A Culture of Innovation: A model for Qualitative Analysis at Universities and the Case Study of Civil Engineering Students at the Addis Ababa Institute of Technology
Simone N. Reinders1 University of Amsterdam
Email: simone.reinders@student.uva.nl
Abstract
Innovation offers opportunities for modernization and development. In recent years it has become a buzzword in the world of NGO’s, IGO’s and governments in developing countries and is featured in the proposed UN Sustainable Development Goals. Different types of innovation are increasingly recognized, complicating the classic notion of innovation as a tool for high-tech advancements of the market. It is now possible to see the benefits of social innovations, user innovations and inclusive innovations emerging in both developed and developing countries. In this context the culture for innovation, as part of the knowledge ecology, becomes relevant. Innovation culture entails the discourse and behavior concerning innovation, but also underlying structures that influence and are influenced by this discourse and behavior. This paper introduces the notion of an innovation culture present in society as a factor with far-reaching influence on the way the innovation process takes shape among students and members of society. First, it presents a model that allows for the qualitative analysis of innovation culture in Universities. Second, the author presents a case study of civil engineering students at the Addis Ababa Institute of Technology in Ethiopia. The case study is discussed using preliminary findings as the project is not yet fully completed.
Engineering students, being the future engineers and innovators of the country, articulate the nature of present and future innovative processes in the country and their University. A series of interviews and observation shows their understanding of innovation in relation to the goals and aims of the government. Findings show there are some challenges related to policy implementation that cause a discrepancy between goals and aims, and output. It shows the relevance of using the developed model and argues for further exploration of it to reveal the underlying structures in the innovation culture in place. By contextualizing these
1
Simone Reinders is a Cultural Anthropologist from the Netherlands specialized in international development. She acquired her Bachelor’s degree at Utrecht University in 2013 with a research project on lifestyle migration in India and is currently finalizing a Research Master’s program at the University of Amsterdam. The topic of her final thesis is the relationship between innovation and development under the influence of innovation culture at universities. She conducted this research in 2015 and will graduate in the fall of 2016.
findings within broader development policy frameworks, this paper provides insight into what kinds of innovation are relevant and feasible and in what way these can be used to promote national development. Moreover, these findings contribute to a “rest-to-the-west” approach that supports local and national knowledge creation and can be used for future endeavors by NGOs, IGOs and government.
Keywords: Innovation culture, Inclusive innovation, Inclusive development, Ethiopia
University, Developing countries, Knowledge ecology, Culture in organizations, Policy implementation
‘The generation, exploitation and diffusion of knowledge are fundamental to economic growth, development and the well-being of nations’.
(Oslo Manual, 2005:3)
Introduction
In recent years, the concept of innovation as a tool for development in developing and least developed countries has been gaining popularity. This popularity is clearly reflected in the newly developed Sustainable Development Goals with Goal 8 aiming to ‘Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation’ (Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, 2015). UNESCO (2011) also highlights the role of innovation in building human capabilities in developing countries, where innovation is seen as a foundation for sustainable development and the fight against poverty, the first of the former Millennium Development Goals.
The Oslo Manual, first developed by the OECD in 1992 and revised in 1997 and 2005, has served as a tool for the promotion and measurement of innovation among OECD countries, and increasingly in developing countries as well. This leaves unanswered questions about both inclusiveness and the distribution of economic benefits from innovation when firms are seen as the central actors and firm performance as the main goal (Lizuka, 2013; Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae, 2010; Fagerberg, 2010). The focus on technological research and development for the benefit of the formal sector excludes information about innovation taking place among different groups, or that follow different trajectories, outside of the formal
sector. For developing countries in particular, knowledge about these non-formal forms of innovation could be useful for promoting growth and inclusion. Thus, it becomes necessary to move beyond the formal approach.
This paper is motivated by the relevance of obtaining new knowledge about innovation culture in the context of developing countries and the recognition of different types of
innovation. It contributes by introducing a framework for the qualitative analysis of innovation culture in Universities and University programs and discussing the application of this model in the context of the Addis Ababa Institute of Technology in Ethiopia. Because the project is not fully completed yet, this paper presents a preliminary set of conclusions.
1. Innovation for Development
Innovation is often seen as a ‘first world activity’ concerning ‘brand new, advanced solutions for sophisticated, well-off customers, through exploitation of the most recent advances in knowledge’ (Fagerberg et al., 2010:2). Innovation can however, also be defined in a broader sense. It can be seen as the activity of trying out new products, processes or ‘ways to do things’, which does not necessarily include a contribution to the global knowledge base. For
the purposes of this paper, innovation is defined as ‘the process of converting new or existing knowledge to value for the benefit of individuals, groups or communities’ (Kraemer, 2013:42). Innovation activities concern ‘significant changes, with the intention of
distinguishing significant changes from routine, minor changes’ (Oslo Manual, 2005:40). The next section is concerned with how the concept of innovation has developed over time and which challenges can be identified within the literature on innovation and development.
1.1 Innovation for Economic Growth
In classic economic theory, capital accumulation was seen as the explanatory factor for generating income and productivity. The availability of technology or knowledge combined with the starting point of a country then determines the growth rate towards an eventual global convergence (Fagerberg et al., 2010). Policy recommendations for developing countries usually included investment in science and technology (S&T) and research and development (R&D) (Kraemer, 2013:41). Scholars that analyzed the relationship between knowledge and growth during the 20th century argued that knowledge was in the hands of private firms and were not as easily accessible to the greater population as neoclassical growth theory supposes. The expectation of catching-up and convergence was too simplistic. Low-income countries are said to be in a ‘vicious circle’ (Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae, 2010:94) that inhibits both innovation and investment. This includes a lack of technological and legal capabilities to implement a licensing-based strategy, the number of FDIs is very low, and import of high-technology products is low. Innovations are thus not incorporated to benefit the domestic community. The incentives for companies to invest in these countries is often not aligned with the national incentive in terms of technology
transfer. The former are only interested in transfer to a degree that keeps them in business. They have a double set-back: incorporation of knowledge is difficult, while activities that contribute to the global knowledge base are likely to reap benefits to only a few. It is therefore important for the least developed countries (LDCs) to focus on innovation that is not only high-technology, but also incorporates all sectors. (Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae, 2010:96). The most important constraints seen in LDCs is a lack of resources, but also a lack of proper institutions, including formal rules and laws but also informal codes of conduct and norms of behavior (Bhatti, 2012:10).
Another challenge is related to the donors of developing countries (Kraemer -Mbula and Wamae, 2010:68). There has been a growing focus on the creation and accumulation of new knowledge for the benefit of developing countries. These are usually focused on creating and strengthening public research institutes, who take center stage for donors. Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae argue however, that donors are only likely to have an influence on the
‘innovation dynamism’ if and when they address the design, engineering and management capabilities necessary (2013:71). Addressing these can lead to the development of
innovation systems, where different actors in the innovation ecology are highly connected to further the innovation process (Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae, 2003:97). More generally, they claim ‘the peculiar nature of technological learning in non-R&D-specific activities requires concerted attention within the broader effort of strengthening the general innovation environment’.
1.2 Inclusive Innovation
Inclusive innovation is defined as ‘the development and implementation of new ideas which aspire to create opportunities that enhance social and economic wellbeing for
disenfranchised members of society’. (George et al., 2012:663). As such, it can be interpreted as a distinctive innovation process as well as an outcome. These inclusive innovations are said to be facilitated by three factors (George et al. 2012). First, global challenges both restrain innovation by for example, a lack of resources and human capital, but also provide triggers for new and innovative knowledge to be created. Second,
organizational processes can enhance innovation by addressing constraints and turning them into opportunities, adopting new organizational models and creating access to
marginalized communities. It is recognized that these innovations come from organizations in both a top-down and bottom-up manner. Third, small firms often have more motivation to develop inclusive innovations than multinationals, but lack the resources to implement them effectively.
Many types of innovation are now identified, increasing the scope of innovation beyond R&D. Lizuka (2013) mentions user innovations (consumers adapting products to fit their requirements), social innovation (where the focus lies on social value instead of profits), public sector innovation (improving efficiency and productivity) and innovation for inclusive development.
1.3. Knowledge Ecology
Because research on innovation in LDCs poses challenges, Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae (2010) propose two additions to research in these countries. The first is to look at the knowledge ecology, the basis of the innovative capabilities of a country. It is defined as ‘involving all kinds of institutions and organizations dedicated to the production,
dissemination and utilization of new and ‘superior’ knowledge (Kraemer-Mbula and Wamae, 2010:96). This can consist of activities of R&D institutions, by public and private firms or as
educational programs enhancing the knowledge of the technical workforce. It is not the innovation system itself, but the basis of a countries’ research capabilities within the innovation system. Building human capital is a crucial element of this knowledge ecology (2010:102). Sophisticated knowledge and ‘learning to learn’ are crucial for engineers’ capabilities to innovate. This paper adds to this body of work by providing a model and a case study that allows better insight into the available knowledge and human capital in Universities of developing countries.
2. Towards a Qualitative Model for the Analysis of Innovation Culture at Universities
The knowledge available on the knowledge ecologies of specific developing countries and the role of education therein is limited. Although innovation as a tool for development has gained prominence in the last years, this knowledge is still lacking. The model presented in this paper contributes by providing a tool for the qualitative assessment of innovation culture in Universities, being one of the key institutions fostering the possibility of creating and diffusing knowledge.
This model has been created based on the theoretical works by two authors: Joanne Martin (1992) and A.I. Vroeijenstein (2003). This framework has been used in order to provide a model that gives a
holistic insight into cultures in
Universities in a way that provides the most useful insights into the structures in place and possible
opportunities for change. First, I started to look for a way to analyze certain factors and processes at
Universities. Vroeijenstein
provided an example
Figure 1.
of a model used for the quality assessment of Universities. This model is presented in figure 1.
He was struggling with the available quality assurance models, which did not provide enough insight into the reality in Universities, because they did not allow analysis of relationships between different aspects of the model. Vroeijenstein argues a crucial difference between universities and other organizations is that not only the input and output is relevant, but the learning process should be seen as a crucial element in quality assessments. It is therefore that I have taken the model of Vroeijenstein as a framework to create a model for the analysis of culture in Universities.
Besides looking at Universities and their assessment as a specific type of organization, the model is meant to provide a tool for cultural analysis. It was therefore crucial to add a cultural ‘layer’ to the analysis. For this, Joanne Martin’s approach is used. After looking at literature describing cultures in organizations over the years, she argues any analysis of culture in organizations should be approached from three perspectives: the integration perspective, the differentiation perspective and the fragmentation perspective. Martin argues that the three approaches classically used for the analysis of organizational culture should be combined. Usually, studies use only one perspective which leads to a distorted view on reality.
First is the integration perspective. In this perspective, the focus on culture is one-dimensional. The aim of organizational culture is seen as achieving coherence among members of an organization, it concerns ‘harmony and homogeneity’ . This approach is often used in studies meant for a managerial audience, and assumes a leader can ‘create’ a certain coherent and productive culture within an organization. Views on content themes are described as an organization-wide consensus. These views are enacted in cultural
manifestations, while individuals know what to do and why that is the most productive thing to do. Changes in this culture can only happen through changes in leadership , while
discrepancy between members of the culture and it’s leadership, implies a ‘weak’ culture and a failure from a management perspective.
Second, the differentiation perspective recognizes separation and conflict as part of culture, and its main focus is on divergence of conflicting sub-cultures . The integration perspective is seen as a façade, behind which different, overlapping sub-cultures can be found that eventually determine culture. Views on content themes are seen as inconsistent across the organization, consensus mainly exists within the boundaries of sub-cultures instead of being organization-wide, but within the sub-cultural boundaries the consensus is clear. Individual ambiguity receives little to no attention. So while the integration perspective focusses on thing that are similar, the differentiation perspective focuses on divergence of groups. This approach is often used for a public of groups that lack power and are seen as undermining
the unifying effect of consensus from a management perspective, and are therefore seen as the dichotomous other, and having less value. Change within this approach, is seen as coming from group efforts. Even when it’s an individual taking action, these are still submerged in their sub-culture and the cub-culture is seen as the source of change.
Finally, the fragmentation perspective focuses on individual ambiguity as essential to cultural complexity, the focus is on ‘multiplicity and flux’ . The dichotomous thinking of the
differentiation perspective, which is said to exclude the complexity of group members, is thereby abandoned. While the two other perspectives look at the coherence of cultures and sub-cultures, this approach brings ambiguity to the foreground. Content themes are seen as open to multiple interpretations, with limited possibility for consensus. Between these
interpretations are complicated relationships. Taking this approach means seeing subcultural boundaries as being permeable . The focus is on the multiple and dynamic reactions
possible to group identities, in contrast to forming a stable subculture . Change is seen as a constant process, where people often do not have control over what happens. Some
fragmentation studies then take an activist stance on individual agency, while some underrepresent agency and focus mostly on outside influence . Martin argues that from a fragmentation perspective, we could also look at the de-construction of discourse and behavior by everyday action as a source of cultural change .
The argument behind taking a three-way approach is that every approach has its flaws and leaves out crucial elements of what constitutes a culture: ‘Any cultural context can be understood more fully if it is regarded, at any point in time, from all three perspectives. To exclude any of these perspectives from the domain of organizational culture research would be to limit what we could try to understand’ (1992:174). The model for qualitative analysis of innovation culture is presented in figure 2.
Figure 2. Qualitative model for the analysis of innovation culture among students in Universities
3.
3. The Case Study: Civil Engineering at AAiT: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ethiopia is deemed one of the ‘least developed countries’, with a population of 94.1 million and a GDP of USD 47,50 billion (World Bank, 2013). This means organizations deem it as a country at risk of remaining ‘underdeveloped’ and of being plagued by deepening poverty. They are disadvantaged in the development process because of structural, historical and geographical reasons (UN, 2015). The main strategy for Ethiopia’s development is reflected in the ‘Growth and Transformation Plan’ finalized in 2010. In terms of capacity building, some but limited attention is paid to the role of innovation. One of the 13 strategies for capacity building is to ‘facilitate and create an enabling environment to increase innovation and decrease brain drainage of ICT professionals’ (World Bank, 2011:70). Science and technology however, is seen as a ‘cross-cutting sector’ that can benefit the development of all other sectors. The main goal was to create an innovation and technology transfer system in the period from 2010 to 2015. The main strategies are focused on the formal market actors in the innovation systems framework. They include ‘attracting investment, building the capacity of governing bodies and rule of law, creating and enhancing capacities of
Bank, 2011:76). In addition, there is a focus on knowledge transfer to the general population. Although attention is paid to innovation as a tool for development, the innovation system is still under construction.
These policies are implemented in a traditionally hierarchical culture. Growing up, most Ethiopian citizens learn that people are not equal. All major resources are in the hands of the ruling party, the EPRDF (Vaughan and Tronvoll, 2003). This party has adopted some policy reforms including decentralization, civil society development and economic liberalization. In reality however, democracy in the country is disappointing. There is a lack of willingness to acknowledge different political stances, which, in the context of possessing all major resources, has made political dialogue or competition impossible. Meanwhile, access to resources is dependent on personal relations with politicians on a regional level. The focus is on ‘popular democracy’, where the strategy is to have ‘communal collective participation’. This strategy is related to Maoist and Marxist conceptions of revolution, the original
ideologies of the party when taking control in 1991 (Vaughan and Tronvoll, 2003:117). In this context the government sees Universities as the main actors providing human capital, one of the main pillars of the Growth and Transformation Plan (Education Strategy Center, 2015). There are many policies aiming to have the University provide both relevant knowledge and a skilled workforce. The findings in this paper show the relevance of the strategy of
communal collective participation in Universities. Using innovation for development and the role of Universities therein that is found in policy documents, is clearly reflected in discourse. We see something different however, when we look at behavior. There is a large
discrepancy between behavior of students and staff at the University in comparison to what the goals and aims of the government reflect.
3.1 The Addis Ababa Institute of Technology (AAIT)
In Ethiopia, one of the oldest actors in the field of science, technology and innovation is the Institute for Science and Technology in Addis Ababa, founded 60 years ago. The Institute is not the only one in the country, but the largest and oldest. It is part of the Addis Ababa University, but with a special autonomous structure meant to increase its independence from the larger University structure. The institute aims to become one of the ‘top five pre-eminent technological institutes in Africa by 2023’, an ambitious goal. Their mission is to ‘educate competent graduates and researchers in Engineering and Technology by advancing
relevant, innovative and creative teaching, research and Technology Transfer to foster social and economic development of the country’ (AAIT, 2015). From their website, it becomes clear that they aim to contribute to the development of their country through the creation and adoption of new and existing knowledge.
4. Methodology
For this case study, the model is applied to the civil engineering department of the Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, mainly because infrastructure and civil engineering in general is a major focus in the government’s development strategy. A 10-week field work period provides insights into the innovation culture of students and the functioning of the model as a tool for analysis. After the first round of data collection the model was adjusted accordingly. The first round of data collection and analysis have provided some preliminary results. Because the fieldwork is still in progress, the results presented here are limited to the discrepancy between goals and aims, and discourse and behavior. The complete dataset is meant to provide insight into the structures behind these findings and will be presented in a following paper.
The main preliminary finding presented in this paper is that there is a high level of coherence among students’ discourse on innovation. Underlying structures seem to influence the outcome of these perspectives, as behaviors on the other hand, are not in line with the goals and aims of the leadership. In addition, there are clusters within the system that show
divergence and conflict with the status quo, making active attempts to change innovation behavior. These show an opportunity for change in the structures causing discrepancy. Finally, within and between these clusters, there is ambiguity in dealing with individual motivation and capabilities. The reader can easily recognize here the distinctions made by Joanne Martin mentioned earlier. The next section will discuss these findings in detail.
4.1 Data
The data gathered up to this point consists of semi-structured in-depth interviews with topic lists, analysis of relevant policy documents from the University and government, and observations. The participants consist of ten undergraduate students, four postgraduate students, two lecturers and the dean of the department. In addition, five classes were attended.
5. Preliminary results
The preliminary results2 discussed in this section concern a comparison between the goals and aims and the output of innovative discourse and behavior only. An analysis of the
factors contributing to the discrepancy will be worked out when the data collection process is
2
complete. The same is said for the subsequent analysis. The three approaches by Joan Martin are discussed but the identification of relevant structures will be done with the complete data set. The reason for this is that an analysis of the incomplete data-set may lead to a distorted picture of the innovation culture.
5.1 Goals and Aims
Universities are an important part of the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) of the Ethiopian government, where education is seen as one of the main building blocks of development . This is especially important as the country is attempting to transform into an industrial country, and therefore requires an educated technical workforce. Universities are meant to be the building blocks leading to this transformation, which is the reason the government has implemented a 70/30 policy which stipulates that 70% of students need to be in technical programs, of which a large portion is attributed to the civil engineering programs in order to be ‘made compatible with the quantity, type and quality of the human power demanded by the economy and/or national labour market’ (Ministry of finance and economic development, 2010:50). So far there has been only a small number of universities offering this program, which has led to a dramatic increase of the number of students enrolled in the Institute of Technology of Addis Ababa. A staff member commented that ‘When I graduated we were 86, last year we had 792 graduates’ 3. Now, as more
universities offer civil engineering, the number of the first year students is down to around 250, a more manageable number. The GTP 2 was released in the summer of 2015. It still has a focus on increasing the number of students and on increasing the quality of education (FRDRE Ministry of Education, 2015). The basic idea of these policies is that universities will play an important role in helping the community and develop and spread innovative ideas to aid the development of the country, and in providing a highly educated technical workforce to implement these ideas.
The AAU and the AAiT are government institutions and their official goals and aims are in line with that of the GTPs. Some years ago it was discussed that the institute would become a semi-independent institute within the University structure, with a high level of
independence in terms of research funding and topics of focus. The idea was to make the institute a center of excellence, becoming one of the top 5 technological institutes in Africa. There has been some trouble implementing this new policy however, leading to confusion in terms of the funding and research structures and feelings of demotivation among staff. As was explained by an AAiT staff member:
3
‘So the government came up with this policy, the EECBP, engineering education capacity building program, it was studied by the German GIZ back 5-6 years ago. So they came up with this structure where you have the IoT institute of technologies as autonomous institutes of technologies. So that autonomy was granted last year. And it’s still fishy where we are autonomous, and where we are not. Can we do research for ourselves, can we get research funding for ourselves, can we even order finance by ourselves? So that’s not clear in the university and the IoT. The IoT has its own structure, there is its own supervisory board, their own management board, with the scientific director and managing director. And the
university has its own supervisory board and its own president and everything. So they wanted to have like a parallel analogous scheme for the IoTs, that is the same as the university, but the only thing that these guys, the scientific director need to do is just report what they did to this president, and the president doesn’t have any say in what they can do. But now that’s still not there. The university still holds the finance, holds the.. if you want to come up with new research you have to get permission from the University, if you want to get any funding, if you wanted to come up with a new curriculum, new program, everything has to go through the president’s office. So that has created some inconsistency…’4
The above combined with the high number of students enrolled and a great lack of trained staff has led to a decrease in the quality of inputs and the learning process.
5.2 Discourse
In terms of innovation, students are very uncertain about definitions. They have no
knowledge of any official description as they have not paid attention to this in any classes in the program. This goes for both the undergraduate and postgraduate students. This can also be seen as an advantage, as this has led to a very open definition of innovation, with most students describing it as ‘new things’. Multiple types of innovation are included in this general definition by students:
‘Innovation.. I think it’s all about creating something, inventing something new that will be beneficial to the society as well as yourself and your country, or maybe improving something that was invented before. I think that’s innovation.’ 5
4 Interview 3 5
When asked about what innovation could mean for the development of Ethiopia, students presented a very inclusive notion in terms of using innovation for development. Many times marginalized groups of farmers come up as targets of innovation. Spreading infrastructure to include remote areas or the urban poor is also mentioned. Only one participant mentioned high-tech innovations for private sector as a feasible idea for investment. Innovation should be something that is useful for society and the development of the country, something that makes lives easier.. Incentives for innovations are mentioned by students as experiencing ‘terribles’ or, more general, as coming from problems that arise in society, like poverty:
‘To be innovative you have to experience some terrible, just to think of something to be innovative. So for example, to invest in light, you need a lack of light. There are many terribles in this country. We have to do something for this culture, we have to think about something to be developed. Like they do in Kenya for example.’6
Nonetheless, Universities are usually seen as the only viable source of knowledge by students and require government support if innovation is to achieve anything and be accepted by communities. This goes against the Western notion that the more bottom-up projects are, the more their inclusive output increases. Students explain:
‘You create something from the government, they develop something. You can take something from another country where they are developed so when you come back to see the government of Ethiopia, there are some programs that focus on the farming. Developing some cities, like the other countries.
The government should be a central actor because we have to help the government. For the next step.. the first will be government. After you help them then they will have knowledge, and after that they understand the things that will have any purpose for anything. If you want to build something like a company they know that for any kind of company they understand the projects. And they only give you anything you need to build that company. So the government has the first step.’7
It starts from students, innovation. It starts from learning. If someone is in the process of learning, that’s where the idea comes from. But eh.. if the people have an idea it's not enough. The government should help those innovators. The government has to help them, has to support them in every way they need. So there should be a very great link between
6 Interview 18 7
the innovators and the government. If the government is not willing to fund them or help them, it would be a waste. So the link should be very strong. That’s what I think.’8
When considering capabilities and expectations, students have little confidence. The program offers them little practical and methodological capabilities concerning research. Further, in terms of future career opportunities it is mentioned that, especially in the civil engineering sector, there is little attention to and interest for innovation. Students often feel that in the private sector, there is a focus on mass production of infrastructure, with little to no attention to quality, durability, and new ways of providing those, whether created locally or through knowledge transfer from abroad. When asked about innovative activities, most students look abroad and have little or no knowledge of any innovative activities happening in Ethiopia. Some students suggest that the reason for this is the low education level of company owners and a focus on economic benefits only. This leads to building delays and projects frequently going over budget. As this is so common and has become expected, companies do not suffer the negative consequences and keep repeating the same mistakes.
Construction companies don’t focus on innovation because people don’t like change here so much. So far what I’ve seen people don’t like change. It's like.. something new comes and we say no until we get so many people telling us it works and then only it’s accepted. That’s why. We don’t want to risk anything. Technology-wise there is so much improvement and stuff. At least during the old times they’re honest, now it's like corrupt like for example building-wise, you may have seen the condominiums, it takes 3 years before it cracks and stuff. So there it's now about doing new stuff it's just all about the money, in the big
organizations. And the old stuff, the old buildings at least they are still standing. The new ones are cracked everywhere, it's like.. bad paint and stuff. So it's like people focus more the money rather than change.’9
Divergence in views about innovation can be observed between clusters of people and individuals. In the general student population, there are large groups who are enrolled in the University mainly to get a degree. Some feel it is their responsibility towards the government and/or their families, some do not even plan on being engineers but were accepted in the program and see it as an option to gain status. Because of the 70/30 policy in Universities mentioned above, these students are all accepted into the program.
8 Interview 19 9
‘I started civil engineering because I had good grades and so they put me in engineering. This was not my first choice. My first choice was actually medicine. Engineering was not even my second choice, but my third choice. My second choice was dental practice. […] Like me, some people don’t like it at first but we have no choice, so we have to love it.’ 10
There are good examples though, of students who recognize the weaker sides of the
program and educate themselves by doing summer internships and doing extra readings on research and methodology, thereby enhancing the capabilities the program does not offer them. It is also clear when looking at postgraduate students. It is possible to see that motivated individuals are filtered out and these students are very different in terms of confidence in their capabilities and are better prepared for the development of a research mind-set in their master’s program. However, they have also indicated that there is difficulty in terms of future expectations, as they also have limited capital available and hope to pay back their government student loans as soon as possible, which is easier when accepting a desk job in the private sector. There is also an interesting group of students that have formed a civil engineering student association with the main purpose of enhancing research capabilities and establishing links to the private sector. Since they have started in 2012 they are still exploring their possibilities, but they have regular meetings, are now organizing a set of research topics relevant for the private sector, and are planning to start organizing events this school year.
Overall, students do see the benefits of innovation and knowledge transfer for development, and specifically of innovation with the purpose of inclusion of poor and marginalized groups, but feel limited by their capabilities and opportunities in the job market. Some are looking towards getting a job in the companies already in place, which are not seen as being innovative. Others plan to start their own companies through government funding, which is heavily promoted because of a high saturation of the job market. However, most think risk-taking behavior like innovation is not a viable option when concerning their economic opportunities and capital. They have to pay back their student loans an often have families depending on them.
5.3 Behavior
The program’s innovative output indicates another problem in the implementation of the goals and aims. There are, for example, some very interesting thesis projects done in the undergraduate and graduate programs. These projects include energy-saving Injera cookers
10
(Injera is a popular local food made from the Teff-grain) and mini-dams for remote areas with little access to power and infrastructure. However, after these projects are finished they are shelved in the library and usually never heard of again:
‘For example my friend he is a mechanical engineer, and he was creating a machine that
eh.. that can do Injera, so it can make 8 Injeras simultaneously. It was.. it was energy saving, but it was his thesis for graduation, and he do it, and also some people are saying they will sponsor him to do this machine to produce on a large scale, they promised for him but in the end they didn’t. So he was.. he got a scholarship and he didn’t get support so he continued his education and went abroad. I don’t know the place but he is not in Ethiopia.’ 11
There is a lack of proper links with the private sector and the community that are called for in policy papers. When permission was sought in the library to copy the list of topics of thesis projects, this was not allowed due to the violation of ‘copyright’. The university is in the process of digitalizing and putting online the new projects, but so far not much has happened in that area.
There are also challenges for the staff. Some lecturers and professors do very interesting and innovative research, but do not use the university structure to acquire funding. This process is seen as very unclear and even if successful, just takes up too much time. This is one of the implications of the unclear implementation of the independent status of the institute. The official code of conduct requires staff to do a certain amount of research, but a lack of structure makes it a voluntary activity. Most lecturers do not do research through the University:
‘Yeah, there is a code of conduct. In that code of conduct it’s one task of teachers to do
research but since there is no financial support or any other support from the top eh..
teachers do not involve in that research activity. [the code of conduct includes..] Eh.. there is about community service universities have to do and about research, and eh.. more of about teaching just.. rules and regulations about teaching and ethics. […] To be honest, just almost I can say we read it and discard it’. 12
Even the incubation center that has been set up to provide a link between research, funding and the private sector takes such a long time to go through and is so unclear, research is usually done outside of the University, in cooperation with NGOs or the private sector:
11 Interview 17 12
‘ Eh… there isn’t such regiment. Not here. Now there is a new trend, like there is.. the
university has established an incubation center. That started, to take tenants and realize their ideas and turn it into business. I was one of the selected tenants, the selected people to join the incubations center. But it has been 3 years now…. Nothing else happens. Nothing happens at the university so I opted for my own way’ (staff member AAIT).13
In terms of behavior, there appear to be opportunities to find the knowledge, skills and aspirations necessary to invest in innovation for development. Although there is a significant output of quality research and innovation done at the University, there is a lack of
implementation and therefore a lack of contribution to the national development strategy as is set out in policy. What is crucial to note here is that these results are very context-specific. Many comments were made about this specific institute having a bad connection with the community as compared to other institutes in the country. Examples are the Jimma University, which organizes yearly research projects in surrounding communities, and the Adama Institute of Technology. Further, it is interesting to note that the Addis Ababa Institute of technology is still seen as one of the highest ranking in the country, contributing to
research and skilled graduates in a context of development. A student commented:
‘It is the number 1 in the country, and I also know people know the name of this campus, so I expected much, much better education. I expected to be an active engineer when I come out of here. That.. I didn’t get that. And I understand the circumstances but I really expected a lot.’ 14
However, in the reforms made 6 years ago the focus for science and technology programs had shifted away from the AAiT and directed towards only two science and technology universities, in a process of Korean-style benchmarking. As a government employee explained:
‘Our program was 10 IoTs, plus 2 science and technology universities to establish. We call it
10+2. So in the previous documents which was done by the consultant and our higher education professionals, academicians, they clearly put in the ideas here. Our science and technology universities need to be established in an exceptional manner. […]Producing human capital for the industries, by producing best technologies for the industries. For this purpose, everybody needs to have good incentives. So a good curriculum, good professors and the like. So simply without spending any money, without cost you cannot bring these
13 Interview 4 14
high level universities. So for this purpose there are under science and technology ministries they have some privilege, and it's a huge activities after that, to be implemented by the academic staff, and the students who are going to attend this science and technology university should be the best students.’ 15
5.4 Innovation ‘on the ground’
Finally, as the data collection progressed it became clear that students were not able to provide many examples of innovative activities. To illustrate the mismatch between what is happening ‘on the ground’ and what is known at the AAiT, the research expanded to finding examples of innovations done in Ethiopia, with a specific focus on inclusive and frugal innovations. Below are two examples. These examples reflect the top-down hierarchical nature of Ethiopia’s society and government. Individual and bottom-up efforts are often not recognized as valuable and different strategies of implementation are met with difficulties. Student’s perceptions on how innovations should be developed and implemented seem true, but as the second example shows, is limited in possibilities because of structural issues.
Example 1.0
The first example is Dagim from Hawassa, a city about a 5 hour drive south of Addis Ababa. He has been trained in a military engineering school and devotes his life to new inventions like this trike airplane shown in the picture. He built this out of mostly scrap metal, a generator and a wooden propeller he has made himself. It can fly, but unfortunately he has now run into some financial problems for acquiring the right fabric for the wings. The ones shown in the picture ripped at an altitude of 6 meters. He would like to use the airplane for spraying pesticides in the country-sides around Hawassa. He also creates other things, like for example a mini-hydropower dam he has built for a community nearby, paying half of the costs (€1200,) himself, while the community paid the other half.
The problem for Dagim is that in his years in the military, he was educated well but he cannot find any financial traction or attention from the government, private sector and most people in his own community. He says people ‘think I am crazy’, they are not willing to invest in things that they have not seen being successful before. Similar to what students indicated, he experiences a general reluctance of accepting innovations that do not stem from the
15
government. So far, he has been financing his own activities by selling and repairing generators in his own workshop, which has resulted in very slow progress in all his innovative activities.
Example 2.0
The next example is Getachew Tesome, an electrical engineering teacher at the institute of technology and his partner Ayseshim Tilahun, a mechanical
engineer. Getachew has been educated at the TU Delft in the Netherland. They had an idea of creating a solar-powered mobile clinic that can be used in remote areas, where people are now often dependent on health centres without equipment
and poorly trained personnel. One of their goals for example, is being able to provide ultrasounds for pregnant women in remote areas.
They proposed their idea in the University incubation centre but were not successful in acquiring funding. In the end, they started their own company: Innopia. The mobile clinic design has now been finished and a model has been created. The clinic is built on the inside of a small truck, where they have created a format which allows a buyer to include as much equipment as they like. There is a bed inside, a table and a kitchen for laboratory equipment. They have designed it in a way that is easily transported or even exported to other areas and countries.
They have also paid attention to another gap in the market: the textile industry. They have made equipment for sorting and weaving fabric, and even created one for making the patterns necessary for making bandages for the health industry. Bandages are now all imported, as was the other weaving equipment they have made. The weaving machines have started to provide their income, but for the mobile clinic they are still looking for buyers. The government has shown interest, but already a year has passed an despite their urging, they have not been able to come to a cooperation. With some NGOs they have also tried, but so far these have answered they are looking for health service provision, while Innopia is only able to provide the equipment but not the service. Same as Dagim, they run into the problem that government and private sector actors seem reluctant to try out new things. The only things they are able to sell are items that were already known, but previously imported.
6. Integration, Differentiation, Fragmentation
In this chapter I discuss the data presented in the chapter above according to Martin’s three approaches discussed in chapter two: integration, differentiation and fragmentation. These perspectives give insight into the innovation culture from different perspectives. With a full data set and complete analysis from three perspectives, it is possible to identify relevant structures as belonging to the innovation culture and influencing cultural discourse and behavior. As the data collection and analysis is not complete yet, this paper will be limited to discussing the three approaches as applied to the data gathered thus far. The analysis will therefore remain relatively descriptive.
6.1 The Integration Approach
Integration is all about consensus from a managerial perspective. This implies that a strong culture in this respect would be in line with what is expected from a policy perspective. Students and staff should be innovative and should see innovation as a tool for
development. This should then result in research outputs relevant to the industry and students should be innovative when entering the workforce after graduation. In addition, entrepreneurship should be the goal of a good number of students. Looking at the innovation culture at the AAIT from an integration perspective, we can speak of a culture that is weak in several respects, but strong in others.
In terms of discourse, there are great similarities between goals and output. First of all, both students and staff feel innovation should be used to promote development. Most also paint a very inclusive picture, where marginalized groups should be the focus of innovation. What is interesting is that students and staff do not have an official definition for innovation. When first asked about a definition many hesitate and are quite uncertain about how to define innovation. What is interesting about this is that in the available policy documents like the GTP and ESDP5, we see the same. Innovation is seen as a tool for development across different sector, but is never officially defined. This implies that students are indeed instilled with the discourse provided in national policy. Students’ conceptualization of innovation and how it should be used can be defined as inclusive, but is still very open to influence that could be instilled through policy concerning the civil engineering program. In this inclusive conceptualization of innovation, most students do feel that for Ethiopia, the innovation process is most effective when implemented from the top down. Official actors like government and university usually came up as the most important actors in the process. If we look at innovative behavior, we see that current and expected behavior is in line with policy in terms of quantities. The number of students graduating in the past years has
increased dramatically. Students are assigned to programs according to the requirements formulated by policy makers and the engineering workforce has increased significantly. However, within the university innovative research is still limited. Meanwhile, staff members do relevant research and innovation projects, but this usually happens outside of the
university in the private sector where it is easier to get access to funding and the salaries are higher.
In terms of future behavior, we see something similar. In discourse it became clear that students feel innovation is important for development and they would like to change things in the industry. However, innovation in the private sector is seen as very limited due to different factors. There is talk of corruption and un-educated people designing and
constructing buildings in the public sector. Both students and staff mention a culture where easy money is made by creating low-quality buildings with no attention to research or innovation. In addition, students see companies as having little confidence in the quality of students and prefer to hire experienced staff, or family members. This combination of factors leads students to have little confidence in the job market in general, and even more so in changing the way things are done in the private sector through employment in these companies. They see a lack of capabilities on their own part, and a lack of willingness to change on the part of the private sector.
In sum, the discourse reflects a strong culture in most areas, seeing inclusive innovation as relevant to development. However, most students are not equipped and/or motivated to turn this into actual behavior thus far. In addition, the goal of creating and diffusing knowledge through the university is unsuccessful due to an exam-centered attitude, a lack of enforcement of rules and regulations, low quality and de-motivation among staff members due to limited access to research funds and low salaries.
6.2 The Differentiation Approach
Looking at the innovation culture from a differentiation perspective means a focus on sub-cultures and dichotomies between these. The sub-sub-cultures can primarily be found in terms of behavior. Dichotomies are, first of all, found in the ‘othering’ that is done by students in interviews. When they describe the general student population and innovation culture, they tend to speak about ‘the other students’. Students’ own behavior to challenge the status quo is often contrasted with what ‘other’ students in the general population practice. This is usually about exam-centered learning, cheating, future plans in engineering and the effects of not having free choice for which program to enter. This could imply that the students interviewed belong to a different sub-culture, or it could be the effect of the social setting of
the interview, where students do not want to apply negative opinions on themselves. In any case, they describe a dichotomous divide between them and other students.
One important base for sub-cultures at the AAIT is the national divide. There are signs that students from different nations (of which there are more than 83 in Ethiopia) tend to group together, providing benefits for some (especially those from Addis Ababa, who form the largest group) while marginalizing others. Groups coming from outside the city often already have a disadvantage from having lower quality education, which is especially relevant in terms of language. Officially, all higher education should be in English. Practically, this is sometimes different because of the language barrier in explaining complicated theories. Still, as most classes are in English and students from the country-sides often have a very limited knowledge of the English language, this disadvantage is very relevant in their education. Subsequently, grouping together according to nationalities increases the marginalization of these groups.
In sum, there are sub-cultures within and outside the university that challenge each other. The largest is the group that is mentioned in a dichotomous opposition with what should happen in the university: the students that cheat, do exam-centered learning, are not passionate about change or even the profession of civil engineering. Of course, the
boundaries of these cub-cultures are vague and people can belong to multiple groups at the same time. Because of the social situation of the interview the dichotomies between
interviewed students and other groups may be exaggerated.
6.3 The Fragmentation Approach
The fragmentation approach revolves around individual ambiguity. As opposed to the
integration and differentiation approach, individuals can be ‘heroes’ that have the capacity to change things through their behavior, where in the other approaches change is seen as a managerial or group effort. One of these individuals affecting change in the AAIT, for example, is the student who founded the Civil Engineering Student Association. This was a single student who acquired support from the university and was able to set-up this
association and, now after a few years, create a sub-culture that creates significant changes in very relevant areas. We see the same among other individual students, within and outside the student association. These take action to acquire relevant knowledge and skills outside and independently of the university. These do not act directly to change the system, but provide an addition to the workforce and possibly the staff at the university later on, which can provide a ‘natural’ change as opposed to revolutionary change.
In terms of ambiguity, this can be found in all aspects of the innovation culture among students. They often have an opinion about the system being exam-centered and cheating
being bad, but still some students admit to doing the same things every once in a while. This can also be seen in ambiguity between discourse and behavior. Some students see the problems in the university and society and feel these should be changed, but they are very unclear about how they want to address changes in the future. However, there are some students with far-reaching ideas on how they want to change the private sector in the future. It is clear that the ‘innovation culture’ is not a static, uniform entity running through all
individuals in a similar way. Many see the problems in university and private sector, but not everyone takes action. The ones that take action do so in a myriad of ways. Some promote collective action, some try to change the system from within, and some take individual action to promote their own future careers. Still others aim to go abroad and avoid the problems in their country all together, causing a brain drain.
Conclusions
Experience with using the proposed model for the qualitative analysis of innovation culture in Universities has shown promising results despite the preliminary nature of these findings. It shows that taking the three approaches of integration, fragmentation and differentiation all show interesting results that complement each other in providing a holistic view of the innovation culture. If we look at this culture from an integration perspective, at first glance there seems to be a ‘strong’ culture present. Discourse is in line with the goals and aims of the University. If we look at present and expected behavior however, we see a large discrepancy. We can therefore speak of a ‘weak’ culture in terms of behavior. There are however, groups that diverge from this culture by actively undertaking measures to improve behavior in terms of building capabilities and increasing links between research and the private sector. As is presented in the model, these are the ones that are able to appropriate change. The identification of relevant structures will flow from a complete analysis of the gathered data through the integration, differentiation and fragmentation approach. The groups and individuals mentioned are the best options to appropriate change in these structures, thereby altering the influence these have on the general innovation culture. Exploring the linkages in the model will allow exploration into the structures working through the university that influence and are influenced by the output of discourse and behavior. For now, using it in the case study of Addis Ababa has provided insights in students’
perspectives on using innovation as a tool for development in the Ethiopian context and has brought us some valuable lessons on the development and implementation process, both its ideal situation and the current reality. It is also interesting to see the possibilities for change emerging in the clusters and individuals whose visions are incoherent with the general
integration perspective and who are actively undertaking action to change things on smaller and larger scales.
It is clear that in the massive effort that is being undertaken in the context of the
governments’ Growth and Transformation Plan, some structural issues have come into play that cause a discrepancy between policy and output. Maintaining the structures that are necessary to foster innovative outputs and implement development policies can be difficult in this context, but in the end there are many opportunities in both society and the University, of clusters and individuals able and motivated to design and produce inclusive innovations. While the University program seems to have a limited connection to the community and to the general purpose it has in the development of Ethiopia, there are definite signs that groups and individuals are starting to bridge this gap, leading to an increase in useful, inclusive innovative outputs.
References
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology (2015): Department overview
(http://www.aau.edu.et/aait/acadlocals/school-of-civil-and-environmental-engineering/overview-of-soc/, accessed 24 June 2015)
Addis Ababa Institute of Technology (2015): Background Page (http://www.aau.edu.et/aait/, accessed 24 June 2015)
Dobni, C. B. (2008): "Measuring innovation culture in organizations", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 11 Iss 4 pp. 539 – 559
Education Strategy Center (2015): Ethiopia: Staff Development Strategy in Higher Education. Education Center Strategy Policy Brief. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Education Strategy Center (2015): Compendium of Policy Briefs. Education Strategy Center. June 2015 Publication Series No.2.
Fagerberg, J. , Srholec, M. and Verspagen, B. (2010): The Role of Innovation in Development. Review of Economics and Institutions
FDRE, Minstry of Education (2015): ESDP V, Draft 22 June 2015 GTP 2. FDRE Ministry of Education. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Jowi , J.O. (2012) African universities in the global knowledge economy: the good and ugly of internationalization, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22:1, 153-165, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2012.705799
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodelled: Definitions, rationales and approaches. Journal for Studies in International Education 8(1), 5–31.
Kraemer-Mbula, E. and Wamae, W. (2010): Innovation and the Development Agenda. OECD International Development Research Centre. Canada
Lizuka (2013): Innovation systems framework: still useful in the new global context? UNU-MERIT Working Paper, 2013-005
Martin, J. (1992): Culture in Organizations: Three Perspectives. Oxford University Press OECD and Eurostat (2005): The Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting Innovation Data. Third
Edition, OECD 2005
Sustainable Development Goals Working Group (2015): Preliminary Sustainable Development Goals. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgsproposal (accessed 16 June 2015)
UN (2015): UNCTAD: Least Developed Countries (LDCs)
(http://unctad.org/en/Pages/ALDC/Least%20Developed%20Countries/LDCs.aspx, accessed on 24 June 2015)
Vaughan, S. and Tronvoll, K. (2003): The Culture of Power in Contemporary Ethiopian Political Life. Sida Studies No. 10.
Vroeijenstein (2003): Towards a Quality Model for Higher Education. Journal of Philipine Higher Education Quality Assurance.
World Bank (2015): Ethiopia Country Overview (http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/ethiopia, accessed 24 June 2015)
World Bank (2011): The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Joint IDA-AMF Staff Advisory Note on the Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) (2010/11−2014/15). Document of the World Bank.
