpose in which the intended study accomplishments are explicit. 35

Finally, in a bid to achieve a fair semblance of geographical spread and criteria for participation, two different types of Federal universities were selected – one Federal university in the North Central part of Nigeria and another Federal university in the

South-West. Distance was another factor for ensuring geographical/locational spread. For instance, the two universities are located at about 800 kilometers (500 miles) apart.

Similarly, the participants were drawn from senior undergraduate and graduate students who have spent at least two – three years in each university as well as their professors/faculty members.

Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study the following terms are identified and defined:

 University-Industry Cooperation.

University-Industry cooperation or collaboration refers to “cooperation between enterprises and universities or between enterprises and scientific research institutes” (Xu,

2010, p. 1).

 Nigerian Publicly-Funded Universities

Nigerian publicly-funded universities could be defined as consisting of the faculty and management boards (the Councils) of Federal and State universities as represented by their principal officers - Vice Chancellors (presidents), the Registrars, Bursars, the

University Librarians, faculty members as well as the student union governments of the institutions. 36

 Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is defined as the systematic review of educational programs to ensure that acceptable standards of education, scholarship and infrastructure are being maintained (UNESCO, 2014). Such systematic reviews are carried out both internally and externally by duly constituted bodies.

 Industry

Generally, the term, industry shall include local and multi-national business enterprises including medium/big entities doing business in Nigeria and making good annual turnover. While the local industry refers to businesses owned either by Nigerians and/or in conjunction with foreign partners, multinational corporations or industries are business entities that come from foreign countries to do business in Nigeria. Industries in this case will include oil companies, financial institutions, manufacturing companies, telecom companies, etc.

Chapter Two: Literature Review

Introduction

This chapter aims at researching the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of University-Industry Collaborations on quality assurance in Nigerian publicly-supported Universities. The study becomes timely and relevant in Nigeria for a number of reasons:

1. The education sector, like other human development sectors (e.g. health and

social welfare) in Nigeria, is not immune from national and international

developments in the socio-political and economic contexts in recent times. Like

many other countries depending on oil export as the mainstay of their economies,

the financial fortunes of Nigeria are being affected as a result of the sharp fall in

the international market price of crude oil (Ajakaiye & Fakiyesi, 2009; World

Bank, 2015).

2. Research findings have shown that whereas the demand for higher education by

the teeming population of youths in Nigeria is increasing at a geometric

proportion, funding of government-owned universities is no longer commensurate

with the increasing demand for higher education in Nigeria (Saint & Strassner,

2003).

3. Consequent upon (2) above most public institutions of higher education have

neither been able to employ new faculty nor adequately motivate the existing ones

while the universities are under continuous pressure to increase students 38

enrolment in spite of the stagnation in existing teaching, research and learning

resources (Adewole & Fakorede, 2013).

4. These problems have given rise to other problems like irregular payment of

faculty and staff salaries; class overcrowding; high student-teacher ratio; total lack

or insufficient teaching and research resources – libraries, text books, extant

journals and publications, reagents in university laboratories, limited access to

instructional technologies including internet and other online facilities (Adewole

& Fakorede, 2013; Anasi, 2012; Asiyai, 2014); students’ riots, civil disobedience,

attacks on students and faculty and incessant nation-wide students, faculty and

staff strikes and industrial actions (Etadon, 2013; Omonijo, Oludayo, Uche, &

Eche, n.d.; Oludayo et al., 2014).

The general drop in the quality of education in Nigerian universities has been well documented. For instance, many studies in Nigeria have placed this problem squarely at the doorstep of dwindling resources which is evidenced in the lack of sufficient funding.

This in turn affects efficiency, equity, quality and governance (Anasi, 2012; Babarinde,

2012; Ekundayo and Ajayi, 2009). According to Salami (2001), some of these current challenges in Nigeria are compounded by other novel problems arising as a direct consequence of knowledge inculcation in economic development. These old challenges

(of dwindling resources and insufficient funding) are further being compounded by new challenges arising as a result of the growing role of Information Technology in the construction of knowledge for economic development, rapid changes in telecommunications technology, and the globalization of trade and labor markets. 39

University-Industry Collaboration and the Production of Highly Skilled Work-

Force

Central to the University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) concept is the fact that collaborations between government, industries and universities and industries for the purposes of research and innovation hold a great potential for all stakeholders – the government, university and industry respectively. For this reason, therefore, UIC promotes a “hybridization of elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge” (Triple Helix Group, 2012, p.1). This hybridization of elements is depicted in the Triple-Helix Model (Figure 1) below:

Figure 1: The Triple-Helix Model 40

However, from the perspective of this study, the UIC concept is assumed to have some potential impact on the university system, based on the fact that a typical university is made up of students and faculty. It ought to follow naturally that quality assurance of education should, by implication, be a positive derivative in the UIC process which takes place both in the university and industrial arena. This proposed process could be graphically depicted through Figure 2 below:

Figure 2: UIC as a Planned Process for Higher Education Quality Assurance, Innovation and Economic Growth

While most of the studies and literature reviewed acknowledge the role of university-industry collaborations (UIC) in promoting economic growth in America,

Europe and Asia, etc. (Kaymaz & Eryiğit, 2011; Lee, 2000; Tunde & Issa, 2013), UIC could in addition to stimulating economic growth, boost employment generation through 41 innovation and knowledge creation (Bodas, Frietas, Marques & Silva, 2013; Huault,

1996; Leydesdorff & Meyer, 2006; Martini, Tjakraatmadja, Anggoro, Priasari &

Hutapea, 2012; Petruzzelli, 2011; Youtie & Shapira, 2018; Yusuf, 2008). Thus, UIC as a process has a good potential to impact a country’s capacity to produce highly-skilled work force in a globalizing world market system.

There is also a general consensus that UIC is indeed a win-win situation in which all stakeholders - the university, faculty, students, industry and the nation at large, stand to benefit (D’Angelo, D. C., & Solazzi, 2009; Ghazali & Martini, 2012; Motohashi, 2005;

Perkmann et al., 2013; Salleh & Omar, 2013; Youtie & Shapira, 2008). It is in the light of the above that this chapter reviews relevant extant literature with focus on:

 Higher Education and National Development;

 higher education and human capital/workforce development;

 the current state of higher education in Nigeria with particular focus on

university education;

 the role of University-Industry Collaborations (U-IC) in influencing quality

assurance of universities in terms of access to teaching, learning and research

resources;

 the role of U-IC in fostering a win-win situation in terms of service learning

and skills acquisition for students, research and development for industrial

productivity and an efficient and competent workforce for national economic

growth and development;

 University-Industry Collaboration as an emerging global phenomenon; 42

 University-Industry Collaboration in Nigeria;

 quality assurance of higher education in contemporary times as well as the

quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria.

Higher Education and Workforce/Human Capital Development

Just as evidence from research and studies have testified to the fact that the human resource base of a country is a major determinant of its economic growth and global competitiveness (Badea & Rogojanu, 2012), it is could also be stated that the higher education institutions in the country play very important role of producing the requisite manpower or workforce for realizing this economic and development goals (ILO 2011).

However, while it is important for a country to possess the capacity to produce adequate work force to power its economic growth and social development, the extent to which such a country could achieve this goal is a function of the quality of the graduates coming out of the higher education institutions (Uche, 2014).

Concerned with the problem of shortage of qualified manpower in the six Gulf

Cooperation Countries and the influx of foreign workers and its attendant socio-cultural and economic problems, Khurshid (2014) in his study of Continuing Education (CE) program as a localization initiative for preparing nationals to reduce the shortage of master’s degree holders in Library and Information Studies (LIS). The research concludes that in terms of quality of services and international standards, the CE program is not a suitable substitute for the graduate program in LIS.

Even, at the individual higher education level or organizational level, it has been shown that much as financial capital and other structural/organizational capital or 43 resources are important, human, structural and relational capital are very important. For instance, in a study by (Ramírez, Tejada, & Gordillo, 2013) in a number of Spanish public universities, it was found that different university stakeholders considered information that related to the relational and human capital as most valued over and above structural capital. This realization is perhaps the reason why Anna Rosa (2014) concludes in his recent study that “in the era of knowledge based economy, education constitutes the simplest way to increase the intellectual capital possessed in the system”

(p. 58) and advocates for a well-financed higher education in order to increase the potential of human capital development.

Current Socio-Economic and Political Contexts of Higher Education in Nigeria

Perhaps it is apt to argue that one could not talk about the current state of higher education in Nigeria in isolation of the prevailing socio-economic and political milieu in the country. Ekundayo and Ajayi (2009) summed up the scenario of the current state of higher education in Nigeria by juxtaposing the highlights of the most recent (2004)

National Education Policy with the realities on the ground in virtually all the public universities in Nigeria. For instance, citing the 2004 National Policy on Education,

Ekundayo and Ajayi (2009) pointed out that higher education is expected to, among other things, (a) play a contributory role in national development through high level relevant manpower training; (b) develop and inculcate proper values for the survival of the individual and society; (c) develop the intellectual capability of individuals to understand and appreciate local and external environments; (d) acquire both physical and intellectual skills which will enable individuals to be self-reliant and useful members of the society; 44

(e) promote and encourage scholarship and community service; (f) forge and cement national unity and (f) promote national and international understanding and interaction

(Ekundayo & Ajayi, 2009: p.1).

While the above policy highlights spell out how the Nigerian higher educational institutions should pursue these objectives based on the nation’s needs and the challenges of development, many research findings have come up with a long list of challenges facing higher education in Nigeria. These challenges comprise both internal and external problems (Babarinde, 2012: p. 2); “political intervention” (Saint et al., 2003: p.4); “over- stretching the limited learning resources and underfunding” (Oladipo et al, 2009 p.11);

“deteriorating infrastructure”, “brain-drain” and “erosion of university autonomy”

(Ekundayo and Ajayi, 2009: p.4); “poor access to digital libraries/teaching resources” and consequently, “ill-equipped graduates” (Anasi, 2012: p.4). All of these challenges in the

Nigerian higher education system were earlier summed up by Eribo (1996) as “decades of development and decline” (p. 1). In virtually all the research findings, under-funding or financial crises and the low quality of the Nigerian graduates remain a recurring decimal.

Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Contemporary Times

That graduates of higher institutions of learning constitute a well-educated work force that is required for national economic growth and personal development is a well- known fact. It also goes without saying that the quality of academic programs of universities of various countries in contemporary times should be of very high quality.

According to Nicholson (2011), in Europe, Australia, Canada and the United States the 45 processes of quality assurance in higher education are steadily gaining importance. This is mainly because;

government and industry have advocated that a well-educated workforce is

essential to increased productivity and to maintaining a competitive edge in the

global knowledge economy, resulting in an increase in public funding for higher

education and a drive to make postsecondary education more accessible…. (p. 1).

In defining what is meant by quality assurance in higher education, Dill (2007) observes that the term is increasingly being used to denote “the practices in which academic standards, i.e. the level of academic achievement attained by higher education graduates are maintained and improved” (p. 1). This is very much in line with

UNESCO’s (2014) definition of education quality assurance as the systematic review of educational programs to ensure that acceptable standards of education, scholarship and infrastructure are being maintained. Dill (2007) went further to identify two levels by which higher education quality could be assured – the internal and external as follows:

Internal quality assurance refers to those policies and practices whereby academic

institutions themselves monitor and improve the quality of their education

provision, while external quality assurance refers to supra-institutional policies

and practices whereby the quality of higher education institutions and programs

are assured (p.1).

Dill (2007) posits that the emerging global (knowledge) economy has necessitated the need for the production of advanced human capital as an important factor in many a nation’s economic development and a central component of their competitive advantage. 46

Consequently, citing World Bank (2002), he states that the combined impacts of globalization and massification have changed the hitherto traditional relationship between the State and the institutions of higher learning which in turn had motivated policy makers to seek innovative forms of achieving higher education quality assurance with the

United States blazing the trail since the early 1980s. According to Dill (2007), other countries that have evolved new national quality assurance policies include France in

1984, the United Kingdom in 1985 and the Netherlands in the same year. While the

French government was basically concerned with minimizing its dysfunctional quality assurance bureaucracy, Great Britain wanted to achieve a better linkage of its higher education with the labor market. As for the Netherlands, a new quality assurance framework was adopted in association with an innovative approach to steering universities. Over time, the quality assurance innovations in these countries gradually diffused to other countries in Europe, Asia and world-wide. According to Dill (2007) the locus of the new external quality practice in higher education centers around three dimensions – the professional or self-regulation in which the academics themselves are mainly in charge of setting and enforcing the rules and norms of quality assurance of academic provision; the direct state regulation of quality in defining and enforcing academic standards, the definition of the degree frameworks, academic audits, etc. that are put in place to maintain/improve internal quality assurance practices and finally, commercial information to students and families aimed at achieving consumer sovereignty to aid informed choice of academic programs e.g. commercially-produced 47 rankings, student guides and other media designed to provide academic quality information to students.

For the purpose of this study, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s

(CHEA) definition of quality assurance of higher education is being adopted. According to CHEA (2012), quality assurance essentially involves the application of specific recognition standards and the sustainability of ongoing review of participating accrediting organization to assure high quality of organizational performance of higher education institutions. From the foregoing it goes without saying that while quality assurance is about the organizational performance of higher education institutions, accreditation is at the nerve center of higher education quality assurance. This becomes clear in the light of

CHEA’s (2000) stipulation on the United States’ accreditation in higher education:

Accreditation in higher education is a collegial process of self-review and peer

review for improvement of academic quality and public accountability of

institutions and programs. This quality review process occurs on a periodic basis,

usually every 3 to 10 years. Typically, it involves three major activities; (1) a self-

study by an institution or program using the standards or criteria of an accrediting

organization; (2) a peer review of an institution or program to gather evidence of

quality and (3) a decision or judgment by an accrediting organization to accredit;

accredit with conditions; or not accrediting an institution or program (p.2).

Perhaps, it is apt to point out the fact that quality assurance goes beyond the need to maintain standards for the sake of standards alone. To this end, Mishra (2006) captures the essence of higher education quality assurance by observing that “it is the quality of 48 higher education that decides the quality of human resources in a country …..it is a complex system facilitating teaching, research, extension and international cooperation and understanding (p. 10).

Okebukola (2010) buttresses Mishra’s (2006) observation above by positing that

“quality assurance is an umbrella host of activities that are designed to improve the quality of input, process and output of the higher education system” (p. 5). He asserts that quality assurance consists of components that are both internal and external to the educational institution and that accreditation, an external activity, is just one of the components of quality assurance. While the primary purpose of the quality assurance process is to examine the effectiveness and efficiency of input, process and output elements of the teaching, learning, research and service activities of a higher education institution, its utility lies in the provision of information to interested stakeholders about the worth of the higher education delivery system as well as ensuring accountability in respect of the investment of public fund (Okebukola, 2010, p. 4).

Quality assurance and governance of higher education. In his review of governance arrangements and quality assurance guidelines for OECD countries,

Harcleroad (2011) observes that as a result of the dynamic nature of society, new, diverse institutions are needed and as a result, higher education needs constant changes that should be adapted. For this reason, higher education governance becomes an important policy issue in the 21st century. Even though autonomy is good for quality improvement and competition, it is faced by restriction and by the influence of state-driven higher education policy as well as the constant, increasing intervention of external quality 49 assurance. These also are issues confronting quality assurance of higher education in

Nigeria.

Quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria. If quality assurance according to UNESCO (2014) is defined as “the systematic review of educational programs to ensure that acceptable standards of education, scholarship and infrastructure are being maintained” (p. 1), the regular review of the quality of higher education in

Nigeria is not lacking. However, findings of several studies on this subject point to the fact that a lot needs to be done in order to shore up the quality of higher education in the country.

For instance, an elaborate World Bank-sponsored status report of higher education in Nigeria (Saint et al., 2003) identified many issues affecting the quality of higher education. These include; the low levels of investment in research capacity and education as evidenced by the dwindling volume of scientific publications when compared to India, Indonesia and South Africa; the insignificant research budget allocation to Nigeria’s federal universities; neglect of technical education by policy makers as well as an education system which is orientated to the teaching of traditional hand skills that are divorced from labor market requirements. The status report finally concludes that the “elements of a national innovation system are clearly not yet in place”

(p. 4).

With regard to the quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria, the verdict reached by the 2003 World Bank status report has been validated by many other locally- conducted studies - before and after the 2003 World Bank study. For instance (Oladipo et 50 al., 2009) posits that the Nigerian higher education system faces great challenges in the various components of the quality assurance process: quality of resource input – highly qualified teachers and learning resources; quality of output – academic achievement on tests, progress and pass rates, internal and external efficiency; quality of process – student/teacher, teacher-dominated learning, level of student engagement in learning; quality of content – content of curriculum and the need to make the curriculum relevant to learner and societal needs. Other challenges being faced by Nigerian Universities include under-funding in the face of enrolment explosion; inadequate physical facilities – poor infrastructure, over-crowded classrooms, inadequate access to ICT, poor management and inadequate staffing (Ajadi, 2010; Akeusola et al., 2011; Anasi, 2012;

Asiyai, 2014; Salaam & Adegbore, 2010; Uche, 2014).

University-Industry Collaboration

The important role that universities play in contributing to the knowledge and technological base in industrial innovation has been widely studied and documented.

Several research and extant literature on this subject matter do exist internationally

(Ankrah, Burgess, Grimshaw, & Shaw, 2013; Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008; Etzkowitz

& Leydesdorff, 2000; Fiaz, 2013; Ilie et al., 2014; Leydesdorff & Meyer, 2006; Liew,

Shahdan, & Lim, 2013; Prigge & Torraco, 2007; Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link,

2003; Smith, 2007; Youtie & Shapira, 2008). However, suffice it to say that the

University-Industry partnerships for social and economic progress is a mixed bag of benefits as well as the risks. 51

In the context of this study however, more focus shall be on the inherent benefits of UIC to universities, broadly in terms of promoting quality assurance and specifically in terms of facilitating promoting their access to teaching, research and other learning resources. These are considered germane the building of the capacity of students for experiential learning and skills acquisition – important components of quality assurance in higher education. Indeed, a number of studies have acknowledged the importance of funding and/or access to learning resources in boosting quality assurance and good learning outcome (Tunde & Issah, 2013b).

University-Industry Collaborations – A Win-Win Situation for All Concerned?

Research findings support the fact that UIC could indeed be a win-win situation for the organizations involved in the collaboration. This is especially true in contemporary times as a result of the rise of a global knowledge economy which has intensified the need for strategic partnerships that should go beyond the traditional funding of ad-hoc research projects. While acknowledging the fact that academic institutions are basically in the business of education, training and extension of fundamental knowledge, Prager and Omenn (2015) observe that many universities and industrial firms in the United States have established relationships that are, in varying degrees, found to be beneficial to both parties. Some of these relationships include corporate contributions to university funds, procurement of university services, cooperative research and other significant research partnerships. Prager and Omenn

(2015) suggest that the government has an important role to play in bringing the academic and the private sectors together. 52

In a similar vein, Lee (2000) reports that some of the stated goals for collaboration in a study of 100 academicians include access to research funding, laboratory equipment the possibility of gaining practical perspectives on academic research in order to test theories. Also, the Washington University and Monsanto have had a successful win-win partnership for innovation and learning since 1981 in which both sides agreed that this has been a win for all the partners. (American Council on

Education, 2001). As part of its recommendation on a research that examined some case studies on UIC as well as their success stories, Science/Business Innovation Board (2012) emphasized the important contributions of University-Industry Collaborations to all stake holders. As the research indicates, the most successful technology multinationals companies in Europe do not scatter their money across the globe hoping to stumble on some breakthrough. Rather, they maintain sustained relationships with a small number of universities. Consequently, the study advocates that if Europe wishes to compete in the global marketplace for science and technology, it must strengthen a small number of its top-class universities. Based on the underlying assumptions that innovation do not take place in a vacuum but in a context made up of the economy, society and policy – all of which shape how easy or difficult for innovation to take place. Thus, the government, policy makers or politicians are identified as the prime movers of UIC. Major highlight of the study includes the need to;

Keep the ship steady. In other words, UIC should be a long-term strategic

partnership that require correspondingly long-term, strategic policy and not just

an ad-hoc, crisis-driven approach aimed at merely promoting short-term 53

relationship between companies and universities. This is in view of many

examples which are characterized by “sharp run-ups or run-downs in public

research funding that cause turmoil and some damage to a country’s science and

technology base (Science/Business Innovation Board, 2012, p. 48).

As is the case in the best universities in Europe, universities should be given autonomy to form partnerships. The people most suited to decide a university’s strategy are its board and heads of faculty because;

in an “educational marketplace” each actor needs the freedom and prerogative to

quickly respond to demands, problems and opportunities without perpetually

being bogged down by the bureaucratic protocols of the ministry of education or

… “have their budgets set – down to the line item – by a research or defense

ministry …. University boards should be diverse, open and have real governance

powers – including over budget. They should be free to set the university’s

strategy, and set employment and admission policies …. They should, in

consultation with stakeholders in government, industry, the local community, staff

and students, specify a set of performance metrics by which they will be judged

…. And if they are failing, it must be easy to replace them” (Science/Business

Innovation Board, 2012, p. 49).

Collaborative universities should be encouraged and rewarded, using the carrots and sticks approach of incentives (Science/Business Innovation Board, 2012). In other words, those universities and companies that successfully pursue collaborations for research and innovation should be rewarded. This could, for instance be a bonus in public 54 funding for such universities as is the case by the British government with its program on incentive and innovation or as the German Government’s Excellence Initiative program.

For companies, on the other hand, it could be a specific tax incentive for collaboration.

UIC help universities to strive for excellence. This is simply because companies will always want to work with the best.

While it could be seen that the above represents the nucleus of the concept of the

Knowledge Triangle (Lappalainen, Markkula, Aalto-yliopisto, Universidad Politécnica de

Valencia, and European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), 2013), it also becomes clear that UIC encourages the best in research and innovation and has an inherently positive implication for quality assurance of collaborating universities.

University-Industry Collaborations – The Dream and the Nightmare (a Caveat)

In spite of the benefits of access to resources and funding that are inherent in the

UIC within the Triple Helix and the Knowledge Triangle concepts as enumerated above, concerns have been expressed about the possible effects on university autonomy and academic freedom. For instance, while a number of studies in Nigeria have emphasized the fact that reduction in the government funding of university education is failing to take the strain off the rapidly growing student population and as a result, the depreciating quality of Nigerian university graduates (Adewuyi & Okemakinde, 2013; Idogho, 2011;

Ogbogu & others, 2011; Saint, Hartnett, & Strassner, 2003b), a number of researchers have sounded a caveat with regard to university funders, university autonomy, academic freedom and conflict of interests. Sherwood, Butts, and Kacar, (2004) describe a case in point in which; 55

Boots Co. PLC entered into a research partnership with University of California-

San Francisco regarding the drug Synthroid. While Boots expected the research to

support that there were no bio-equivalents, the study instead showed that cheaper

medications were nearly identical and that $356 million in health-care costs could

be saved using the cheaper drugs. This prompted Boots to take action to discredit

the research it had originally supported (p. 3).

Similarly, Lee (1996) in an earlier study examined the expected role of US academics in the emerging technology transfer for economic development. Questions were posed in a survey of about 1,000 faculty members of research-intensive universities with regard to the specific roles they believe they could play in industrial innovation and how they might want to go about collaborating with private industries for this purpose.

While majority of the respondents are positively disposed towards the idea that their institutions take active part in local and regional economic development, facilitation of the commercialization of academic research, as well as encourage faculty consulting for private firms, majority of them did not support the idea of their universities getting involved in close business partnership with private industry. While their perception of the declining Federal support for research and development is acknowledged as impinging on the vibrancy of their research activities, they expressed concerns about the possibility that close university-industry cooperation is likely to interfere with academic freedom to pursue long-term, disinterested, fundamental research. Consequently, the study advocates for the need to set boundaries in university-industry collaboration as a balancing act with regard to these concerns. 56

University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria

With regard to the need and relevance of the Nigerian educational institutions to foster collaboration with industries, (Ojimba, 2013) posits that, given the right and conducive atmosphere, schools and industry linkages could be developed into strong and solid partnerships. According to him, “…The benefits of this partnership are enormous: students acquire industrial skills, develop work habit, instill positive attitude in students towards industries etc.” (p. 1). While advising that teachers should serve as catalysts that should facilitate the cooperation between industries and the schools, Ojimba (2013) also recommends that the teaching curriculum should include relevant information and skill sets about different industrial knowledge and processes because science and technology are the pivots of today’s world economy and “no country wishing to develop economically will insulate its educational institutions from industries” (p. 4).

Presenting a framework on UI-C and highlighting the inherent advantages in such collaborations in Nigeria with regard to IT as a tool of improved quality of education,

(Afuwoqi & Wu, 2011) observe that Nigerian universities as citadel of learning charged with the task of producing the country’s high quality labor force cannot fulfil this mandate alone. This is in view of the fact that funding of university education has consistently remained lower than the UNESCO approved minimum while the need for quality is becoming mandatory. Afuwoqi and Wu (2011) posit that the need for UIC in

Nigeria is even more compelling due to so many challenges including budget constraints, late release of financial allocations from the National Universities Commission, high staff 57 overhead costs which hamper the universities abilities to provide important teaching and learning resources – including IT.

Just like Afuwoqi and Wu (2011) and Ojimba (2013), agree that UIC is beneficial to all stakeholders – the Universities, the students and industry. Specifically, Afuwoqi and Wu (2011) identify the advantages inherent in UIC. They posit that, in addition to the fact that universities produce a pool of well-educated graduates and postgraduates from which the professional workforce is recruited into the industries, both stakeholders could appropriate the following “assets” which include among others - ideas, skills and knowledge from which many companies derive their competitive edge; physical assets/resources: laboratories, equipment and facilities; human resources: highly skilled and experienced staff; other knowledge resources: information, database, libraries, processes, contacts, etc. financial resources: own research funds or access to public funds

(p. 2).

With particular reference to industries, Afuwoqi and Wu (2011) observe that in return for their collaboration with the university, the diversity of experience that can be drawn upon in a partnership and synergy could give an industry the competitive edge that leads to successful innovation.

Indeed, evidence exists that some Nigerian universities (including the University of Ibadan), in addition to their primary functions of teaching and research do have some research centers and initiatives specifically set up to address societal needs. According to

Onyeka, (2011), as far back as the 1960s and 1970s the University of Ibadan has been collaborating with industries with some early stage spin-off success. These successful 58 partnerships were mostly in areas like food processing, agricultural engineering and biotechnology facilitation. In recent times, the National Office for Technology

Acquisition and Promotion (NOTAP) actually registered 1,237 technology agreements with Nigerian universities between 1999 and 2010 with the services sector having the highest number of agreements (570).

Onyeka (2011) however observed that in spite of government’s belief that the development of academic biotechnology research in Ibadan could serve as the spare key to Nigeria’s oil-dependent economy, the University of Ibadan has had limited impact on the Nigerian economy due to a number of factors both within and beyond the control of the university.

While they acknowledge that there is limited empirical investigation on the social and economic implications of new technologies in Nigeria with regard to

University/Research-Industry collaboration (Adeoti & Adeoti, 2005) present an overview of their exploratory study on the links between public research and industrial innovation with particular focus on biotechnology. In their research findings, Adeoti and Adeoti

(2005) observe that when respondents (Nigerian researchers in biotechnology) were asked to rate the importance of their research activities, the need to satisfy their employers; contribute to the development of a new technology that may solve specific real like problems; and the desire to explore the possibility of a major technological breakthrough were regarded as the most important reasons for their research work in biotechnology. None of the respondents (zero percent) mentioned the need to satisfy request from a private sector user (e.g. manufacturing firm, animal/plant breeder, etc.) as 59 important. Based on the results of their study on biotechnology R & D for industrial innovation, Adeoti and Adeoti (2005) opined that there is little or no linkage between universities and industry in Nigeria. They however acknowledge that opportunities do exist to initiate such partnerships through programs or projects that are specifically targeted at biotechnology researches that can attract the commercial interest of the private sector.

Limitations to UIC in Nigeria

In spite of the great potential that UIC holds for quality assurance in Nigerian

Universities as evidenced by the few extant studies in this emerging area, a number of factors have been identified as placing limitations on University-Industry partnerships.

For instance, Onyeka (2011) observes that out of the more than 69 per cent of current inventions that were developed in industries located in Nigeria, only a mere 31 per cent took place at Nigerian academic institutions. In a similar vein, Onyeka (2011) observes that while many multinational corporations record huge profits from the sale of their products and services in Nigeria, they have little or no (financial resource) commitment to local research and development. In a few cases where some commitments were made, when data is collected from Nigeria, it is sent to the Research and Development locations abroad for analysis.

In consonance with the observations made by Adeoti and Adeoti (2005) on the limitations to UIC in Nigeria, the limiting factors to UIC in Nigeria include the ‘publish or perish’ attitude at educational institutions leading an indirect understanding that research is purely for academic promotion and not necessarily for the betterment of 60 mankind. Other factors limiting UIC in Nigeria include poor or non-existent infrastructure such as security and power supply; financial inability of local businesses to afford the services that they require; lack of adequate government funding of research; miscommunication/misunderstanding of faculty roles between stakeholders and conflict of interest between faculty members and university administration (Onyeka, 2011; p. 4).

On the other hand, Adeoti and Adeoti (2011) in their own study identify some other important constraints to UIC in Nigeria as;

the absence of functional links between universities and industry; absence of

active research and development departments in almost all Nigerian industries;

lack of adequate incentives for R & D in government policies; lack of required

skilled human resources; short supply of technological infrastructure and

equipment and lack of private and public funds for venture capital (p.12)

Conceptual Framework

The triple helix concept – a trans-national framework. For the purpose of this study, the Triple Helix conceptual framework of university-industry-government triadic relationship will be adopted. The Triple Helix thesis posits that:

the potential for innovation and economic development in a knowledge society

lies in a more prominent role for the university and in the hybridization of

elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional

and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge

(Triple Helix Research Group, 2012: p. 1). 61

Given the fact that the primary mission of a university is the production of high quality manpower for national economic development (Ujunwa & Salami, 2010), this study is concerned with examining the perceptions of students and faculty on how university-industry collaborations contributes to the quality assurance of Nigerian universities. There is therefore no gain-saying the fact that university students stand to be greatly impacted from the conceptual “hybridization of elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge” (The Triple Helix Concept, 2012, p.

1). This fact is brought to sharp focus in view of the fact that in the process of university- industry linkage, students who are the new generations of professionals in various fields can also be trained to become workers and entrepreneurs that could eventually contribute to the much needed job creation and economic growth for society.

Secondly and more importantly, according to Leydesdorff (2012), significant body of the Triple Helix concept has been made to go through significant theoretical and empirical research and development over the last 20 years and subsequently, the concept

“provides a general framework for exploring complex innovation dynamics and for informing national, regional and international innovation and development policy- making” (Triple Helix Research Group, p. 1).

Two perspectives of the triple helix concept. The Triple Helix concept could be viewed from two complementary angles or perspectives, namely the neo-institutional perspective and the neo-evolutionary perspective (Triple Helix Research Group, 2012). 62

The neo-institutional perspective. The neo-institutional perspective examines

“the growing prominence of the university among actors through national and regional case studies as well as through comparative historical analyses” (p. 1). In other words, the neo institutional perspective is couched in the increasing role of universities as innovation actors at both the national and regional levels – both in the various case studies and comparative studies conducted in Latin America, Asia, United States of America, Europe and Africa (Triple Helix Research Group, 2012).

According to the Triple Helix Research Group (2012) these studies examined various aspects of the university’s ‘third mission’ (in addition to teach and research) of commercialization of academic research and involvement in socio-economic development which include among others forms, stakeholders, drivers, barriers, benefits and impact; university technology transfer and entrepreneurship, contribution to regional development as well as government policies aimed at strengthening university-industry links.

Furthermore, the neo-institutional perspective identifies three main configurations in the university-industry-government spheres of positioning, relative to each actor as follows:

 A statist configuration in which the government plays the leading role of

driving the academia and industry while at the same time limiting their

capacity to initiate and develop innovative transformations (p. 2) (e.g.

regulations, guidelines and funding). This is akin to the existing situation in

Nigeria. 63

 A laissez-faire configuration that is characterized by a limited state

intervention in the economy as is the case in the United States and some

countries in Europe. In this type of configuration, the industry remains the

driving force and the other two spheres act as providing ancillary support

structures and having limited roles in innovation – university act as a producer

of skilled manpower while the government functions mainly as a regulator of

social and economic mechanisms (p. 2). (This is the desired situation that this

study advocates for Nigeria. This is because the country is still on the

threshold of industrialization).

 A balanced configuration. This configuration of the neo-institutional

perspective is more specific to a Knowledge Society in which university and

the other knowledge and research institutions act in concert with industry and

the government to take the lead in joint initiatives (Etzkowitz & Ledesdorff,

2000). According to Triple Helix Research Group, (2012) the balanced

configuration of neo-institutional perspective offers the most important

insights for innovation because, as a result of this type of configuration, the

most favorable innovation environments are created at the intersections of the

constituent spheres.

The neo-evolutionary perspective. The neo-evolutionary perspective of the Triple

Helix Concept is inspired by the social systems of communication theory as well as the mathematical theory of communications in which the university-industry-government relationships are seen as subsets of the social systems that are co-evolving as they interact 64 through social and organizational networks that impinge on their institutional arrangements – technological innovation, market situation, etc. (Triple Helix Research

Group, 2012). In other words, the relationships are sustained through a functional process of communication and differentiation as well as mutual adjustments.

Chapter Three: Methodology

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) on quality assurance in two publicly-supported universities in Nigeria. To this end, this study employed a non- experimental quantitative research design, using a questionnaire survey to collect data from the subjects comprising of students and faculty of two publicly-supported

Universities in Nigeria. Collected data was analyzed using the SPSS Version 21 software to run appropriate statistical tests/tools to count, classify and explain the observed perceptions of all the subjects with regard to each of the research questions. This conforms to Barbie’s position that “…. The overarching aim of a quantitative research study is to classify features, count them ….in an attempt to explain what is observed” (p.

1).

Research Design

This research study utilized a non-experimental, quantitative research design to examine the perceptions of faculty and students on the potential impact of university- industry collaborations on quality assurance in two publicly-supported Federal Nigerian universities. According to Delost and Nadder (2014), quantitative research designs “may be experimental where there is an intervention, or nonexperimental if no intervention is included in the design. Causation can only be established with experimental research.

Popular types of nonexperimental research include descriptive and survey research….”

(p.1). 66

Baez and Boyles (2009) posit that quantitative studies are frequently used in educational research and are indeed “encouraged and funded by major educational institutes and foundations” (p. 1). Since no intervention is included in this research, the research design was essentially non-experimental. Be that as it was, however, careful attention was paid to show how data-driven evidence supports the research findings

(Rose et al., 2015) in line with the extant literature, the research questions and the Triple

Helix conceptual framework of University-Industry Collaborations.

The triple helix concept of university-industry collaborations. The Triple

Helix Concept of University-Industry Collaborations is a trans-national framework that has been employed in many developed countries to study the inherent benefits to all stakeholders – universities, industries and national economies. The Triple Helix thesis posits that:

the potential for innovation and economic development in a knowledge society

lies in a more prominent role for the university and in the hybridization of

elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional

and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge

(Triple Helix Research Group, 2012; p.1).

In view of the fact that the primary mission of a university is the production of high quality manpower for national economic development (Ujunwa & Salami, 2010), this study is concerned with examining how university-industry collaborations contributes to the quality assurance of Nigerian universities. To this end, relevant research questions are posed below. 67

Research Questions

In order to examine the perceptions of the participants in this research on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in Nigerian universities, a survey questionnaire was employed to collect data from a total sample size of 262 participants made up of 182 students and 80 faculty members. The research questions for which responses were solicited were as follows:

R.Q. 1. What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices

and approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. Are there differences in students and faculty’s perceptions of practices and

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. 3. What are the preferences of students and faculty regarding approaches of

university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. 4. Are there differences between faculty and students’ preferences regarding

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. 5. What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential

impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher

education in Nigeria?

R.Q. 6. Are there differences in perceptions of students and faculty regarding the

potential impact of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

The Research Setting

Target population. The accessible population for this research consisted of two sets of participants - students and faculty members of two publicly supported, Federal universities in Nigeria. For the purpose of this research, participating “students” was defined as undergraduates or postgraduates who have spent at least two years in each of the participating universities. On the other hand, “faculty member” was defined as members of the academic staff who have taught or researched in the participating universities for at least two to three years. This is based on the assumption that for any participant to be able to accurately express their views on the potential impact of UIC on quality assurance in their universities, they should not be new comers who have not actively spent at least two years in the research setting.

University students. As an ex-student of a Nigerian University and a former administrative staff in a Nigerian University who had dealt with students for many years, experience has shown that being a university student in Nigeria is something to be proud of. Getting admitted to an undergraduate degree program in a Nigerian university is highly competitive and a typical Nigerian university student is generally considered a potential member of the leadership class in the society. Therefore, the path leading to the attainment of a university degree puts a lot of social expectations on the student. This is because his or her academic knowledge is generally regarded as the sure golden key to social mobility and privileged positions after graduation. Consequently, being a university student remains a socially desired position that brings along a total transformation of the individual in terms of what is socially expected in character, 69 personal presentation and appearance. To be a man or woman of letters is the height of social recognition and parents and communities who are lucky enough to have one of their own in such a privileged class will do everything possible to provide both material and financial support in order to ensure the academic success of such student.

Faculty. There is no gainsaying the fact that the faculty, generally known in

Nigeria as the academia, is a highly recognized member of the elite class in Nigerian society. Apart from their primary responsibilities of teaching and research, they are charged with the important social function of nurturing and producing high quality manpower that meets the country’s requirements for economic growth and social development. This is even more so in the contemporary knowledge-based global system in which Nigeria as an oil-producing, largest economy in Africa, must not only survive but also excel.

In addition to the Nigerian faculty’s mandate of producing quality work force equipped with relevant knowledge and skills required for economic growth and national development, they basically form the technical corps of most of the State and Federal government think-tanks. For instance, virtually all the government research and development agencies including science-based institutions like the teaching hospitals, ministries and commissions (including the National Electoral Commission) are headed by distinguished scholars and members of the Nigerian academia. 70

Demographic composition in the universities. The demographic composition of universities in Nigeria could be divided into three broad categories (a) the academic or teaching staff members who are classified as Assistant Lecturers, Lecturers, Senior

Lecturers, Readers and Professors; (b) the non-academic staff consisting of both senior and junior staff and (c) students, made up of both graduates and undergraduates. While students form the nucleus of the university system in Nigeria, the faculty are the technical core. The population size of students in the two selected universities are 19,521 students

(University of Ibadan, 2015) and 21,374 students (University of Jos, 2015) respectively.

Overview of student/teacher ratio in federal universities. Between 2001 and

2006, the student-teacher student ratio in Nigerian universities stood at a range of between 257 and 325 (National Universities Commission, 2010). Table 2 below gives a global picture of student-teacher ratio in Nigerian universities between 2001 and 2006:

Table 2: Student/Teacher Ratio in Federal Universities, (2001-2006) Year Disciplines 2001/ 2002/ 2003/ 2004/ 2005/ NUC 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Guidelines Administration 1 33 38 49 28 30 Agriculture 11 14 13 17 15 15 Arts 22 18 25 24 20 30 Education 24 22 35 32 31 30 Engineering/Tech./En 24 27 24 30 30 30 vironment Science 16 18 12 25 20 30 Law 34 40 36 35 30 15 Medicine 15 13 14 15 12 30 Pharmacy 23 14 21 14 12 15 Sciences 19 19 23 32 25 15 Social Sciences 40 30 70 41 40 20 Vet. Medicine 12 9 14 10 10 30 Total 266 257 325 324 283 10 Source: National Universities Commission (2010)

Research Locations – The Universities of Ibadan and Jos

The two research sites where the study took place were the University of Ibadan

(South-West Nigeria) and the University of Jos (North Central Nigeria) respectively.

University of Ibadan which is situated in the Oyo State capital, apart from being the oldest in Nigeria and a center of excellence in the country is strategically located. Ibadan shares the same borders with two foremost research institutions in West Africa, the

Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) and the International

Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). In addition, the city of Ibadan in which the

University is located is home to many industries including the Nigerian Breweries,

Nigerian Bottling Company, Flour Mills, Nigerian Plastic Company, Zartech – a large scale agricultural enterprise, Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, Fan Milk Industries, 72

Odua Investment Company, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company, commercial banks and telecommunication companies and other large scale food and beverage retail outlets.

As for the University of Jos, it is home to a Center for Development Studies (a

Center affiliated to the Faculty of Social Sciences where I graduated my Bachelor’s degree) and the University of Jos Consultancy Services. These two departments have been working for decades with both government and non-governmental agencies to offer collaborative services in research, innovation and consultancy. The fact that Jos is the

Plateau State capital, hosting many banks, telecommunications, business and commercial organizations (including the Jos Brewery, the Jos Steel Rolling Mill, the NASCO group – producers of cookies, sugar, baking flour, jute bags, soft drinks etc.) makes the university a center of community outreach, research and innovation in the State. For instance, in

1982 when the researcher was an undergraduate at the University of Jos, he led a group of Rotaract Club members to bob-a-job events and other community service interventions in two of the local industries.

Presented below is the historical information on the universities of Ibadan and Jos as accessed on their respective web sites.

Figure 3: History of the University of Ibadan 74

Figure 4: History of the University of Jos 75

Rationale for Selecting the Universities

Ease of access to these study sites is one of the major considerations in choosing these universities. This is because the researcher has had direct affiliation to both universities for a very long time - both as an undergraduate student at the University of

Jos and as a former, long-term clerical/administrative staff of the University of Ibadan.

In addition to the ease of access to the selected universities as well as the research purpose as articulated through the research questions, the two selected universities are publicly-supported, Federal universities. In other words, because the purpose of the study is to examine the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in publicly-supported universities in Nigeria, it is imperative to purposefully select those educational institutions that fit the description of ‘publicly supported universities in Nigeria’ and that have been involved in collaborations with industries. For instance, as stated above, the researcher and many other students of the University of Jos have been engaged in community service interventions jointly organized by the university and a number of local industries, radio and TV stations, student teaching practicum in government and community schools, etc.

The university also maintains existing partnerships with the Carnegie Foundation,

CISCO, Microsoft and others (University of Jos, 2015). In the same vein, the University of Ibadan, as far back as the 1960s and 1970s has been collaborating with industries in areas like food processing, agricultural engineering and biotechnology facilitation

(Onyeka, 2011). 76

Other important factors for selecting the two universities is the fact that they are geographically well spread out from the South-West to the North Central Nigeria (about

800 kilometers apart); their ages as first and third generations and their involvement in community outreaches. Additional factors that inform the selection of only two universities include logistics, financial constraints, distance and limited time frame for the study.

Sampling/Recruitment of Participants

A stratified random sampling method was used to collect data from student participants in this study while the non-random, purposive sampling method was used to collect data from the participants who are faculty members. The stratified purposive sampling involves dividing the sampling frame into strata with the aim of obtaining relatively homogeneous sub-groups in order that purposeful sample could be drawn from each stratum. This method involves strategically choosing individuals who meet pre- determined characteristics like gender, age, designation, job title and other categories that could facilitate answering the research questions (Coyne, 1997; Patton, 2002; Mertens,

2010).

According to Teddlie and Yu (2007) sampling procedures in the social and behavioral sciences could be broadly divided into two groups – probability sampling and purposive sampling. With regard to this study, the higher education institutions selected for the research are well suited for the purposes associated with the research questions.

Also, the sample for the survey are made up of students and faculty members from two publicly-supported, Federal universities in Nigeria. 77

Stratified sampling selection criteria. Quantitative data was collected through a survey questionnaire administered to a total sample size of 300 respondents. There was a return of 269 questionnaires but only 262 of these questionnaires were complete Seven questionnaires had missing responses to some of the items on the questionnaire. The characteristics listed below were adopted for the selection criteria and each stratum of the sample was drawn from the two universities as follows:

 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students from each university

 graduate students from each university

 faculty members from each university

Table 6 below gives a demographic distribution of actual number of respondents by level of study and occupation.

Stratification/selection method. Specifically, student participants were randomly selected by department/course of study and by level of study (i.e. 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year undergraduate and graduate student levels). Every 5th student was selected as they came out of their lecture rooms after a class. As for the faculty members, participants were non-randomly selected through the support of their departmental heads as well as the Academic Staff Union officials. Sampling was done during the school week for a period of two weeks.

Participants’ eligibility. In addition to the above system of stratification, the following criteria was set. To be eligible to participate in the study a participant;

 must be a student or faculty member of the selected public-supported

university; 78

 must not be a faculty member of a private university;

 must be in 200 level and above or a graduate student;

 must be a faculty member who had served in the selected university for at

least two years.

Instrument of Data Collection.

A survey questionnaire – the University-Industry Collaborations and Quality

Assurance Instrument (UICQAI) – specially designed by the researcher for this study was employed to collect data. The UICQAI has three sections: Section One is designed to gather demographic information from the respondents. To this end, demographic data like gender, age and current level of study or academic work were collected in this section. Section Two was used to solicit data on participants’ opinions and dispositions on the workings and contributions of University-Industry Collaboration in their university. Section Three was designed and used to collect data on the influence/impact of University-Industry Collaboration on quality assurance in terms of boosting the university’s access to teaching and learning resources including instructional technology; research and innovation; service learning and internships; etc. All the components of the survey questionnaire are designed by the researcher, based on the research questions, extant literature as well as the Triple Helix conceptual framework.

All the student participants were randomly selected by department/course of study and by level of study (i.e. 200, 300, 400 and graduate levels). Every 5th student was selected during the classes or as they were coming out of their lecture rooms after a class). However, the faculty members were selected through the support of their 79 departmental heads and the Academic Staff Union officials. Selection of participants continued daily for two weeks during the business days of the week.

According to Babbie (2010), the emphasis of the quantitative approach is on objective measurements and the numerical analysis of collected data. This method focuses on the gathering of numerical data with a view to generalizing it across groups of people. To this end, a survey questionnaire was used to collect the data for this study. The survey’s focus was on generating the responses from all the subjects drawn from two

Nigerian universities who - as both the producers of the country’s future workforce as well as the potential labor force, are faced with the problem of quality assurance in the

Nigerian university education system. This study gave the students and faculty the opportunity to express their perspectives and perceptions of UIC and its potential impact on the quality of training/skills being provided in their colleges. All the items in the survey questionnaire are informed by the Triple Helix conceptual framework of

University-Industry Collaboration. The research questions for the quantitative inquiry section of this study are as listed above.

In the survey, all the respondents were required to rate each of the questionnaire items on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree with an additional option to select Don’t Know. The survey questionnaire contains several items that focus on the research questions, guided by the research problem and the Triple Helix conceptual framework.

Based on the extant literature, the research problem and the research questions, quantitative-type questions which are couched in the Triple Helix conceptual framework 80 were addressed in this study using a survey questionnaire (See Appendix 2). Data was collected from both the students and their professors from the two participating universities. The Triple Helix thesis posits that:

the potential for innovation and economic development in a knowledge society

lies in a more prominent role for the university and in the hybridization of

elements from university, industry and government to generate new institutional

and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge

(Triple Helix Research Group, 2012).

To this end, the survey questionnaire contained items that addressed the above listed elements of the Triple Helix conceptual framework. These include; (a) potential for innovation and economic development; (b) prominent role for the university (c) hybridization of elements from university, industry and government and (d) the generation of institutional and social formats for the production, transfer and application of knowledge.

Ethical Consideration/Protection of Human Subjects

Before going to the field for data collection, an appropriate application for exemption from institutional oversight was submitted to Ohio University Institutional

Review Board and data collection commenced after the exemption was granted (Ohio

University, 2009).

Data Collection

Validity, reliability and pilot testing of the research instrument. The validity and reliability of a data collection instrument is of paramount factor in quantitative studies. While validity could be defined as the extent to which a concept is accurately measured in a quantitative study, reliability has to do with the accuracy of data collection instrument: it is the extent to which a research instrument shall consistently give the same results if it is repeated used in the same situation on different occasions (Haele &

Twycross, 2015). Highlighting the importance of reliability and validity in quantitative inquiries, Boller et al. (2011) posit that it is necessary that researchers provide appropriate types of reliability and construct validity evidence for each measure in a study. This goes a long way in enabling the readers to determine the adequacy of the research evidence generated. Suffice it to say that validity and reliability are two sides of the same coins

Validity. Validity could be defined as the extent to which a concept or construct is accurately measured in a quantitative study. It reflects the “appropriateness of the interpretations, inferences and action that we made based on test scores” (Johnshon &

Christensen, 2004; p. 140). Essentially therefore, a construct is valid in terms of the extent or degree to which it accurately assesses or measures what it is designed to measure and for its intended purpose (Boller et al., 2010).

Reliability. Reliability has to do with the accuracy of the data collection instrument – it is the extent to which a research instrument shall consistently give the same results if it is repeatedly used in the same situation on different occasions (Black, 82

2005). Expressing this in a different manner, (Boller et al., 2010) emphasized the need for reliability evidence for scales or test scores with regard to its internal consistency and test-retest reliability.

Pilot testing of the research instrument. In view of the foregoing, a pilot testing of the survey questionnaire for this study was done two weeks to the commencement of the survey in order to ascertain its validity. According to Johnson and Christensen (2004), a cardinal rule in research is that the questionnaire should be pilot-tested “to find out whether it operates properly” (p. 177). Thus, the pilot study was carried out on ten students and five faculty members of the University in the North Central State. This is in order to establish the validity of the instrument. The pilot test results show that all the returned survey questionnaires were could accurately measure the data being sought. This is because the responses of the participants in the pilot study were found to have yielded the appropriate information being collected. At the end of the pilot test, all the 15 completed questionnaires were found to be valid (see Appendix 2).

Data Collection

Quantitative data was collected through a survey questionnaire administered on a total sample size of 300 respondents. However, 269 of them returned their questionnaires.

A total of 262 out of the 269 returned questionnaires were valid. Seven questionnaires had missing responses to some of the items on the questionnaire. The characteristics listed below were adopted for the selection criteria and each stratum of the sample was drawn from the two universities as follows:

 3rd and 4th year undergraduate students from each university 83

 graduate students from each university

 faculty members from each university.

Table 6 below gives a demographic distribution of actual number of respondents by level of study and occupation.

Data Analysis

Based on the research problem, this study addressed a total number of six quantitative research questions (R.Qs). In order to address R.Q. 1 which states: “What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices/approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?” Descriptive statistics which includes frequencies, means and standard deviation was used. However, because R.Q. 2 seeks to examine “the differences in faculty and students’ perceptions of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?” an independent sample T-test was performed. The independent sample T-test which is also known as the two-sample T-test is “an inferential statistical test that determines whether there is a statistically significant difference between the means in two unrelated groups” (Miryala, 2015; p. 322). Equally importantly, an assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance was assessed prior to running the independent sample T-test. This was to ensure that the sample is normally distributed with zero mean and one standard deviation (Field, 2009; Johnson, 2013). As for R.Qs. 3 which seeks to find out “the preferences of faculty regarding approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria” the same statistical tools used for R.Q. 1

(i.e. descriptive statistics) was employed. R.Q. 4 interrogates the “differences between faculty and students’ preferences regarding approaches of university-industry 84 collaborations in Nigeria”. For this reason, the independent sample T-test – after an assumption of normality and homogeneity have been assessed – was performed to examine this research question. Since R.Q. 5 is posed to find out “what the students and faculty perceive as the potential impact (or benefits) of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in their universities”, the descriptive statistics which comprises of frequencies, means and the standard deviation was also employed to answer this research question. To answer R.Q. 6: “Are there differences in perceptions of faculty and students regarding the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher education in Nigeria?” the independent T-test was performed after an assumption of normality and homogeneity of variance had been assessed. Each of the statistical analyses and tests that conducted were determined by the type and nature of each R.Q. Some of these range from simple descriptive statistics – frequencies, means, standard deviation (Field, 2009) to independent sample T-tests. According to Miles and

Banyard (2007), descriptive statistical analysis serves the purpose of describing data in order to help the researcher “explain to other people what is happening” in the data (p.

12). In addition to generally explaining to other people what the data is saying, the statistical analyses of RQs 2, 4 and 6 went a step further by performing independent samples T-tests to compare the means of students and faculty members who are the two independent groups that made up the research participants (Field, 2009; Miles 2006).

Statistical Tools

The statistical tools of data analysis that were used for in this descriptive study are mainly non-parametric descriptive statistics - frequency, means, standard deviation and 85

T-tests (Johnson, 2013). This decision is based on the type of research questions the study sets out to investigate. For example, Section One of the survey questionnaire (Appendix 2 below) is devoted to explore the demographic distribution of the respondents – age, gender, class, occupational status, etc. This makes it easy to describe the data and enables the researcher to “explain to other people what is happening” in the data (Miles &

Banyard, 2007; p. 12). In other words, through the descriptive statistics various tables, graph plots and pictorials could be generated in order to graphically depict the nature and type of the respondents, their demographic distribution as well as their responses, views and perspectives.

In a similar vein, Sections Two and Three of the questionnaire are designed to examine the perception of the participants – students and faculty alike – with regard to

University-Industry Collaboration; its impact on research and innovation, access to teaching and learning resources; internships and service learning as well as quality assurance in general. In order to compare the perceptions of students with their professors and also to compare the responses of these categories of subjects between the two universities, a T-test (parametric) statistical analysis was found useful. This is because, the T-test makes it possible to compare the means from two independents groups of research participants (Field, 2009; Miles, 2006 & Johnson, 2013). To this end, all the statistical tools described above were employed, using the Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 21 and an alpha level (or p-value) of .05 was set for all

T-test operations. 86

Summary of Data Analyses Tools

Tables 3 below presents a snap shot of the analytical tools employed for analyzing the Research Questions in this study.

Table 3: Statistical Methods Research Question Analytical Tool(s) R.Q. 1: What are the perceptions of students and faculty Descriptive statistics - regarding the practices and approaches of university-industry frequency, means, standard collaborations in Nigeria? deviation

R.Q. 2: Are there differences in students and faculty’s Independent sample T- perceptions of practices and approaches of university-industry test collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. 3: What are the preferences of students and faculty Descriptive statistics - regarding approaches of university-industry collaborations in frequency, means, standard Nigeria? deviation

R.Q. 4: Are there differences between faculty and students’ Independent sample T- preferences regarding approaches of university-industry test collaborations in Nigeria?

R.Q. 5. What are the perceptions of students and faculty Descriptive statistics - regarding the potential impact of university-industry frequency, means, collaborations on quality assurance in higher education in standard deviation Nigeria?

R.Q. 6: Are there differences in the perceptions of students Independent sample T- and faculty regarding the potential impact of university- test industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher education in Nigeria?

This study aimed at examining the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) on quality assurance in two publicly-supported, Federal Universities in Nigeria. To this end, the study employed a descriptive, non-experimental quantitative research design, using a questionnaire survey 87 to collect data from the subjects which comprise of students and faculty of two publicly- supported Universities in Nigeria. Statistical tools of data analysis used include descriptive statistics - frequency, means, standard deviation and T-tests. The results are presented in Chapter Four. 88

Chapter Four: Findings

Introduction

This chapter presents the research findings based on the analysis of the data collected from study participants in relation to the research questions. As stated in

Chapter One, the purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of faculty and students on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations (UIC) on quality assurance in Nigerian universities. To this end, a survey was carried out using a questionnaire administered in two publicly funded Federal Universities in South-West and North Central Nigeria respectively. In all, a total of 269 survey questionnaires were returned by the respondents. First, the data input was done on Excel Spreadsheets.

Subsequently cleaning was done by excluding seven (7) invalid questionnaires that have missing values. Thereafter, the data was imported to the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) Version 21 and relevant statistical tests were carried out.

This chapter is organized into three main sections namely, demographics; university-industry collaborations and the potential benefits of UIC on university’s quality assurance, research and innovation. In each of the sections are embedded the variables that measure the characteristics of the participants (e.g. student/faculty); their perceptions about UIC and the quality assurance of higher education vis-à-vis available teaching, learning and research resources, as well as the possible derivatives of UIC that could potentially impact on the quality of training/education provided by Nigerian

Universities. These are well in line with the six broad research questions posed in 89

Chapter One of the study. An alpha level of .05 was set for all t-test operations conducted in the data analysis.

Demographics

The survey questionnaire was administered to a total sample of 300 respondents.

These are made up of 200 university students and 100 faculty members in the two participating universities respectively. Respondents were selected through a stratified purposive sampling method based on the referrals from the contact persons who have earlier pledged their support from each of the two participating universities. The survey exercise lasted two weeks. One of the selected educational institutions is located in the

South-West while the other one is located in North Central Nigeria.

Of the 100 X 2 survey questionnaires administered on student participants at each of the Federal Universities, a total of 98 questionnaires and 84 questionnaires were validly completed and submitted by respondents in accordance with the requirements respectively. As for the responses received from participating faculty members, 31 out of the 50 questionnaires administered on them were validly completed and received from the university in the South West while 49 out of the 50 questionnaires administered on the faculty members of the university in the North Central were validly completed and submitted. In sum, a total of 182 valid questionnaires were received from the student participants from both universities while a total of 80 valid questionnaires were received from faculty members from the two publicly funded universities in South-West and North

Central Nigeria. 90

Table 4 below summarizes the number of valid questionnaires received from all participants by their gender and academic status from both universities.

Table 4: Demographic Profile of the Participants Gender Academic Status University Male Female 3rd Year 4th Year Graduate Faculty Total Undergrad Undergrad. Students % 115 Univ. South-West 119 45 0 45 39 31 44

147 Univ. North-Central 39 59 15 57 26 49 56

262 Total 158 104 15 102 65 80 100.0

Table 4 above shows that a total of 115 participants (44%) from the publicly supported university in South-western Nigeria participated in the study. Of this number

45 of them were 4th year undergraduate students, 39 were graduate students while 31 were faculty members. In the case of the publicly supported university in North-central

Nigeria a total of 147 participants (56%) took part in the study as follows: 15 third year undergraduates, 57 fourth year undergraduates, 26 graduate students and 49 faculty members respectively. In all a total of 262 valid questionnaires were returned by the respondents in the study in both universities.

Validity and Reliability of the Data

Instrument validation - pilot testing. Two weeks to the commencement of the survey, a pilot study was carried out on ten students and five faculty members of the

University in the North Central State. This is in order to establish the validity of the data.

The pilot test results show that all the returned survey questionnaires accurately measured 91 the data being sought. This is because the responses of the participants in the pilot study were found to have yielded the appropriate information being collected. At the end of the pilot test, all the 15 completed questionnaires were found to be valid.

Reliability of the data. Furthermore, in order to ensure the validity of the data collected, a test of reliability was conducted by running the Cronbach’s Alpha reliability test using the SPSS. A standardized Cronbach’s Alpha value for each item in the survey instrument was obtained as follows (see Table 5 below).

Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Test Cronbach's Alpha if Item Item Deleted

UIC is good, beneficial to university and .873 students UIC is of no benefit to the university and .856 students Prefer Industry should collaborate with .861 individual professors Prefer Industry should collaborate with .860 Student Organizations, not professors I prefer Ind. dir. collaborate with .860 university Authorities UIC will improve qual. of teaching and .857 learning The more UIC, the better for the university .855 Industry and Students Adequate Modern Classrooms, Lecture .849 Theatres & Labs Lib. spaces, current books and journal .845 Access to IT and online learning res. .845 Instructional tech., projectors, printers etc. .850 Highly Qualified Professor & .847 Administrators Quality of Hostel Accommodation, Cafe, .845 Campus Rec. & Transportation Extent of UIC in terms of Service .846 Learning, Internship etc. Extent of UIC in terms of Students & .849 Research Projects 92

Table 5: Continued Extent of UIC in terms of Funding .848 Extent of UIC in terms of Entrepreneurial .847 Education Extent of UIC in terms of Consultancy .849 Serv. to Industry & Public Extent of UIC in terms of Res. & .847 Innovation for Socio-Econ. Dev. Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. incl. Equipped Classrooms, Labs., .844 Reagents etc. Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. incl. Modern Library, books, Acad. .847 Journals etc. Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. incl. Learning Res. e.g. Computers, .845 Laptops, Internet Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. incl. Instructional Tech, Projectors, .845 printers & Copiers Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. incl. Sponsoring Professors for National & .847 Intl. Conferences Supports the Univ. Received from Ind. Including Students Hostels, Cafeteria, .846 Campus Recreation etc. Quality of Learning and Academic Standards in terms of Relevant Curriculum .850 & Course content Quality of Learning and Academic Standards in terms of Acquired Skills for .847 Getting Employed in Nigeria Quality of Learning & Academic Standards in terms of Acquired Skills to .847 compete for International Jobs Quality of Learning and Academic Standards in terms of Acquired Skills for .846 self-employment/job creation Note: n = 26

As could be seen in Table 5 above, the Cronbach’s Alpha for individual items in the questionnaire range from .84 to .87. According to Field (2009), generally, a value of

0.7 – 0.8 is generally a good reliability coefficient in Cronbach’s test of reliability. 93

Therefore, with the Cronbach’s Alpha values obtained, it could be safely concluded that the survey instrument used for data collection in this study has a strong reliability.

T-test assumptions. With regard to t-tests, Ho (2014) proposed that certain assumptions must hold for the results of an independent t-tests to be valid. These include

“…the two groups (students and faculty) are independent of one another. Normality – the dependent variable is normally distributed and that homogeneity of variance exists” (p.

51). This postulation has been supported by Field, (2009) and Berkman and Riese (2012) who observed that the independent t-test assumptions are premised on the fact that the sampling distribution of the differences between scores is normally distributed; that the subjects consist of two independent groups (i.e. students and faculty); that the data are measured at least at the interval level; that variances in the population being studied are roughly equal (homogeneity of variances) and that independence of observations exists – i.e. each respondent (students and faculty alike) completed the survey questionnaire independently.

Testing of assumptions – normality. Tests of normality for the demographic variables, i.e. gender, age in years and level of study or academic status of the participants in this study was conducted. The result is presented in Table 6 below. 94

Table 6: Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Gender .394 262 .000 .621 262 .000 Age in Years .272 262 .000 .827 262 .000

Level of Study .251 262 .000 .839 262 .000 Note: a = Lilliefors significant correction

Table 6 above is a report of the normality tests of the demographic variables; gender, age in years, and level of study (or academic status) of all the participants in the study (n = 262). From the table, it could be observed that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistics is 0.39 for gender; 0.27 for age in years; and 0.25 for the level of study (or academic status) of the study participants. The same is true with regard to the Shapiro-

Wilk test statistics of 0.26 for gender; 0.83 for age in years; and 0.84 for the level of study (or academic status) of the study participants. These results of the normality test in

Table 6 above show that normality of the participants’ demographics is assumed. This fact is corroborated by Ho (2014) that the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk statistics “are tests for normality, and if their significance levels are greater than 0.05, then normality is assumed” (p.57).

With regard to the adequacy of the sample size, the minimum required total sample size and per-group sample size for a two-tailed t-test was met as recommended by

Soper (2016): The recommended minimum total sample size (two-tailed level of significance) is 128 while the minimum sample size per group at a p-value of .05 is 64.

For this study, the total sample size was 262 while per group sample size was 182

(students) and 80 (faculty) respectively. 95

Results

The Research Questions (R.Q.).

University-industry collaborations. In accordance with the study purpose which is to examine the perceptions of students and faculty members on the potential impact of

University-Industry Collaborations (UIC) on quality assurance in Nigerian publicly supported universities, data analysis was conducted on the six R.Qs. as follows:

R.Q. 1: What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices or

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

Using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean and standard deviation) the responses of students and faculty on their perceptions of the approaches of university- industry collaborations in their respective universities were examined. Tables 7 and 8 below present the responses obtained from all the respondents in the survey.

Table 7: Perceptions of Students on University-Industry Collaborations Perceptions SA A N D SD n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) The way our university works with industries and private businesses is good and beneficial to the university and the 36 71 46 20 9 students. (19.8) (39) (25.3) (11.0) (4.9) Neither the students nor staff of this university derive any 12 31 42 64 33 benefits from this university’s collaboration with industries (6.6) (17) (23.1) (35.2) (18.1) Partnering or collaborating with industries will generally 88 62 21 8 3 improve the quality of teaching and learning in this (48.4) (34.1) (11.5) (4.4) (1.6) University The more this university’s collaboration with industries the 81 69 28 3 1 better for the industries, the university and the quality of (44.5) (37.9) (15.4) (1.6) (0.5) graduates produced. Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N= Neutral or no idea, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree, n = number of respondents. 96

Table 8: Perceptions of Faculty on University-Industry Collaborations Perceptions SA A N D SD n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) The way our university works with industries and private businesses is good and beneficial to the university and the 10 31 16 18 5 students. (12.5) (38.8) (20.0) (22.5) (6.3) Neither the students nor staff of this university derive any 3 11 13 35 18 benefits from this university’s collaboration with industries (3.8) (13.8) (16.3) (43.8) (22.5) Partnering or collaborating with industries will generally 41 37 0 0 2 improve the quality of teaching and learning in this (51.3) (46.3) (0) (0) (2.5) University The more this university’s collaboration with industries the 45 32 2 0 1 better for the industries, the university and the quality of (56.3) (40.0) (2.5) (0) (1.3) graduates produced. Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N= Neutral or no idea, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree n = number of respondents.

The perceptions of all the respondents (students and faculty) on UIC were sought using items 4, 5, 9 and 10 in the survey questionnaire (see Tables 7 and 8 above).

Their responses were presented as follows: The majority of students that participated in the study had positive perceptions regarding the practices or approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria. For example, about 58% of students agreed

(39%) or strongly agreed (19.8%) that the way their university works with industries and private business is good and beneficial to the university and the students. Similarly, about

82% of student participants in the study agreed (34.1%) or strongly agreed (48.4%) that partnering or collaborating with industries will generally improve the quality of teaching and learning in their university. In like manner, about 82.4% of student participants in the study agreed (37.9%) or strongly agreed (44.5%) that the more their university’s collaboration with industries, the better for the industries, the university and the quality of the graduates produced. 97

With regard to the faculty members, majority of those who participated in the study had positive perceptions regarding the practices or approaches of university- industry collaborations in Nigeria. For example, about 51.3% of the faculty members agreed (38.8%) or strongly agreed (12.5%) that the way their university works with industries and private business is good and beneficial to the university and the students.

Similarly, about 97.6% of the faculty members in the study agreed (46.3%) or strongly agreed (51.3%) that partnering or collaborating with industries will generally improve the quality of teaching and learning in their university. In like manner, about 96.3% of faculty participants in the study agreed (40%) or strongly agreed (56.3%) that the more their university’s collaboration with industries, the better for the industries, the university and the quality of the graduates produced.

Thus it could be summarized, that based on the responses of the participants in this study, as presented in Tables 7 and 8 above, faculty and students think/believe that

 UIC is good and beneficial to students and their universities;

 that partnering or collaborating with industries could improve the quality of

teaching and learning;

 the more university-industry collaboration, the better for the industries, the

university and the quality of graduates produced.

R.Q. 2. Are there differences in students and Faculty’s perceptions of the

practices/ approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

To address R.Q. 2, thus examines if there are significant differences in students and faculty perceptions of university-industry collaboration practices in Nigeria, a t-test 98 analysis was conducted to compare the mean values (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the responses of students and faculty (see Table 9 below).

Table 9: Group Statistics – Differences in Students and Faculty’s Perceptions of Practices/Approaches of University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria Level of Study M SD Student 2.42 1.078 UIC is good, beneficial to university and students Faculty 2.71 1.138

Student 3.41 1.161 UIC is of no benefit to the university and students Faculty 3.69 1.086

Student 1.77 .935 UIC will improve qual. of teaching and learning Faculty 1.56 .744

Student 1.76 .812 The more UIC, the better for the university, industry and Students Faculty 1.50 .675

Note: n (Faculty) = 80; n(students) = 182; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation

As could be seen from Table 9 above, there were no significant differences in the students and faculty’s perceptions of the practices/approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria. For instance, with regard to the participants’ responses to the question which states that UIC is good and beneficial to the university and students, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the responses of students (M

=2.4, SD = 1.1) and faculty’s perceptions (M = 2.7, SD = 1.1). In order to further clarify this R.Q., the former question was re-phrased in reverse i.e., UIC is of no benefit to the university and students. Once again, there was no significant difference in the mean 99 values of the responses of students (M =3.41, SD = 1.2) and faculty’s perceptions (M =

3.7, SD = 1.1). These results also suggest that both the students and faculty have positive perceptions of the practices of UIC to universities and students in Nigerian publicly supported universities.

Regarding the participant’s perceptions of UIC on the quality of teaching and learning in Nigerian Universities, like in the first two questions, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the responses of students (M = 1.8, SD = .9) and faculty

(M = 1.6, SD = .7). These results also suggest that both the students and faculty have positive perceptions of UIC practices on the quality of teaching and learning in Nigerian publicly supported universities. Finally, when the perceptions of the participants were measured with regard to the potential impact of increased UIC practices on universities, industries and students, like in the preceding three questions, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the responses of students (M = 1.8, SD = .8) and faculty

(M = 1.5, SD = .7). These results also suggest that both the students and faculty have positive perceptions of the impact UIC practices on universities, industries and students in Nigeria.

R.Q. 3: What are the preferences of students and faculty regarding approaches of

university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

Using descriptive statistics (frequency distribution), the responses of students and faculty on their preferences regarding the approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria was examined. Table 11 below presents the preferences of 100 students regarding the approaches of UIC in Nigeria while Table 12 presents the preferences of faculty members.

Table 10: Preferences of Students Regarding the Approaches of UIC in Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities Perceptions SA A N D SD n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) I prefer that industries partner or work directly with 22 41 38 61 20 individual professors than with the university establishment (12.1) (22.5) (20.9) (33.5) (11) I prefer that industries partner or collaborate with student 39 64 31 34 14 bodies or organizations than with professors and lecturers (21.4) (35.2) (17.0) (18.7) (7.7) I prefer that industries partner or collaborate directly with 32 37 55 44 14 the university authorities than with lecturers and student (17.6) (20.3) (30.2) (24.2) (7.7) bodies Note: SA = Strongly Agree; A = Agree; N= Neutral or no idea; D = Disagree; SD = Strongly Disagree; n = number of respondents.

As could be seen from Table 10 above only 34.6% of the student participants either agreed (22.5%) or strongly agreed (12.1%) with an approach suggesting that industry should collaborate with individual professors in Nigerian universities. The situation is not much different when respondents were requested to express their preferences for industry collaborating directly with student organizations and not with professors. The majority of the students’ agreed (56.6%) and strongly agreed (21.4%) to the prefererence that favors a UIC approach in which industry collaborates directly with student organizations and not with their professors. When the student participants’s preferences were investigated with regard to an approach in which industry directly collaborates with university authorities rather than with their professors or or student organizations, only 37.9% of the student participants either agreed (20.3%) or strongly agreed (17.6%) to this proposition. The majority of the students (62.1%) expressed no opinions on this proposition (30.2%), disagreed (24.2%) or strongly disagreed (7.7%). 101

Regarding the approaches of UIC in Nigerian publicly-supported universities, the preferences of faculty members who participated in the study, are presented in Table 11 below.

Table 11: Preferences of Faculty Members Regarding the Approaches of UIC in Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities Questionnaire Item SA A N D SD n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) I prefer that industries partner or work directly with 14 31 8 18 9 individual professors than with the university (17.5) (38.8) (10.0) (22.5) (11.3) establishment I prefer that industries partner or collaborate with student 6 11 16 31 16 bodies or organizations than with professors and lecturers (7.5) (13.8) (20.0) (38.8) (20.0) I prefer that industries partner or collaborate directly with 8 17 20 25 10 the university authorities than with lecturers and student (10) (21.3) (25) (31.3) (12.5) bodies Note: SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, N= Neutral or no idea, D = Disagree, SD = Strongly Disagree; n = number of respondents.

When the same set of questions in Table 10 above were presented to the faculty member-participants regarding their preferences on the approaches of UIC in their universities, their responses were a direct opposite of those of the students. The only point of agreement between the students and faculty members was on their preferences that industry should not partner or collaborate directly with their university authorities.

For example, as could be seen from Table 11, the majority of the faculty members (about

56%), either strongly agreed (17.5% ) or agreed (38.3% ) with an approach that suggests that industry should collaborate with individual professors in Nigerian universities. The situation is however quite different when respondents were requested to express their preferences for industry collaborating directly with student organizations and not with 102 professors. The majority of the faculty members who participated in the study (58.8%) either strongly disagreed (38.8%) or disagreed (20%) with this propositon.

However, when the faculty members’ preferences for a UIC approach whereby industries partner directly with the university authorities, their responses to this proposition, like those of the students, were largely negative. For instance, less than one- third of the participants (31.3%) either strongly agreed (10%) or agreed (21.3%) with this approach while the majority of the faculty members (68.8%) expressed no opinion

(25%); disagreed (31.3) or strongly disagreeed (12.5%)

R.Q. 4: Are there differences between students’ and faculty preferences regarding

approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria?

Table 12: Group Statistics - Differences between Students’ and Faculty Preferences Regarding Approaches of University-Industry Collaborations in Nigeria M SD Preference Level of Study

Prefer industry should Student 3.1 1.2 collaborate with individual professors Faculty 2.7 1.3

I prefer industry should Student 2.6 1.2 collaborate with student organizations and not with Faculty 3.5 1.2 Professors

I prefer industry directly Student 2.5 1.2 collaborate with University Faculty 3.1 1.2 Authorities Note: n (Faculty) = 80; n(students) = 182; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation

103

To answer R.Q. 4 thereby exploring if there are significant differences between students and faculty members’ preferences regarding an approach of UIC in which (a) industry collaborates with individual professors, (b) industry collaborates with student organizations and (c) industry collaborates with the university authorities, a t-test was conducted to compare the means (M) and standard deviations (SD) of the responses of student and faculty participants in the study (Table 12 above).

With regard to the participants’ preferences about industry collaborating with individual professors, there was a significant difference in the mean values of the responses of students (M =3.1, SD = 1.2) and faculty (M = 2.7, SD = 1.3). These results suggest that the students have negative preferences regarding industry collaborating with individual professors in publicly supported universities in Nigeria. In other words, students and faculty significantly differed in their preferences with regard to industry collaborating with individual professors in Nigerian publicly supported universities.

In order to further clarify this R.Q. the preferences of all respondents were sought with regard to industry collaborating with student organizations and not with the professors in Nigerian Universities. As in the earlier case, there was a significant difference in the mean values of the responses of students (M = 2.6, SD = 1.2) and faculty

(M = 3.5, SD = 1.2). These results suggest that the faculty have negative preferences regarding industry collaborating with student organizations and not with professors in publicly supported universities in Nigeria.

In the same vein, when the preferences of both student and faculty participants in the study were sought, there are significant differences in students’ and faculty 104 preferences regarding industries collaborating directly with their University authorities.

This is in view of the mean values of the responses of faculty members (M = 3.1, SD =

1.2) and students (M = 2.8, SD = 1.20) regarding their preference that industry directly collaborate with University Authorities. These results suggest that the faculty have more negative preferences of and approach in which industries collaborate directly with their

University authorities.

UIC and Quality Assurance. R.Q. 5 and 6 below focus on UIC and quality assurance.

R.Q. 5: What are the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential

impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher

education in Nigeria?

To answer, R.Q. 5, respondents were asked to assess the potential impact of UIC on quality assurance in their universities in terms of the extent or level of UIC linkages with their universities. The indicators they were required to rate include: students’ industrial attachment, service learning and internships; students’ research projects; access to funding; entrepreneurial education; consultancy services and research and innovation for socio-economic development in Nigeria (items 17 to 22 in the survey questionnaire).

Tables 13 and 14 below present the responses of the student and faculty participants respectively. 105

Table 13: Students’ Perception of the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level Students’ perception of UIC in terms of: Poor Low Average Good High n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Service Learning & Internships 28 48 59 37 10 (15.4) (26.4) (32.4) (20.3) (5.5) Students Research Projects 18 60 52 48 4 (9.9) (27.5) (34.1) (26.4) (2.2) Access to Funding 41 64 45 28 4 (22.5) (35.2) (24.7) (15.4) (2.2) 20: Entrepreneurial Education 24 46 63 39 10 (13.2) (25.3) (34.6) (21.4) (5.5) Consultancy Services 25 54 79 23 1 (13.7) (29.7) (43.4) (12.6) (.5) Research and Innovation for Socio- 17 46 85 28 6 economic Development (9.3) (25.3) (46.7) (15.4) (3.3) Note: n = number of respondents.

About twenty-six per cent of the students rated the extent or level of their school’s

linkages with industry with regard to service learning and internships as of good or high

quality and 32.4% rated these as of average quality while 41.8% of the students rated this

as of poor or low quality. About twenty-nine per cent of the students rated the extent or

level of their school’s linkages with industry with regard to students’ research projects as

of good or high quality while 34.1% rated this as of average quality. 35.2% of the

students rated this as of poor or low quality.

However, with regard to their university’s access to funding, 57.7% of the

students rated their university’s linkages with industry as poor or low while 17.7% of the

student gave this indicator a good or high rating. As for entrepreneurial education, 26.9%

of the students gave their university’s linkage with industry a good or of high rating while

another 34.6% gave their school an average rating. With respect to university-industry

ratings and consultancy services to the industry, 13.1% of the students gave their school a 106

good or high rating while 43.4% rated their school as average in this regard. Similarly,

18.7% or the student participants gave their universities good or high ratings for research

and innovation for socio-economic development while 34.6% of the students indicated a

poor or low rating for research and innovation.

The perceptions of the faculty member-participants to the same questions are

presented in Table 14 below:

Table 14: The Perception of Faculty on the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level of UIC Linkages in Nigerian Universities Faculty’s Perception of UIC in terms of: Poor Low Average Good High n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Service Learning & Internships 11 (13.8) 18 36 14 1 22.5) (45) (17.5) (1.3) Students & Research Projects 18 18 20 16 8 (22.5) (22.5) (25) (20) (10) Access to Funding 19 32 21 8 0 (23.8) (40) (26.3) (10) (0) Entrepreneurial Education 10 34 27 8 1 (12.5) (42.5) (33.8) (10) (1.3) Consultancy Services 11 31 28 10 0 (13.8) (38.8) (35.0) (12.5) (0) Research and Innovation 8 23 37 9 3 (10) (23.8) (46.3) (11.3) (3.8) Note: n = number of respondents.

As could be seen in Table 14 above, 18.8% of the faculty members rated the

extent or level of their school’s linkages with industry with regard to students’ service

learning and internships as of good or high quality, and 45% of them rated these as of

average quality while another 36.3% of the faculty members rated this as of poor or low

quality. Furthermore, 30% of the faculty members rated the extent or level of their

school’s linkages with industry with regard to students’ research projects as of good or 107 high quality while 25% of them rated this as of average quality. 45% of the faculty rated this as of poor or low quality.

However, with regard to their university’s access to funding, 63.8% of the faculty members rated their university’s linkages with industry as poor or low, while 10% of the faculty participants gave this indicator a good rating. As for entrepreneurial education,

11.3% of the faculty members gave their university’s linkage with industry a good or of high rating while another 33.8% gave their school an average rating. With regard to university-industry ratings on consultancy services to the industry, 12.5% of the faculty members gave their school a good while 35% rated their school as average in this regard.

Similarly, 15.1% or the faculty participants gave their universities good or high ratings for research and innovation for socio-economic development; 46.3% of them gave an average rating while 33.8% of the faculty members indicated a poor or low rating for their university’s research and innovation linkage with the industry in Nigeria.

R.Q. 6.: Are there differences in perceptions of students and faculty regarding the

potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in

higher education in Nigeria?

In order to see if there are differences in the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in the publicly-supported universities, the perceptions of students were compared to those of their faculty based on their responses on the extent of their universities’ linkages with industry in Nigeria. The results are presented in Table 15 below. 108

Table 15: The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of UIC with Regard to the Extent/Level of UIC Linkages in Nigerian Universities Students and Faculty’s Perception of Poor Low Average Good High UIC in terms of: n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Students 28 48 59 37 10 Service Learning & Internships (15.4) (26.4) (32.4) (20.3) (5.5) Faculty 11 18 36 14 1 (13.8) (22.5) (45) (17.5) (1.3) Students 18 60 52 48 4 Students & Research Projects (9.9) (27.5) (34.1) (26.4) (2.2) Faculty 18 18 20 16 8 (22.5) (22.5) (25) (20) (10) Students 41 64 45 28 4 Access to Funding (22.5) (35.2) (24.7) (15.4) (2.2) Faculty 19 32 21 8 0 (23.8) (40) (26.3) (10) (0) Students 24 46 63 39 10 Entrepreneurial Education (13.2) (25.3) (34.6) (21.4) (5.5) Faculty 10 34 27 8 1 (12.5) (42.5) (33.8) (10) (1.3) Students 25 54 79 23 1 Consultancy Services (13.7) (29.7) (43.4) (12.6) (.5) Faculty 11 11 28 10 0 (13.8) (13.8) (35.0) (12.5) (0) Students 17 46 85 28 6 Research and Innovation for Socio- (9.3) (25.3) (46.7) (15.4) (3.3) economic Development Faculty 8 23 37 9 3 (10) (23.8) (46.3) (11.3) (3.8) Note: n = number of respondents.

As could be seen in Table 15 above the patterns of responses of student and faculty participants with regard to the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities were comparatively similar. Therefore, in order to see if there are significant differences between the perceptions of students and faculty, an independent sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean scores of the responses of students and faculty members. The results are presented below: 109

Table 16: Students and Faculty’s Perceptions of the Potential Impact of University- industry Linkages on Quality Assurance in Nigerian Public Universities Mean Std. Level of Study Deviation Student 2.74 1.115 Extent of UIC, in terms of Service Faculty 2.71 1.093 Learning, Internship

Extent of UIC in terms Student 2.84 1.000 of Students & Faculty 2.73 .941 Research Projects Extent of UIC in terms Student 2.40 1.066 of Funding Faculty 2.25 .921

Extent of UIC in terms 2.81 1.088 Student of Entrepreneurial Education Faculty 2.45 .884

2.57 .900 Extent of UIC in terms Student of Consultancy Services to Industry Faculty 2.48 .886

Extent of UIC in terms Student 2.78 .932 of Research & Faculty 2.71 .930 Innovation Note: n (Faculty) = 80; n(students) = 182; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation

The indicators that the participants rated in the independent sample t-test conducted included their perceptions about university-industry collaborations in terms of

(a) service learning and internships; (b) students’ research projects; (c) access to funds;

(d) students’ entrepreneurship education; (e) consultancy services to industry, government agencies and the private sector; (f) research and innovation for socio- economic development. 110

With regard to service learning and internships, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the perceptions of faculty (M =2.7, SD = 1.1) and students (M = 2.7, SD = 1.1). Hence, these results suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university- industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to service learning and internships.

When the extent of university-industry linkages in terms of students’ research projects was examined, there was also no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the perceptions of the faculty (M =2.7, SD = .94) and students (M = 2.8, SD =

1.0). These results also suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to students’ research projects.

With regard to the extent of university-industry linkages in terms of access to funding, there was also no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the perceptions of faculty (M =2.3, SD = .92) and students (M = 2.4, SD = 1.1). These results suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to access to funding.

When the perceptions of the two group of participants were sought about the potential impact of UIC with regard to the extent of university-industry linkages in their universities in terms of entrepreneurial education, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the perceptions of faculty (M =2.6, SD = .90) and 111 students (M = 2.8, SD = 1.1). These results suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university- industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to entrepreneurial education.

With regard to the perceptions of students and faculty about the potential impact of UIC concerning the extent of university-industry linkages in their universities in terms of consultancy services to industry, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the perceptions of faculty (M =2.5, SD = .89) and students (M = 2.6, SD

= .90). These results suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to consultancy services to industry.

Furthermore, the perceptions of students and faculty about the potential impact of

UIC regarding the extent of university-industry linkages in their universities in terms of research and innovation for socio-economic development, there was no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the perceptions of faculty (M =2.7, SD =

.93) and students (M = 2.8, SD = .93). These results also suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities when it comes to research and innovation.

112

Summary

This chapter presents the results of the research findings based on the analysis of the data collected from study participants in relation to the research questions. In all, six research questions (R.Q.) were analyzed and the summary of results and findings are presented as follows:

The result of R.Q. 1 which is designed to examine the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices or approaches of university-industry collaborations in

Nigeria shows that majority of the respondents agreed that UIC is good and beneficial to students and their universities; that partnering or collaborating with industries could improve the quality of teaching and learning. Data also suggested that UIC is a win-win enterprise because the more university-industry collaborate, the better it is for the industries, the university, and the quality of graduates produced.

When the perceptions of the student participants were compared with those of the faculty members, (R.Q. 2) in order to know if there are differences in their perceptions of

UIC approaches in Nigeria, t-test results indicate that there is no significant difference in the scores of faculty and students regarding their perceptions of the practices/approaches of university-industry collaboration in Nigeria.

With regard to R.Q. 3 which was aimed at finding out the preferences of students and faculty regarding the approaches of university-industry collaborations in Nigeria, namely that (a) industry collaborates directly with individual professor; (b) industry collaborates with student organizations and (c) industries partner or collaborate directly with the university authorities, findings indicate significant differences in students’ and 113 faculty’s responses with the first approach. For example, the majority of the students either volunteered no opinion on this approach (20.9%); disagreed (33.5%) or strongly disagreed (11%) respectively. However, the reverse was the case with the faculty members. The majority of them, 17.5% and 38.3% (about 56%) either strongly agreed or agreed with an approach that suggests that industry should collaborate with individual professors.

The same was true for the second approach, which suggests that industries should partner or collaborate directly with university authorities was proposed, 68.8% of the faculty members either did not offer any opinion on this approach, disagreed or strongly disagreed respectively. The responses of the students were also similar to that of their professors. On the whole, when it comes to the preferences of students and faculty for

UIC approaches in Nigeria, the only point of agreement between the students and faculty members was on their preferences that industry should not partner or collaborate directly with their university authorities.

In R.Q. 4, a more specific comparison of the preferences of students and professors regarding the approaches of UIC in Nigeria was examined. To answer R.Q. 4, independent sample t-tests were performed, using items 6, 7 and 8 in the survey questionnaire in order to assess whether there are significant differences in faculty and students’ preferences regarding industries collaborating with individual professors, student organizations or the university authorities.

With regard to the participants’ preferences about industry collaborating with individual professors, there was a significant difference in the mean values of the scores 114 of the students (M =3.1, SD = 1.2) and faculty (M = 2.7, SD = 1.3) regarding their perceptions of the practices/ approaches of university-industry collaboration in Nigeria.

These results suggest that the students have negative preferences regarding industry collaborating with individual professors in publicly supported universities in Nigeria. In other words, students and faculty significantly differed in their preferences with regard to industry collaborating with individual professors in Nigerian publicly supported universities.

In order to further clarify this research question, the preferences of all respondents were sought with regard to industry collaborating with student organizations and not with the professors in Nigerian Universities. An independent sample t-test was performed to assess whether there are significant differences in faculty and students’ preferences regarding industry collaborating with student organizations and not professors. There was a significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the preferences of students (M

= 2.6, SD = 1.2) and faculty (M = 3.5, SD = 1.2) regarding their preferences of the practices/approaches of university-industry collaboration in Nigeria. These results suggest that the faculty have negative preferences regarding industry collaborating with student organizations and not with professors in publicly supported universities in

Nigeria.

In the same vein, an independent sample t-test was performed to assess whether there are significant differences in students and faculty’s preferences regarding industries collaborating directly with their University authorities. There was no significant difference in the mean values of the scores of the preferences of the faculty (M = 3.1, SD 115

= 1.2) and students (M = 2.8, SD = 1.2) regarding the approach that industry directly collaborates with University Authorities in Nigeria. These results however suggest that the faculty have slightly more negative preferences than students regarding an approach in which industries collaborate directly with their University authorities.

To answer R.Q.5, the respondents were asked about their perception of the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in higher education in Nigeria with regard to their university’s linkage with industry for (a) service learning and internships; (b) students’ research projects (c) access to funding (d) entrepreneurial education (e) consultancy services to industry and (f) research and innovation for national development. There was unanimous convergence of opinions among both students and faculty that the extent of their universities linkages with industry ranges from low to average, based on the six indicators named above.

Finally, in order to further find out if there are differences in the perceptions of students and faculty regarding the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in their universities (R.Q.6), the perceptions of students were compared to those of their faculty. Like in R.Q. 5, the quality assurance indicators that the participants were required to rate include the support received from industry for (a) service learning and internships; (b) students’ research projects; (c) access to funds; (d) students’ entrepreneurship education; (e) consultancy services to industry, government agencies and the private sector; (f) research and innovation for socio-economic development. 116

On the whole, results of the comparison made between the responses obtained from students and faculty members with regard to the above indicators range from very low to average. T-test results suggest that there are no significant differences in students’ and faculty perceptions about the potential impact of university-industry linkages on quality assurance in their universities.

Weak Linkage between University and Industry

Notwithstanding the general positive perceptions of students and faculty with regard to the potential impact of UIC on academic assurance in Nigerian universities, the majority of the respondents (students and faculty alike) rated the extent to which their universities had actually linked up with industry in terms of research and innovation; facilitation of entrepreneurial education; consultancy services, access to funding etc. as either very low or average.

Based on the foregoing results and findings in this chapter, the next chapter presents the major findings of this study and discusses the implications of the study for theory, practice and policy. Finally, recommendations for future research on UIC and quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria are made. 117

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations

Introduction

This study examines the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in two Nigerian

Universities. The Triple Helix conceptual framework of University-Industry

Collaboration (Triple Helix Research Group, 2012) which situates universities at the center of innovation for economic growth in knowledge-based societies is used to guide the study. This chapter presents a summary of the study, the major findings based on the data analysis presented in the previous chapter as well as a discussion of the implications of the study for policy and practice. Finally, recommendations for future research on UIC and quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria are made.

Summary of the Study

Overview of the problem. For many years, research evidence has shown that there is consistent decline in government funding of Nigerian universities at a rate far below the UNESCO-approved minimum (Afuwoqi and Wu, 2011; Akeusola and Ofulue,

2011; Ekundayo and Ajayi, 2009; Saint, Hartnett and Strassner, 2003).The resultant effects of this include deteriorating working conditions and downward pressure on staff salaries; compromised university autonomy; incessant student and faculty strikes; political repression on campus; growing corruption; cultism and human rights abuses. All these have in turn affected efficiency, quality, equity and governance of higher education in Nigeria (Anasi, 2012; Babarinde, 2012; Ekundayo and Ajayi, 2009). One major consequence of this development is the high unemployment rates among Nigerian 118 graduates many of whom have been described as unemployable, especially in the fields of science and technology. However, research evidence in many places have shown that

University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) holds good potential impact for universities to access teaching, research and innovation resources - and by implication, quality assurance. (Prager & Omenn (2015); Lee (2000).

Purpose statement. As stated in Chapter One, this study aimed at examining the perceptions of students and faculty about the impact of university-industry collaborations on quality assurance in Nigerian universities. To this end, a total of 200 university students and 100 faculty members were recruited from two publicly funded universities in South-West and North Central Nigeria to participate in a questionnaire survey respectively.

Review of the methodology. The study employed a descriptive, non- experimental quantitative research design, using a questionnaire survey. A total of 182 students and 80 faculty members from two publicly-supported Universities in Nigeria participated in the study. Data was analyzed with SPSS software, using statistical tools that include descriptive statistics - frequency, means, standard deviation and T-tests.

Major Findings

The major findings of this study fall into two categories – those that relate to the literature on University-Industry Collaboration both in Nigeria and internationally in general, and unanticipated findings which reflect the peculiar situations in the Nigerian higher educational leadership and administration system. 119

Findings Related to the Literature

(a)Perceptions of students and faculty regarding the practices or approaches of

university-industry collaborations in Nigeria.

Findings in this study show that university-industry collaborations in general, hold good potential impact for quality assurance of Nigerian universities. This is in agreement with previous studies on the subject matter. For instance, Ginzburg and Houli

(2015) regarded UIC in Germany as one of the key challenges of the future and describe

UIC as a mutual benefiting approach in which companies offer business insights while the university/students contribute proven expertise and methodology. Many other studies and literature in support of this findings include those of Freitas, Marques, and Silva

(2013); Leydesdorff and Meyer (2006); Petruzzelli, (2011); Youtie and Shapira, (2008).

Indeed, earlier studies carried out in Nigeria (Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, 2012; Oyewale, 2010;

Siyanbola et al. 2012; Sobanke et al., 2014) go a step further to indicate that in addition to the potential benefits of UIC for universities, UIC is a determinant of innovation and technological capability in the country.

(b) Preferences of students and faculty regarding approaches of university-

industry collaborations in Nigeria – an unanticipated finding.

With regard to students and faculty’s preferences of about UIC, the study findings show that the responses of the two groups of participants were different participants in each group (students and faculty alike) did not express preference for industry to collaborate with any other stake holder in the university except their own group. For instance, students do not prefer that industry collaborates directly with individual 120 professors and likewise, faculty members/professors do not subscribe to industry collaborating with student organizations. Interestingly enough, the majority of both groups (students and faculty) did not prefer that industry should collaborate directly with their university authorities. This finding could be rightly described as unanticipated given the unanimous, positive perceptions of both students and faculty on the potential benefits of UIC to both the students and the university at large. Strange as this might sound, this finding is corroborated by many earlier studies on the prevailing circumstances and socio-economic milieu in the Nigerian university system. For instance studies on the challenges facing the Nigerian higher education sector have come up with a litany of issues including the dwindling funding of government-owned universities in the face of increasing demand for higher education (Saint and Strassner, 2003); stagnation in existing teaching, research and learning resources (Adewole and Fakore, 2013); deteriorating working conditions and irregular payment of faculty and staff salaries; growing corruption, class over-crowding and high student-teacher ratios, coupled with limited access to instructional technologies (Anasi, 2012; Asiyai, 2014); student riots, civil disobedience, attacks on students and faculty, incessant nationwide strikes and industrial actions (Etadon, 2013; Oludayo et al., 2014); problems with equity, quality and governance and the erosion of university autonomy (Anasi, 2012; Babarinde, 2012;

Ekundayo & Ajayi, 2009).

(c)Quality assurance.

With regard to the potential impact of UIC on quality assurance in higher education in Nigeria, findings across the board show an overwhelming agreement that 121

UIC has the potential to impact the quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria.

According to the Federal Ministry of Education’s (2012) 4-year strategic plan, quality assurance constitutes a major challenge to the education system in Nigeria. Factors that were considered include the potentials that UIC holds in terms of access to funding, teaching and learning resources and opportunity for consultancy services for the universities; support for research, innovation, and publications for faculty members and service learning, internships, and industrial attachment for students. These are probably due to the lack of needed research facilities and infrastructure in most Nigerian universities. This finding supports the findings of earlier studies like those of Ojewale et al., (2001); Oyebisi and Ilori, (1996); Sobanke et al., (2014) and Ginzburg and Houli,

(2015) - both in Nigeria and at the international level.

Unanticipated Finding

Weak linkage between industry and universities. One major unanticipated finding in this study has to do with the weak linkage between Nigerian universities and industry. This was expressed through the ratings of majority of the participants (students and faculty alike). For instance, with regard to the potential benefits inherent in UIC for

Nigerian universities and industry, respondents were requested to rate the level or extent of their universities’ collaboration with various industries including oil companies, manufacturing, banks, and telecommunication. The indicators that participants were requested to rate included university-industry linkages with regard to research and innovation for socio-economic development; facilitation of students’ entrepreneurship education; consultancy services to industry, government agencies and the private sector; 122 and access to external funds derivable from university-industry linkages. The majority of the participants (students and faculty inclusive) indicated that the degree of linkage between their universities and industry range from below average to poor. Incidentally, this finding is corroborated by earlier studies that examined industry-academic relations in Nigeria both in terms of awareness and willingness of entrepreneurs to utilize what

Ojewale et al. (2001) described as “idle service and manufacturing capacities” (p.704) in selected institutions of higher education and research in Nigeria. The same situation is also expressed as true by Adeoti (2007) who saw this development as a “crisis in the

Nigerian knowledge industry… which has limited the economic and social benefits of knowledge” (p. 375). Earlier studies that corroborate this finding include those of

Siyanbola et al. (2012); Sobanke et al. (2014), among others.

Implications for Theory, Practice and Policy

This study reveals that the majority of the participants, students and faculty alike, unanimously acknowledged the fact that UIC holds good potential for quality assurance in their universities in terms of the facilitation of access to teaching and learning resources. This view is supported by literature which identify that adequate expenditure

(funding and access to teaching, research and learning resources, etc.) are important determinants of quality assurance of education (Berne & Stiefel, 1984; Underwood,

1995; Vegas & Coffin, 2015). For this reason, this study’s findings have identified an important gap in the theories and conceptual frameworks of UIC. To this end, and theoretically speaking, Figure 2 in Chapter Two below has proposed that UIC in Nigeria should be regarded as a planned process that portrays UIC as a systematic intervention 123 aimed at promoting quality assurance of higher education institutions by involving students in the collaborative research and innovation activities of the stakeholders for research, innovation, and economic growth.

In terms of policy implication, a very important finding of this study indicates that there exists an overwhelming positive perception among the majority of the students and faculty participants on the potential impact of University industry collaborations on quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria. This positive perception of UIC among the study participants implies an existence of the need for collaboration among the stakeholders i.e. the Nigerian government, industry and universities. This indeed forms the nucleus of the Triple Helix Concept of UIC.

With regard to practice, the Nigerian higher education and knowledge industry need to begin to put in place a system that will enable them to engage with both local industries and trans-national corporations operating in their domain. This is imperative in view of the fact that the country needs to become competitive as it strives to increase productivity for socio-economic growth. This could only be achieved with the production of high quality manpower by the universities. This is especially true at a time like this, for a country like Nigeria that has mainly depended for so long on oil export as the major source for its national income. This becomes even more so in view of the fact that price of oil in the international market has taken a deep plunge and has remained so for quite some time.

As for higher education policy makers in Nigeria, it is imperative for them to understand and apply the basic tenets of the Triple Helix framework which emphasizes 124 that the interaction or linkage of the academia with industry could only thrive in a conducive economic and policy milieu, the result of which could translate to economic growth. By implication, the primary mandate of higher education as a vehicle for the production of high quality workforce through teaching and research should also be recognized and motivated appropriately in order for the sector to function as a prime mover of innovation, competitive productivity and economic growth in a globalized economic system. This could be achieved by increased education expenditure, unhindered access to information technologies, provision of an enabling environment for collaborative research with local and international industries, as well as the granting of tax break incentives to local and multi-national corporations that are committed to working with Nigerian universities for research and innovation; facilitating access to teaching and learning resources for quality assurance.

Recommendations for Further Research

An unanticipated finding in this research indicates that majority of the participants agreed in their perceptions that UIC has good potential for quality assurance in Nigerian universities and that this is beneficial to both the students and the university at large. This perhaps could be one of the solutions for the Federal Ministry of Education’s (2012) concern about quality assurance, in addition to what the Ministry describes as

“insufficient quality assurance mechanisms” (p.35). However, the ironic twist of a general disagreement by students and faculty for their preference as to which of the stakeholders in the university system should directly collaborate with the industry needs to be further investigated in future research and studies. 125

In addition, it is necessary to conduct future studies with the aim of putting in place the modalities for developing a framework for a national scholar-practitioner policy, preparation, purpose and practice. Through this platform, faculty members in

Nigerian higher education institutions would be motivated to collaborate with the industry so as to better meet the challenges of carrying out relevant, collaborative action research and innovation activities geared toward a national agenda on human capital development and economic growth.

Given that this research only studied UIC and its impact on quality assurance in publicly-supported Nigerian universities from the perspectives of university students and faculty, it will be necessary to conduct future studies from the perspectives of university/higher education authorities and industry, the Ministry of Education and its regulating agencies, government officials, policy makers as well as parents – all of whom are equally important stake holders in the quest for the quality assurance of higher education in Nigeria.

Conclusion

This study examined the perceptions of students and faculty on the potential impact of university-industry collaborations (UIC) on the quality assurance of two publicly-funded universities in South-West and North-Central Nigeria. The focus of the study is hitherto, a little-researched area in Nigeria. The study findings could provide part of the solutions to the challenges facing the Nigerian higher education system in view of the consistent decline in government funding of Nigerian universities. The study findings indicated that the majority of the participants are in agreement that UIC holds potential 126 positive impact on the quality assurance of their universities. This is in view of the fact that most universities in Nigeria are faced with lack of adequate access to teaching and learning resources, dilapidated infrastructures, crowding classes, dwindling volume of scientific publications, irregular payment of faculty and staff salaries leading to incessant nation-wide strikes and industrial actions.

In addition to contributing to literature on UIC, this research is designed to inform higher education policy makers with regard to the relevance of university-industry collaborations as an additional vehicle for boosting quality assurance; facilitating access to alternative sources of funding, teaching and learning resources. The study should be of interest to Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Education whose primary mandate is to produce high quality work force that could meet the current and future job requirements at home and at the international level. The study is very much in agreement with Nigerian government’s commitment to promote industrial development and diversification of the mono-cultural oil economy through the production and offering of high quality goods and service at competitive prices in a globalized, knowledge-driven, international market. 127

References

Acworth, E. B. (2008). University–industry engagement: The formation of the knowledge

integration community (KIC) model at the Cambridge-MIT Institute. Research

Policy, 37(8), 1241–1254. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.022

Adeogun, A.A., Subair, S.T., & Osifila, G.I. (2009). Deregulation of university

education in Nigeria: Problems and prospects. Florida Journal of Educational

Administration and Policy. 3 (1).

Adeoti, J. O. (2007). Towards quality in African higher education: University-industry

linkage and the challenge of creating developmental universities in Nigeria.

Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.620.6049&rep=rep1&t

ype=pdf

Adeoti, J., & Adeoti, A. (2005). Biotechnology R & D partnership for industrial

innovation in Nigeria. Technovation, 25(4), 349–365.

http://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00151-2

Adewole, E. G., & Fakorede, S. O. A. (2013). Strengthening the Nigerian higher

education system through the use of information communication technology.

International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 3(4).

Adewuyi, J. O., & Okemakinde, T. (2013). Higher education financing in Nigeria: Issues

and trends. International Journal, 5(7), 121–127.

Afonso, A., Ramírez, J. J., & Díaz-Puente, J. M. (2012). University-industry cooperation

in the education domain to foster competitiveness and employment. Procedia - 128

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 3947–3953.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.177

Afuwoqi, A., & Wu, H. (2011). Promoting industry-university partnership in information

technology. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.1429

Ajadi, T. O. (2010). Private universities in Nigeria: The challenges ahead. American

Journal of Scientific Research, 7, 15–24.

Ajayi, I. A., & Ekundayo H. T. (2008). The deregulation of university education in

Nigeria: Implications for quality assurance. Nebula. Retrieved from

http://002784d.netsolhost.com/images/Ajayi_Ekundayo.pdf

Akeusola, O., Ofulue, C. I., Feng, H.-Y., Tsai, H.-C., Margolin, B., & Fageeh, A. I.

(2011). An appraisal of quality assurance issues in promoting programmes in

higher education: Case study of the National Open University of Nigeria. Journal

of Language & Literature (20780303), 2(1). Retrieved from

http://interdisciplinaryacademicessays.com/publications/Volume1/akeusola_1.pdf

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2009a). Trends in global higher

education: Tracking an academic revolution. UNESCO Pub.; Sense. Retrieved

from

http://atepie.cep.edu.rs/public/Altbach,_Reisberg,_Rumbley_Tracking_an_Acade

mic_Revolution,_UNESCO_2009.pdf

American Council on Education (2001). Working together, creating knowledge: The

university-industry research collaboration initiative. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457765 129

Aminu, J. (1983). The factor of centralization in two decades of Nigerian university

development; 20 Years of University Education in Nigeria. National Universities

Commission, Lagos.

Anasi, S. N. I. (2012). Digital libraries and higher education in Nigeria in 21st century.

Desidoc Journal of Library & Information Technology, 32(4). Retrieved from

http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/djlit/article/view/2531

Ankrah, S. N., Burgess, T. F., Grimshaw, P., & Shaw, N. E. (2013). Asking both

university and industry actors about their engagement in knowledge transfer:

What single-group studies of motives omit. Technovation, 33(2-3), 50–65.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.11.001

Anna Rosa, A. J. (2014). Significance of higher education in creating of intellectual

capital. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics 3 (2). pp. 48 – 60.

Anyambele, S. C. (2004). Institutional management in higher education: A study of

leadership approaches to quality improvement in university management –

Nigerian and Finish cases. An unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Department of

Education, University of Helsinki.

Anyebe, A. A. (2014). Nigerian university and manpower development in a changing

world. Higher Education Studies. 4(1). Retrieved from

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/hes/article/view/33736

Asiyai, R. I. (2014). Impediments to research among students of institutions of higher

learning in Southern Nigeria. Education, 134(3), 305–315.

Babarinde, K. (2012). Evolution, development, challenges and prospects of Nigeria 130

higher education system (NHES). Retrieved from

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0

CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trustafrica.org%2FFr%2Fles-

publications%2Fconferences-et-ateliers%3Fdownload%3D274%3Ahigher-

education-convening-nigeria-evolution-development-challenges-and-prospects-

of-nigeria-higher-education-system-

hes&ei=a_4_VY7AI9e1sQTXvYEg&usg=AFQjCNFb4YMHHhQ6cZFAvUGlx

mgwS49-LQ&bvm=bv.91665533,bs.1,d.b2w

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. 12th ed. Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage. Retrieved from

http://libguides.usc.edu/content.php?pid=83009&sid=615867

Badea, L., & Rogojanu, A. (2012). Controversies concerning the connection higher

education–human capital–competitiveness. Theoretical and Applied Economics,

12(12), 125.

Badmus, A. D., & Enahoro, J. A. (2013). Emergence of private universities in Nigeria

And monitoring standards between 2002 and 2012. American Journal of Business

and Management, 2(1). http://doi.org/10.11634/216796061302258

Baez, B., & Boyles, D. (2009). The politics of inquiry: Education research and the

‘culture of science’. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analyzing knowledge transfer channels

between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?

Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007 131

Berkman, E. T., & Reise, S. P (2012). A conceptual guide to statistics using SPSS. Los

Angeles: Sage.

Black, T. R. (2005). Doing quantitative research in the social sciences: An integrated

approach to research design, measures and statistics. SAGE. Thousand Oaks,

California.

Bodas Freitas, I. M., Marques, R. A., & Silva, E. M. de P. e. (2013). University–industry

collaboration and innovation in emergent and mature industries in new

industrialized countries. Research Policy, 42(2), 443–453.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.006

Boller, K., Atkins-Burnett, S., Malone, L. M., Baxter, G. P., & West, J. (2010).

Compendium of student, teacher, and classroom measures used in NCEE

evaluations of educational interventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511790

Brown, S. (2015). Measures of Shape: Skewness and kurtosis. Retrieved from

http://brownmath.com/stat/shape.htm

Business-Higher Education Forum (2001). Working together, creating knowledge: The

university-industry research collaboration initiative. Business-Higher Education

Forum. Washington DC. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED457765.pdf

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (n.d.). CHEA at a glance. Retrieved from 132

http://www.chea.org/pdf/chea-at-a-glance_2012.pdf

Coyne, I. (1997) Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling –

merging or clear boundaries? London: Blackwell Science Ltd.

Davis, H., Evans, T., & Hickey, C. (2006). A knowledge-based economy

landscape: Implications for tertiary education and research training

i n Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management (28) 3. pp.

231–244. Retrieved from

https://www.academia.edu/179354/A_knowledge_economy_landscape_implicatio

ns_for_tertiary_education_and_research_training_in_Australia

Delost, M. E., & Nadder, T. S. (2014). Guidelines for initiating a research agenda:

Research design and dissemination of results. Clinical Laboratory Science, 27

(4), p. 237 – 244.

Dill, D. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: Practices and issues. The

University of North Carolinat at Chapel Hill, PPAQ Research Program. Retrieved

from http://www.unc.edu/ppaq/docs/Encyclopedia_Final.pdf

Duderstadt, J. J. (2007). The future of higher education in the knowledge-driven, global

economy of the 21st Century. University of Michigan. Retrieved from

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/88245/2002_Toronto_Lec

ture_1.4.pdf?sequence=1

Ejere, E.S.I. (2011). Human capital formation as catalyst for national development:

Nigeria in perspective. International Business and Management. 2 (2). pp. 98 –

104. 133

Ekundayo, H. T., & Ajayi, I. A. (2009). Towards effective management of university

education in Nigeria. International NGO Journal, 4(8), 342–347. Retrieved from

http://www.codewit.com/articles/cgn/Towards%20effective%20management%20

of%20university%20education%20in%20Nigeria%20by%20Ekundayo%20and%

20Ajayi.pdf

Etadon, F. I. (2013). Campus conflicts involving students’ and university management in

Nigeria: The case of the University of Ibadan. Retrieved from

http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/IJES/IJES-05-0-000-13-Web/IJES-05-

3-000-13-ABST-PDF/IJES-05-3-333-13-114-Etadon-F-I/IJES-05-3-333-13-114-

Etadon-F-I-Tt.pdf

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national

systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government

relations. Research Policy (29) pp. 109 – 123. Retrieved from

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/pdf.cgi/Etzkowitz_Henry.pdf?issn=00487333&iss

ue=v29i0002&article=109_tdoifnathour

Federal Ministry of Education (2010). Four-year strategic plan for the development of the

education sector. Abuja. Retrieved from http://fmi.gov.ng/wp-

content/uploads/2012/08/Federal-Ministry-of-Education-4-year-Strategic-Plan-

for-the-Development-of-the-Education-Sector1.pdf)

Federal Ministry of Education (2012). 4-year strategic plan for the development of the

education sector: 2011 – 2015. Federal Secretariat Phase 3, Abuja, Nigeria.

Retrieved from http://fmi.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Federal-Ministry- 134

of-Education-4-year-Strategic-Plan-for-the-Development-of-the-Education-

Sector1.pdf

Fiaz, M. (2013). An empirical study of university–industry R & D collaboration in China:

Implications for technology in society. Technology in Society, 35(3), 191–202.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.03.005

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ghazali, A., & Martini, L. (2012). Bandung as service city in Indonesia: Role of

academician, business, and community. Procedia - Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 52, 317–324. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.469

Ginzburg, S., & Houli, E. (2015). Collaboration between the academic world and

industry. Tefen Management Consulting. Retrieved from

http://en.tefen.com/insights/industries/Public_Sector/collaboration_between_the_

academic_world_and_industry

Global Education Network (2010). One Europe one world. Retrieved from

http://ngomedia.pl/extranet/glen/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/GLEN-GE-Guide-

2009.pdf

Haele, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and reliability in quantitative studies.

Evidence Based Nursing. DOI: 10.1136/eb-2015-102129. Retrieved from

http://ebn.bmj.com/content/early/2015/05/15/eb-2015-102129

Harcleroad, F. (2011). Quality assurance in higher education in the twenty-first century

and the role of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Institute for

Research and Study of Accreditation and Quality Assurance. Retrieved from 135

http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/46064461.pdf

Ho, R. (2014). Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis with IBM SPSS

(2nd ed.). CRC Press. FL: Boka Raton.

Huault, I. (1996). French multinational companies’ strategies and co-ordination

mechanisms: the role of human resource management in Europe and Nigeria.

International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(2), 572–583.

Hoekman, B. M., Maskus, K. E., & Saggi, K. (2005). Transfer of technology to

developing countries: Unilateral and multilateral policy options. World

Development. 33 (10), pp. 1587–1602. DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.05.005.

Retrieved from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X05001245

Idaka, I. (2013). Re-engineering university education for employability in Nigeria.

Journal of Education and Practice. 4(11). Pp. 43 – 46. Retrieved from

www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/download/6433/6451

Idogho, P. O. (2011). Higher education in Nigeria and the challenges ahead. European

Journal of Educational Studies, 3(2), 269–276.

Ilie, L., Horobet, A., & Bondrea, I. (2014). Building partnerships between businesses and

Romanian universities: A new strategic approach. Balkan Region Conference on

Engineering and Business Education, 1(1). http://doi.org/10.2478/cplbu-2014-

0043

Jiang, J., Harayama, Y., & Abe, S. (2006). University-local industry linkages: The case of 136

Tohoku University in the Sendaiarea of Japan. World Bank Policy Research

Working Paper, (3991). Retrieved from

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=923297

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative

and mixed approaches, (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and

mixed approaches, (3rd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnson, D. E. (2013). Descriptive statistics. Retrieved from

http://www.danielezrajohnson.com/johnson_2013.pdf

Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research

paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33 (7): 14-26.

Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods

research. In A.Tashakkori, and C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in

social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaymaz, K., & Eryiğit, K. Y. (2011). Determining factors hindering university-industry

collaboration: an analysis from the perspective of academicians in the context of

Entrepreneurial Science Paradigm. International Journal of Social Inquiry, 4(1),

185–213.

Khurshid, Z. (2014). Continuing education for human resource development in the

Arabian Gulf Region. Retrieved from

http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=805289567977092;res=IEL

HSS 137

Kremelberg, D. (2010). Practical statistics: A quick and easy guide to IBM SPSS

statistics, SATA and other statistical software. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage.

Lappalainen, P., Markkula, M., Aalto-yliopisto, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia &

European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) (2013). The knowledge

triangle: re-inventing the future. Aalto: Aalto University.

Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: an

empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111–133.

Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based

innovation systems. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.016

Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple Helix of university-industry-governance relations.

Retrieved from http://www.leydesdorff.net/th12/th12.pdf

Liew, M. S., Shahdan, T. N. T., & Lim, E. S. (2013). Enablers in enhancing the relevancy

of University-industry collaboration. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,

93, 1889–1896. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.135

Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Sk R. J., & Brommels, M. (2006). Collaboration

uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university-industry

collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69(3), 575–589.

MacDonald, B. (n.d.). Global infusion: A guide to bringing the world to your classroom.

Retrieved from http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/page1.html

Martini, L., Tjakraatmadja, J. H., Anggoro, Y., Pritasari, A., & Hutapea, L. (2012). Triple 138

Helix collaboration to develop economic corridors as knowledge hub in

Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 52, 130–139.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.449

Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). Localized learning and industrial competitiveness.

Cambridge Journal of Economics (23), pp. 167–185. Retrieved from

http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/167.full.pdf

Meek, V. L., Teichler, U., & Kearney, M. (2009). Higher education, research and

innovation: Changing dynamics. Report on the UNESCO Forum on Higher

Education, Research and Knowledge 2001-2009. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001830/183071E.pdf

Mertens, D. (2010). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating

diversity with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Miles, J., & Banyard, P. (2007). Understanding and using statistics in psychology: A

practical introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mishra, S. (2006). Quality assurance in higher education: An introduction. Retrieved

from http://www.col.org/sitecollectiondocuments/pub_qahe_intro.pdf

Motohashi, K. (2005). University–industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new

technology-based firms in transforming the national innovation system. Research

Policy, 34(5), 583–594. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.001

Miryala, R. K. (2015). Trends, challenges and innovations in management. Zenon

Academic Publishing. Hyderabad. 139

National Universities Commission (2010). Monday Bulletin, 6(2). Retrieved from

http://www.nuc.edu.ng/nucsite/File/Monday%20Bulletin/MB%202010/final.pdf

National Universities Commission (2015). Department of academic standards. Retrieved

from http://www.nuc.edu.ng/pages/pages.asp?id=10

Nicholson, K. (2011). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of the literature.

Retrieved from

http://cll.mcmaster.ca/COU/pdf/Quality%20Assurance%20Literature%20Review.

pdf

Nigerian Embassy, Berlin (2014). List of approved and illegal degree awarding

universities in Nigeria. Retrieved from

http://www.nigeriaembassygermany.org/LIST-OF-APPROVED-AND-

ILLEGAL-DEGREE-AWARDING-UNIVERSITIES-IN-NIGERIA_120_n.htm

Obanya, P. A. I. (1974). Review of history of Nigerian higher education by Fafunwa, A.

B. Canadian Journal of African Studies / Revue Canadienne des Études

Africaines (8) 1. pp. 159-162. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/483881?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Obanya, P. A. I. (2002). Revitalizing education in Africa. Stirling Horden Publishers.

Lagos.

Ogbogu, C. (2011). Modes of funding Nigerian Universities and the implications on

performance. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 7(4), 75–82.

Ogunu, M. A. (1990). The development of university education in Nigeria: A statistical 140

analysis. International Journal of Education. University of Ilorin, Nigeria.

Retrieved from

http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/journals/education/ije/dec1990/THE%20DEVELOP

MENT%20OF%20UNIVERSITY%20EDUCATION%20IN%20NIGERIA%20%

20A%20STATISTICAL%20ANALYSIS.pdf

Ohio University Office of Research Compliance, 2009. Retrieved from

https://www.ohio.edu/research/compliance/IRB-Forms.cfm

Ojewale, B.A., Ilori, M.O., Oyebisi, T.O., & Akinwumi, I. O. (2001). Industry-academic

relation: Utilization of idle capacities in polytechnics, universities and research

organizations by entrepreneurs in Nigeria. Technovation, 21, 695–704.

Ojimba, D. P. (2013). Enhancing schools–industries partnership in science education:

Implications for Nigerian secondary schools. European Scientific Journal, 9(13).

Retrieved from http://www.eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/1047

Okebukola, P. (2010). Fifty years of higher education in Nigeria: Trends in quality

assurance. In National Conference on the Contributions of Nigerian Universities

to the 50th Independence Anniversary of Nigeria, University of Ilorin, Nigeria.

Retrieved from http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/publiclectures/Final-Okebukola-

AVCNU-50-Years%20of%20Higher%20Ed.pdf

Oladipo, A., Adeosun, O., & Oni, A. (2009). Quality assurance and sustainable university

education in Nigeria. Retrieved from http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/cice/wp-

content/uploads/2014/03/4-1-91.pdf

Omonijo, D. O., Oludayo, O. O., Uche, O. O. C., & Eche, D. A. (n.d.). Violent protest in 141

private universities in Nigeria: Implications for educational development.

European Journal of Social Sciences, 45(4), 52–359.

Onyeka, C. J. (2011). Biotechnology commercialization in universities of developing

countries: A review of the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. Journal of Commercial

Biotechnology, 17(4), 293–300. http://doi.org/10.1057/jcb.2011.28.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1993). Intra-Firm

Trade. As cited in R. Brinkman & J. Brinkman (2002). Corporate power and the

globalization process. International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. (29) 9. pp.

730-731.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (1996). The

knowledge-based economy. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/1913021.pdf

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001). Education policy

analysis: education and skills. Paris: OECD.

Osland, J. S. (2003). Broadening the debate: The pros and cons of globalization

Journal of Management Inquiry. 12 (2). 137 – 154. DOI

10.1177/1056492603252535. Sage.

Oyelaran-Oyeyinka B., & Adebowale, B.A. (2012). University-industry collaboration as

a determinant of innovation in Nigeria. Institutions and Economies 4 (1), 21-46.

Oyewale A. A. (2010) "The Nigeria National Innovation System: Issues on the 142

interactions of the key elements”, Monograph Series (No. 1), National Centre for

Technology Management (NACETEM), Federal Ministry of Science and

Technology, Obafemi Awolowo University. Ile-Ife.

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., &

Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of

the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and

geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent

analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.008

Pigozzi, M. J. (1999). Education in emergencies and for reconstruction: A developmental

approach. United Nations Children's Fund Working Paper Series. Education

Section, Program Division. New York.

Prager, D. J., & Omenn, G. S. (1980). Research, innovation and university-industry

linkages. Science, New Serries. 207(4429). pp. 379 – 384.

Prigge, G. W., & Torraco, R. J. (2007). University-industry partnerships: A study of how

top American research universities establish and maintain successful partnerships.

Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 11(2), 89–100.

Ramírez, Y., Tejada, Á., & Gordillo, S. (2013). Recognition of intellectual capital

importance in the university sector. International Journal of Business and Social

Research, 3(4), 27–41. 143

Saint, W., Hartnett, T.A., & Strassner, E. (2003). Higher education in Nigeria: A status

report. Higher Education Policy, 2003, 16. pp. 259-281. Retrieved from

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTAFRREGTOPTEIA/Resources/he/nigeria_

status.pdf

Salaam, M. O., & Adegbore, A. M. (2010). Internet access and use by students of private

universities in Ogun State, Nigeria. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/331/

Salami, J. (2001). Tertiary education in the 21st century: challenges and opportunities.

Higher Education Management 13 (2), 105-129.

Salleh, M. S., & Omar, M. Z. (2013). University-industry collaboration models in

Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 102, 654–664.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.784

Sherwood, A. L., Butts, S. B., & Kacar, S. L. (2004). Partnering for knowledge: A

learning framework for university-industry collaboration. In submitted to Midwest

Academy of Management 2004 Annual Meeting. http://cobacourses. creighton.

edu/MAM/2004/papers/Sherwood. doc. Retrieved from

http://www.ipadvocate.org/studies/emory/pdfs/3.1c_partner%20knowledge.pdf

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial

knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of

university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management

Research, 14(1), 111–133.

Siyanbola, W.O., Oladipo, O.G., Oyewale, A.A., Famurewa, A.J., & Ogundari, I.O. 144

(2012). Academia-industry interactions in Nigeria pharmaceutical innovation

system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 52, 279 – 289. doi:

10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.465

Smith, H. L. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of

the evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. (25). Pp. 98

- 114. DOI: 10.1068/c0561. Retrieved from

http://www.environmentandplanning.com/epc/fulltext/c25/c0561.pdf

Sobanke, V., Stephen, A, Ilori, M., & Egbetokun, A. (2014). Determinants of

technological capability of firms in a developing country. Procedia Engineering.

69, 991 – 1000. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.03.081.

Soper, D. (2016). Free statistics calculator version 4.0 (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=47

Subair, S. T. (2008). Infrastructure, welfare services and students’ perceived motivation

to learning in universities in South-West Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.

University of Lagos.

Triple Helix Research Group (2014). The Triple Helix concept. Stanford University.

Retrieved from http://triplehelix.stanford.edu/3helix_concept

Tunde, O.K., & Issa, A. (2013). The quality of Nigerian higher education and the

funding of library resources. Retrieved from http://ozelacademy.com/ojss.v6.i2-

3.pdf

Uche, R. (2014). Quality of university graduates and human resources development in

Nigeria. Research in Education, 92(1), 49–58. http://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.0004 145

Una fuerza de trabajo capacitada para un crecimiento sólido, sostenible y equilibrado

estrategia de formación del G20. (2011). Ginebra: OIT. Retrieved from

http://www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2011/469308.pdf

Ujunwa, A., & Salami, P. O. (2010). Higher education, technological advancement and

economic growth: The case of Nigeria. American Journal of Scientific Research.

11. pp.171-178. Retrieved from http://www.eurojournals.com/ajsr.htm

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2010). World data on

education, 7th Edition. Retrieved from

http://www.ibe.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/WDE/2010/pdf-

versions/Nigeria.pdf

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2014).

Higher education reform and innovation. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-

systems/higher-education/quality-assurance/

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2015).

Education for all global monitoring report: Policy paper 21. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002335/233557E.pdf

University of Ibadan (2015). About University of Ibadan: History. Retrieved from

http://ui.edu.ng/History

University of Jos (2015). University of Jos: Brief history. Retrieved from

http://www.unijos.edu.ng/the_university/history.php

World Bank. (1999). World development report: knowledge for development. 146

Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Xu, H. (2010). A regional university-industry cooperation research based on patent data

analysis. Asian Social Science 6 (11). pp. 88 – 94.

Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the

transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic

development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188–1204.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.012

Yusuf, S. (2008). Building an innovation hub: Intermediating knowledge exchange

between universities and businesses. Research Policy, 37(8), 1167 – 1174.

Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.011

147

Appendix 1: Informed Consent to Participate in Research (Adult Subjects)

Title of Research: Impact of University-Industry Collaborations on Quality Assurance: Perspectives of Faculty and Students in Two Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities

Researcher: Adedayo Ogundimu, B.Sc. (Sociology), M.A. (International Studies) Doctoral Candidate in Comparative International Educational Leadership Educational Administration Program Patton College of Education & Human Services Ohio University, Athens Ohio, OH 45701, U.S.A. [email protected]

Explanation of Study

You are being asked to participate in research. This study is aimed at seeking your opinion on the collaborations between your university and industries (e.g. commercial banks, telecom, oil and gas, private agencies, etc.). To this end, your perception is sought on the impact that University-Industry collaborations have on the quality assurance of teaching, learning and research in Nigerian universities.

This study is important to the education and human capital development plan of

Nigeria with regard to building the capacities of Nigerian universities to produce high quality manpower (graduates) as drivers of economic growth both locally and in a globalized economic system.

As a participant in this research you will be asked to complete a short questionnaire. No risks or discomforts are anticipated as a result of your participation.

You will not be required to disclose your identity. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and anonymous and you are free to discontinue your participation at any stage. Any information you provide will be kept confidential by the researcher. 148

Such information will be used strictly for the purpose of the study which is aimed at informing policy on higher education.

149

Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire

Section One : Demographics

Please mark [ X ] as appropriate

1. My gender is: 1[ ] Female. 2[ ]Male

2. I am in the following age bracket: 1[ ] 16 -20 years. 2[ ] 21 – 25 years. 3[ ] 26 - 30 years. 4[ ] 31 - 35 years. 5[ ] Over 36.

3. Current level of study/academic activity: 1[ ] 300 2[ ] 400 3[ ] 500 – 700 4[ ] Lecturer/Professor

Section Two: University-Industry Collaboration

INSTRUCTION: Tick the option that most represents your disposition to the following statements.

4. The way our university works with industries and private businesses is good and beneficial to the university and the students. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

5. Neither the students nor staff of this university derive any benefits from this university’s collaboration with industries including the banks, telecommunication, oil companies or any other private business organization. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

6. I prefer that industries partner or work directly with individual professors/lecturers than with the university establishment. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

7. I prefer that industries partner or collaborate with student bodies and organizations than with professors and lecturers. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

150

8. I prefer that industries partner or collaborate directly with the university authorities than with lecturers and student bodies. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

9. Partnering or collaborating with industries will general improve the quality of teaching and learning in this University. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

10. The more this university’s collaboration with industries the better for the industries, the university and the quality of graduates produced. 1[ ] Strongly Agree. 2[ ] Agree. 3[ ] Neutral. 4[ ] Disagree. 5[ ] Strongly Disagree

Section Three – Quality Assurance

INSTRUCTION: You are kindly requested to rate your responses to the following questions on a scale of 1 – 5 (where 1 = poor; 2 = low; 3 = average; 4 = good; and 5 = the high quality).

The quality of the available learning resources in your university: Scale 1 2 3 4 5 11 Adequate and modern classrooms, lecture theatres and laboratories 12 Library resources including current books, journals, reading spaces 13 Access to computers, internet and online learning resources 14 Overhead projectors, photocopiers, printers, instructional tech. etc. 15 Highly qualified professors, lecturers and non-academic staff 16 Hostel accommodation, cafeteria and campus recreation and transportation

The extent or level of your university’s collaboration, linkages or partnerships with industry (e.g. oil companies, manufacturing, banks, telecommunication and government agencies) in terms of: Scale 1 2 3 4 5 17 Students industrial attachment, service learning and internships 18 Students research projects 19 Funding 20 Entrepreneurial education 21 Consultancy services to government agencies, private sector and public 22 Research and innovation for socio-economic development in Nigeria 151

Benefits your university has received from industry (as defined above) due to its collaboration or linkages with industry with regard to the following teaching, research and learning resources: Scale 1 2 3 4 5 23 Well-equipped classrooms, lecture theatres, laboratories and reagents 24 Library resources: conducive reading spaces, current academic journals, books, 25 Desktop computers, laptops, internet and other online learning resources 26 Overhead projectors, photocopiers, printers, instructional technologies, etc. 27 Sponsoring professors and lecturers for national and international conferences 28 Provision of hostel accommodation, cafeteria and/or campus recreation

Quality of learning and academic standards in your university in terms of: Scale 1 2 3 4 5 29 The relevant curriculum and current course content 30 Stable academic calendar – without NANS, NASU or ASUU strike actions 31 Quality of skills or training you are receiving for a getting a desired job Nigeria 32 Quality of your training will enable you contribute to national development 33 Skills/training needed to compete for desired international employment 34 Your skills and the possibility of self-employment or employment generation

152

Appendix 3: IRB Protocol Approval

LEO: IRB PROTOCOL 16-X-11 APPROVED

[email protected]

Reply all| Thu 2/4, 10:12 AM

Ogundimu, Adedayo You forwarded this message on 3/21/2016 5:17 PM

Project Number 16-X-11 Committee: Social/Behavioral IRB Compliance Shelly Rex ([email protected]) Contact: Primary Adedayo Ogundimu Investigator: Project Title: The Perceptions of Students and Faculty on the Potential Impact of University-Industry Collaborations on Quality Assurance in Two Nigerian Publicly-Supported Universities Level of Review: EXPEDITED

The Social/Behavioral IRB reviewed and approved by expedited review the above referenced research. The Board was able to provide expedited approval under 45 CFR 46.110(b)(1) because the research meets the applicability criteria and one or more categories of research eligible for expedited review, as indicated below.

IRB Approved: 02/04/2016 11:12:07 AM Expiration: 02/04/2017 Review Category: 7 153

If applicable, informed consent (and HIPAA research authorization) must be obtained from subjects or their legally authorized representatives and documented prior to research involvement. In addition, FERPA, PPRA, and other authorizations must be obtained, if needed. The IRB-approved consent form and process must be used. Any changes in the research (e.g., recruitment procedures, advertisements, enrollment numbers, etc.) or informed consent process must be approved by the IRB before they are implemented (except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to subjects).

The approval will no longer be in effect on the date listed above as the IRB expiration date. A Periodic Review application must be approved within this interval to avoid expiration of the IRB approval and cessation of all research activities. All records relating to the research (including signed consent forms) must be retained and available for audit for at least three (3) years after the research has ended.

It is the responsibility of all investigators and research staff to promptly report to the Office of Research Compliance / IRB any serious, unexpected and related adverse and potential unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others.

This approval is issued under the Ohio University OHRP Federalwide Assurance #00000095. Please feel free to contact the Office of Research Compliance staff contact listed above with any questions or concerns.

Research Compliance 117 Research and Technology Center 740.593.0664 [email protected]

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! Thesis and Dissertation Services