Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

Understanding the extent and nature of academia-industry interactions

in Rwanda
Silas U. Nsanzumuhire a, b, *, Wim Groot c, Sofie J. Cabus d, 1, Benjamin Bizimana e, 2
a
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands
b
Lecturer in the Department of Management at INES-Ruhengeri, A University of Applied Science operating in Rwanda
c
Professor of Evidence Based Education and Labor Market Policy at Maastricht University and University of Amsterdam, Netherlands
d
Researcher affiliated with KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium and Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Research Lead at VVOB - education for development,
Brussels, Belgium
e
Lecturer and Director of Quality Assurance at INES-Ruhenger, Kenyatta University, Kenya

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: University-industry collaboration (UIC) is increasingly seen as an important driver of economic growth, but
Academia-industry knowledge on its implementation mechanisms is still limited especially in developing countries. This constrains
Interactions the capacity of those countries to design adequate policies and strategies to foster such interactions. This paper
Educational collaboration
provides information about the extent to which academic staff from Tertiary Education Institutions (TEIs) in
Academic entrepreneurship
Rwanda interact with industry. It identifies the factors underlying their propensity to engage in interactions and
Research collaboration
Barriers the barriers or challenges faced. Data were collected from 334 academic staff permanently employed by 17
Higher Education Institutions in Rwanda. Results indicate a low level of interaction except in some informal
channels arguably less inclined to foster relational learning and knowledge creation. Regression analyses indi­
cated that the type of institution and the academic grades are significantly associated with the propensity of
academic staff to interact with industry. In addition, four main barriers to interaction are identified and they are
all linked to poor support from the government and the universities. Therefore, the study recommends the
elaboration of explicit policies and strategies at country and institutional levels to set the stage for such indis­
pensable interactions.

1. Introduction of and experience with implementing UIC in specific countries or in­

Over the past few decades, University-Industry Collaboration (UIC)
has increasingly attracted the attention of researchers and policymakers
around the globe. In developing countries, UIC is considered as a
pathway towards technological upgrading which would, in turn,
enhance economic catch-up (Fischer et al., 2019). Process wise, uni­
versities interact with industry through a varied number of channels that
are grouped by Arza (2010) into traditional channels (like hiring grad­
uates from university, scholarships offered by industry), service chan­
nels (like consultancy from academia to industry), commercial channels
(e.g., patenting and licensing, spin-off) and bi-directional channels (like
joint R&D projects, joint curriculum design and delivery). The recent
literature on UIC tends to focus on empirical analyses, depicting aspects
stitutions (Teixeira and Mota, 2012). The topics often covered include
individual behaviors and incentives towards UIC (Banal-Estanõl et al.,
2018; Filippetti and Savona, 2017; Arza & Carattoli, 2016; Lam, 2011;
Jain et al., 2009), best practices and challenges facing the imple­
mentation of UIC in a specific industry (for example Garousi et al., 2016)
or country (for example Faisal et al., 2017) as well as other
process-oriented topics such as determinants of UIC, indicators for
measuring UIC, boundary spanning, trust formation, UIC sustainability,
spinoff creation processes, and technology transfer mechanisms.
Three different forms of UIC, namely research collaboration,
educational collaboration, and academic entrepreneurship can be
distinguished. It can be noted from the surveyed literature that most
studies on UIC focus on research collaboration (Nsanzumuhire and

* Corresponding author at: Maastricht Graduate School of Governance, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: silas.nsanzumuhire@maastrichtuniversity.nl (S.U. Nsanzumuhire), wim.groot@maastrichtuniversity.nl (W. Groot), sofie.cabus@kuleuven.be
(S.J. Cabus).
1
PhD in Economics of Education
2
PhD in Educational Planning

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120913
Received 19 May 2020; Received in revised form 13 May 2021; Accepted 21 May 2021
Available online 9 June 2021
0040-1625/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
Groot, 2020). Another aspect dominating the literature is the scarcity of
studies considering all the three forms of collaboration simultaneously
for an integrated study of UIC mechanisms. Yet, such a holistic
perspective can better capture the varied facets of university-industry
relationships (Philbin, 2008; Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2013;
González-López et al., 2014; Galán-Muros & Davey, 2017; Awasthy
et al., 2020; Bruneel et al., 2010). Furthermore, in the specific case of
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the literature indicates a gap in UIC-related
studies as compared to developed and emerging countries despite the
perceived necessity to develop context-specific knowledge about UIC
before setting up any related policies and strategies (Kruss et al., 2015).
In a systematic literature review and bibliometric account on UIC in SSA,
Zavale and Langa (2018) argue that: (1) South Africa and Nigeria
dominate the literature published and (2) the literature on UIC in SSA
has been focusing mainly on answering questions related to de­
terminants of UIC, therefore leaving a relative gap on the mechanisms
through which universities and firms interact. The authors hence
recommend “further and in-depth research […] to address and conceptu­
alize the ways through which universities and firms collaborate” (Zavale and
Langa, 2018: p 14).
This paper intends to address these gaps by analyzing academia-
industry interactions in Rwanda using a holistic approach and unique
primary data collected at 17 Higher Education Institutions. More spe­
cifically, this paper provides information about the extent to which ac­
ademic staff from Tertiary Education Institutions (TEIs) in Rwanda
interact with industry, identifies the factors underlying their propensity
to engage in interactions and the barriers or challenges faced. In so doing
this paper contributes to the existing knowledge on university-industry
linkages in two specific ways. First, it analyzes UIC using an integrated
framework i.e. by simultaneously and distinctly considering not only
research-related collaborations but also the other two forms of collab­
oration namely educational collaboration and academic entrepreneur­
ship. Second, the study focuses on the individual dimensions of UIC
processes which is still scarce in UIC research on low-income countries
especially those from SSA (Nsanzumuhire and Groot, 2020). This focus
on individual experience is motivated by the fact that, as argued by
Rajalo and Vadi (2017) and Bonaccorsi (2016), the success of UIC de­
pends more on the specific characteristics of acting individuals and
teams rather than on the general institutional processes. Furthermore,
according to Bodas-Freitas et al. (2013), most of the literature on UIC
tends to concentrate on university mediated interactions and this cap­
tures only a portion of the complex set of interactions going on between
firms and universities. Yet, firms can also collaborate with university
researchers through contracts and agreements signed directly by indi­
vidual university researchers (Bodas-Freitas et al., 2013).
The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows: Section 2 discusses a
theoretical framework for the study. Section 3 presents a background
and relevance of UIC in Africa and Rwanda. The methodology under­
lying the study is presented in Section 4, and the results in Section 5.
Section 6 discusses major findings while Section 7 proposes a
conclusion.
2. Literature review
Empirical studies on academia-industry interactions encompass
various topics from different perspectives, dimensions, and contexts.
The topics covered revolve around channels of interaction, collaboration
processes and sustainability, determinants, drivers and researchers’
motivation to engage in collaboration as well as barriers to collabora­
tion, whereas three major perspectives, namely researchers’ perspective,
industry perspective, or both perspectives taken together, are often
considered. Besides, as indicated above, UIC can take three forms of
collaboration. Two main dimensions of UIC analysis (individual versus
institutional dimensions) are observed in the literature but the UIC
implementation process can also take a formal or informal dimension
(Bodas-Freitas et al., 2013) and, considering the knowledge to be
2
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
transferred, a direct or indirect dimension can also be distinguished
(Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2013). In this section, we first discuss the
individual dimension of the channels and mechanisms of interaction
found in the literature for each of the three possible forms of
academia-industry linkage as well as factors affecting them. We then
present individual-level barriers faced by academia while interacting or
trying to interact with industry.
2.1. Channels and mechanisms for collaboration
2.1.1. Channels and mechanisms for educational collaboration
To understand learning and knowledge sharing during educational
related interactions with industry, Kunttu (2017) used a relational
learning perspective and proposed students’ projects, thesis projects,
tailored degree courses, and jointly organized courses as possible
channels for educational collaboration. Through these channels, uni­
versity and industry partners undergo a three-phase relational learning
process consisting of sharing knowledge, joint sense-making, and
knowledge integration. Other channels proposed by Galán-Muros et al.
(2015) included joint curriculum design and delivery, lifelong learning,
and students’ mobility. Regarding curriculum delivery, Burns (2017)
considered five major activities through which industry can be educa­
tionally engaged namely internships/cooperative learning, industry
tours/field trips, guest speakers, project-based learning, and
problem-based learning. Students and their lecturers are the key actors
in these different activities of educational collaboration but their exact
role as well as the challenges faced in these activities are not sufficiently
researched (Nsanzumuhire and Groot, 2020).
2.1.2. Channels and mechanisms of academic entrepreneurship
In the past, the focus of studies targeting academic entrepreneurship
was on the process of patenting or licensing research-based innovative
ideas or creating spinoffs in case the former was impossible (Wright et
al., 2007). This focus is challenged by some scholars who indicate that it
affects the Mertonian ethos of modern science i.e., its communism,
universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (Barnaccorsi,
2016; Lam, 2011; Jain et al., 2009). Recently the university entrepre­
neurial ecosystem has changed as a result of developments such as the
rise of property-based institutions, substantial growth in the number of
entrepreneurship courses and programs on campus, the establishment as
well as the growth of entrepreneurship centers (Siegel and Wright,
2015). This has led the conceptualization of academic entrepreneurship
to shift (1) from a traditional emphasis on generating direct financial
returns to providing wider social and economic benefits with a greater
emphasis on teaching, and (2) from the traditional spinoff, licensing,
and patenting channels to student and alumni start-ups, entrepreneur­
ially equipped students and job creation (Siegel and Wright, 2015).
Academic entrepreneurship may hence be understood as the process
through which a university researcher or student conducts innovative
research leading to results that are commercialized (Wood, 2011; Siegel
and Wright, 2015; Amelia and Robertson, 2015). Considering this shift
in focus and mechanisms, the role of academic staff in an entrepre­
neurial university has also to shift and includes, on top of conducting
and commercializing research results, other indirect activities like
contributing to equipping students with entrepreneurial mindset and
ambition and supporting students with business ideas in their start-up
process (Dalmarco et al., 2018).
2.1.3. Channels and mechanisms for research related collaboration
According to Garousi et al. (2016), joint research projects between
academia and industry may be initiated either by a university
researcher, industry scientist, or by a joint discussion between academia
and industry scientists. Different channels through which
research-related collaboration passes have been identified (Bekkers &
Bodas Freitas, 2008; Ramos-Vielba & Fernández-Esquinas, 2011; De
Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2012; Zaharia, 2017; D’Este & Patel, 2007). The
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
most commonly referred to include: joint publications, R&D joint pro­
jects, contract research, conferences and meetings, and consultancy. At
the individual level, research-related interactions may also have a
formal or informal dimension (Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020). While the
former encompasses interactions taking place under formalized agree­
ments like contract research and R&D projects, the latter is established
via participation in meetings, workshops, or conferences and other
personal contacts either through past experience or alumni. Regarding
contract research and consultancy, firms may either enter into
contractual arrangements with the researcher’s university or they may
opt for direct interaction with the individual researcher without neces­
sarily passing through the university (Bodas-Freitas et al., 2013) and this
kind of relationship is often found in UIC patterns in developing coun­
tries (Zavale & Macamo, 2016; Kruss et al., 2015).
2.1.4. Factors underlying the propensity to interact
At the individual dimension, academic staff proclivity towards
engagement with industry depends not only on researchers’ motivation
but also on other individual and contextual factors. Concerning indi­
vidual factors, Bekkers and Bodas Freitas (2008), tested the effects of
individual characteristics and the working environment of researchers
and found a significant relationship between both individual and orga­
nizational characteristics and the variance of channels. For D’Este and
Patel (2007) previous experience of collaborative research explains both
the probability to engage in a wide range of channels and the frequency
of interaction of a researcher. Other studies such as De Fuentes and
Dutrénit (2012) and Giuliani et al. (2010) tested a set of individual
determinants of the probability to interact between academia and in­
dustry. They found that centrality in the academic system, age and
gender, as well as researchers’ level of education and the areas of their
specialization are important factors of a higher frequency of collabora­
tion. In the latter case, while the literature seems to show a high prob­
ability to interact with industry for academic staff from hard and
engineering sciences (often referred to as STEM disciplines), the findings
of Zavale and Macamo (2016) and Olmos-Peñuela et al. (2014) indicated
that social sciences are also able to interact with industry mostly through
consultancy and contract research.
Studies on researchers’ motivation to engage with industry have
mainly focused on factors associated with the motivation to engage in
commercialization of research results (Blair & Shaver, 2019; Wu et al.,
2015; Lam, 2011) or in technology transfer activities (Jain et al., 2009).
Identified factors include financial rewards, reputation and
self-satisfaction obtained from solving an existing challenging problem.
According to Lam (2011), different researchers will be differently
motivated depending on their value orientation. Indeed, traditional re­
searchers with the Mertonian belief about science may be motivated to
engage in collaboration for reputation and career reasons (for instance
to gain funds to advance their research interests), while entrepreneurial
researchers may be interested even in generating income from their
research results. Apart from these two categories, the author identifies a
hybrid category of researchers “who maintain a firm commitment to the
core scientific values but also recognize the benefits of commercial
engagement for their professional goals” (Lam, 2011: P 1355). The
hybrid status of engagement in commercial activities for researchers was
also proposed by Jain et al. (2009). To these authors, for researchers to
engage in commercialization of research, they have to adopt a “hybrid
role identity in which they overlay elements of a commercial orientation
onto an academic one” (Jain et al., 2009: 927). To analyze the motives of
academic entrepreneurs, Blair and Shaver (2019) compared the per­
ceptions of biomedical scientists who have founded companies and
those who have not founded companies, using the theory of planned
behavior (proxied by the general attitude towards the behavior, the
subjective norms perceived by the entrepreneur, and the perceived
behavioral control) and other context-specific factors. They concluded
that academic biomedical scientists who create companies are driven by
the potential for such companies to make a difference for humanity.
3
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
Other psychological characteristics analyzed were not significant.
2.2. Barriers to UIC
Due to the complexity and requirements of UIC, academic staff
engaged or trying to engage in UIC may face several barriers. The most
frequently reported barriers are those related to poor mastery of what is
happening in the industry. In this regard, Tsubouchi et al. (2008), Ryan
et al. (2008), Smirnova (2014), Attia (2015), and Peksatici and Ergun
(2019) referred to inadequate awareness of the industry’s needs, Zavale
and Macamo (2016) referred to a lack of experience and entrepreneur­
ship to deal with the business world, while respondents in studies of
Vega-Jurado et al. (2007), Belkhodja and Landry (2007), Muscio and
Vallanti (2014) and Gümüsay and Bohné, (2018) reported facing diffi­
culties in networking with industry. Poor support from the government
and the university, misalignment of practices, and issues related to
property rights are other categories of barriers faced by scientists while
interacting or trying to interact with industry. For example, concerning
poor support from the government and university, studies by Tsubouchi
et al. (2008), Smirnova (2014) and Zavale and Macamo (2016)
considered among the barriers to UIC, absence of government policy and
support. On the other hand, Vega-Jurado et al. (2007), Ryan et al.
(2008), Muscio and Pozzali (2012) identified the lack of university or
department procedures and structures to regulate cooperation as one of
the barriers. Lack of funding of UIC projects also seems to be associated
with poor support from the government or university (Muscio & Poz­
zali, 2012; Belkhodja & Landry, 2007; Zavale & Macamo 2016; Decter
et al., 2007). Due to cultural differences between universities and in­
dustry, scientists face misalignment barriers i.e. diverging orientation
and practices between universities and industry (Muscio & Vallanti,
2014). Examples of such barriers include different requirements on
novelty, different types of knowledge available (Garousi et al., 2016),
and the irrelevance of academia’s research to industry’s needs (Decter
et al., 2007; Bruneel et al., 2010; Muscio & Pozzali, 2012; Zavale &
Macamo, 2016; Peksatici & Ergun, 2019). The latter may be viewed as
the cause of reported companies’ lack of interest or availability to
collaborate (Zavale & Macamo, 2016). Other types of barriers linked to
differences in practices between universities and the business world are
those related to potential conflicts with industry regarding royalty
payments from patents or other intellectual property rights (Bruneel et
al., 2010; Muscio & Vallanti, 2014; Attia, 2015; Zavale & Macamo,
2016).
Regarding factors exerting an influence on barriers, individual and
environmental contexts were considered among others (Belkhodja &
Landry, 2007). Therefore, factors such as gender, academic grade, and
the type of institution which are part of individual and environmental
contexts can be expected to affect the barriers to UIC and as such the
propensity to perceive them as barriers. On the other hand, Bruneel et al.
(2010) considered collaborative experience as a factor exerting influ­
ence on barriers. In other words, the extent to which perceiving barriers
is related to the level of academic staff interaction with industry.
As it can be noted from the literature, interactions between academia
and industry can take place through various channels and they are
affected by individual and contextual factors including enablers (e.g.,
researchers experience, age, gender, area of specialization and qualifi­
cation), drivers (e.g., researchers value orientation) and barriers.
3. Relevance of UIC in Africa and Rwanda
The relevance and effectiveness of UIC, especially commercial
channels, are often subject to discussion due to those channels’ alleged
effect on the Mertonian ethos of science and technology (Lam, 2011;
Jain et al., 2009). But rather than refuting it, almost everyone agrees on
the central role played by academia-industry interactions in knowledge
creation and spillover (Weckowska, 2015; Ssebuwufu et al., 2012) and
their contribution to technology upgrading for developing countries
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
(Fischer et al., 2019). But to play their role, TEIs have some re­
quirements including conducting not only excellent research but also
co-specialize their research and technological capabilities with indus­
trial interest (Barnaccorsi, 2016).
Teixeira and Mota (2012) argue that the recent literature on UIC
tends to focus on empirical studies, often at micro level, depicting as­
pects of and experience with implementing UIC in specific countries or
institutions. The underlying reason is that UIC is context-specific (Oye­
laran-Oyeyinka & Adebowale, 2012; Eom & Lee, 2010), and the nature
of the interactions between universities and industry changes as coun­
tries and universities develop. University-industry interactions reflect a
co-evolution of factors such as industry’s absorptive capacity, uni­
versity’s research capabilities, and embedded culture (Fischer et al.,
2019; De Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2012; Rajalo & Vadi, 2017) which in turn,
depend on the context, incentives, and agents’ characteristics. Yet ac­
cording to Kruss et al. (2015), UIC approaches and policies that are
adopted in Africa are often copied from high-income economies instead
of drawing from systematic studies on those countries’ contexts and
experiences in interacting with industry.
Rwanda is one of the African countries considering UIC among the
drivers of the country’s economic transformation and economic catch-
up (World Bank, 2019). Two arguments can support the relevance of
UIC in Rwanda. First, the expansion of tertiary education in this country
suggests a need for more relevance and higher quality of educational
services provided by TEIs (Zavale, 2017). Second, different stakeholders
and actors in the region and in Rwanda argue for a more collaborative
provision of tertiary education services. For example, the Inter-Univer­
sity Council for East Africa (2014) contends that a shift in paradigm at
the regional educational system is needed to focus more on fostering
dialogue and engagement with a variety of stakeholders as a means to
ensure the impact of higher education on the society. According to the
Rwandan higher education policy, the general objective is “to establish a
higher education sector that meets the development needs of Rwanda
for an educated and trained workforce, research and knowledge transfer
to support social and economic development and internationally
competitive” (Ministry of Education, 2008).
Considering that stronger relations between TEIs and Industry can
play an important role in ensuring the relevance of TEIs to the economic
transformation of developing countries (De Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2012),
promoting UIC seems to be a necessity. In the case of Rwanda, the need
to foster UIC is evidenced by the recommendation of the World Bank
(2019: p27) stipulating that “tertiary education sector is an ideal space to
foster innovation in Rwanda... [and] creating incentives for researchers to
develop and adapt innovations that benefit industries in Rwanda can help
Rwanda to reap the maximum returns to local innovation”.
4. Methodology
4.1. Data collection
This study aims to enhance our understanding of the extent to which
academic staff from TEIs in Rwanda interacts with industry. Considering
the objectives and explorative nature of this study, a cross-sectional
survey design with a holistic perspective is found to be suitable.
Indeed, as argued by Aldridge and Levine (2001) a survey is used in case
the researcher aims to establish the general outlines of the problem and
use the findings to set up further in-depth studies. The study is based on
primary data collected from 334 full-time academic staff employed by
TEIs operating in Rwanda. This number of respondents corresponds to
the total sample calculated from 1978 academic staff employed by 17
TEIs, using Yamane’s (1967: p886) formula at 95% confidence level and
a 5% margin of error.
Only institutions accredited by the Rwanda Ministry of Education
and awarding at least a Bachelor’s degree with honors were included.
Two facts were considered in choosing these inclusion criteria. First,
before being accredited the Ministry of Education ensures that
4
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
institutions meet acceptable governance and academic quality stan­
dards, which constitute a conducive environment to engage in collabo­
ration with industry (Galán-Muros et al., 2015). Second, institutions
delivering at least Bachelor’s Degree programs have academic staff with
the required qualification to engage in research activities. Academic
staff considered in the sample were either staff employed by an included
TEI with a full-time contract or employed in administration with a
teaching workload in their contract. For TEIs which are branches of
other foreign institutions, only staff employed on a full-time basis at a
local campus were included. In applying the later inclusion criteria,
three institutions were excluded from the study because of having very
few academic staff employed at the local campus in such a way that
quota calculations gave samples close to zero. Also, two institutions did
not respond to our invitation to participate. In total, out of the 23 in­
stitutions fulfilling the first inclusion criteria, 17 participated in the
study. Data were collected between May and August 2019, using a
self-administered hard copy questionnaire with mainly closed questions
in Likert scale format.
4.2. Key constructs and their operationalization
As mentioned earlier, this study adopted a holistic approach by
analyzing simultaneously the extent to which academic staff engage in
educational collaboration, research collaboration, and academic entre­
preneurship which constitute the main forms through which universities
interact with industry (Nsanzumuhire and Groot, 2020). The extent of
engagement in these three forms of UIC was measured using different
channels of interaction found in the literature (Zavale & Macamo, 2016;
Bodas-Freitas & Verspagen, 2017; D’Este & Perkmann, 2011; Bekkers &
Bodas Freitas, 2008). Respondents were asked to indicate whether in the
last three years they did activities related to the channels of interaction
either once, twice, three times and more, or never. More specifically
engagement in educational collaboration was measured using eight
variables namely (1) designing and facilitating student projects, (2) joint
curriculum development, (3) organizing students’ field visits, (4)
inviting guest lecturers from industry, (5) using knowledge generated
from research in improving teaching and learning, (6) informally
exchanging knowledge with professionals during internship supervision,
(7) jointly supervising students thesis, (8) supervising students’ thesis
projects drawn from real life professional problems (Burns, 2017;
Kunttu, 2017; Galán-Muros et al., 2015). Engagement in academic
entrepreneurship was measured using four variables i.e., encourage
students to create their own business from the knowledge they acquire at
school, provide advice to students who want to create their own busi­
ness, develop a business idea from research, conduct or participate in
research resulting in an invention and filing for its patent (Siegel &
Wright, 2015; Amelia & Robertson, 2015). Engagement in research
related interactions was operationalized by activities related to knowl­
edge creation (conducting research solving industry problem, con­
ducting research solving the problem of public organization,
participating in joint research, using a private company’s infrastructure
to conduct research), and to knowledge spillover (conducting consul­
tancy commissioned by a private company or by a Government orga­
nization, publishing in collaboration with industry, attending
conferences with professionals, making laboratory experiments for in­
dustry, trained staff from industry) (Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020;
Bekkers & Bodas Freitas, 2008; Ramos-Vielba & Fernández-Esquinas,
2011; De Fuentes & Dutrénit, 2012; Zaharia, 2017; D’Este & Patel,
2007).
To understand the barriers perceived by academic staff, we used the
same approach as Zavale and Macamo (2016). In this approach, phrases
affirmatively describing hindrances to collaboration were proposed and
respondents had to show whether they agree with them or disagree. In
total, eleven such phrases were used and they were formulated as fol­
lows: (1) I lack access to public funding, (2) companies are not interested
or available to collaborate, (3) research in my field is viewed as
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
irrelevant to companies, (4) the quality of my research is not good
enough to enable academia-industry linkages, (5) my department lacks
adequate infrastructure and qualified personnel, (6) I lack a network
with firms, (7) I lack experience and entrepreneurship to deal with the
business world, (8) my department lacks adequate structures and pro­
cedures, (9) Government and university policies do not incentivize
collaboration with industry, (10) I face or foresee conflicts with com­
panies pertaining to intellectual property rights, (11) the industry does
not trust in the capacity of academia to solve their problems.
4.3. Data analysis
Data were analyzed in two phases. In the first phase, the extent to
which academia interact with industry was described using descriptive
statistics. In the second phase, an analysis of the factors underlying ac­
ademia’s frequency and propensity to interact with industry as well as
the factors associated with the perception of barriers was made using
ordered logit regressions. According to Williams (2016), ordered logit
regression is a suitable technique allowing to estimate the effects of the
independent variables on the underlying outcome variable when the
latter is ordinal and in a ranking format like it is the case in this study.
Additional variables were generated from the original data. Affiliating
institutions were clustered into public and private, departments and the
area of specialization of surveyed staff were clustered into STEM (Sci­
ence, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) or non-STEM sub­
jects. Using the STEM or no STEM clustering for the domain of
qualification builds on the fact that the government of Rwanda has now
made strengthening STEM education one of its policy priorities in the
education sector, therefore making the contribution of STEM in UIC an
important input to the policy.
Regarding the factors associated with academia’s propensity to
engage in channels, we estimated three models, one for each form of
collaboration, with the outcome variables being the activities measured
and the independent variables being the individual characteristics like
the type of higher learning institution where the academic staff is
affiliated (public or private), the domain of qualification (STEM or non-
STEM), the origin of the degree (from Rwanda, from a developing
country, or from a developed country), experience and academic grade
(assistant lecturer, lecturer, senior lecturer, or professor). In total we
estimated 23 equations that can be presented mathematically as follows:
EDi = β0 + β1 Institution + β2 DomQual + β3 OriginDeg + β4 Exp
+ β5 AcadGrade + β6 Gender + εi (1)
ESHIPj = α0 + α1 Institution + α2 DomQual + α3 OriginDeg + α4 Exp
+ α5 AcadGrade + α6 Gender + εj (2)
RESk = φ0 + φ1 Institution + φ2 DomQual + φ3 OriginDeg + φ4 Exp
+ φ5 AcadGrade + φ6 Gender + εk (3)
Where:
EDi represents the engagement in educational activity i with i vary­
ing from 1 to 8
ESHIPj represents the engagement in entrepreneurship activity j with
j varying from 1 to 4
RESk represents the engagement in research related activity k with k
varying from 1 to 11
To analyze factors associated with the perception of barriers, two
models were estimated. Each mode was having 11 equations each rep­
resenting one type of barrier as the outcome variable. The first model
used individual characteristics as explanatory variables while the second
one used the experience about research collaboration. To estimate the
latter, dummy variables were created from research-related interaction
5
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
variables with each variable or activity considered taking zero if the
respondent has never done it and 1 if he/she did it at least once. The
equations estimated using ordered logit regressions can be presented as
follows:
Model 1:
BARn = γ 0 + γ1 Institution + γ2 AcadGrade + γ3 Gender + εn (4)
Model 2:
BARn = ω0 + ω1 RES 3dummy + ω2 RES 7dummy + ω3 RES 8dummy
+ ω4 + RES 9dummy + ω5 RES 11dummy + εm
(5)
Where:
BARn represents the perception of barrier m with m varying from 1 to
11
RES_3dummy represents the experience about joint research,
RES_7dummy represents publishing with industry,
RES_8dummy is attending a conference with personnel from
industry,
RES_9 represents conducting lab experiments for firms
RES_11dummy represents training staff from the industry.
Results from these regressions and the descriptive statistics are pre­
sented in the next section.
5. Results
5.1. Demographic characteristics of surveyed respondents
Descriptive statistics show that the majority of surveyed staff (nearly
60%) were from public institutions. Regarding the domain of qualifi­
cation, 53.31% of surveyed staff are from STEM disciplines (engineer­
ing, land survey, computer science, biotechnology, food science, health
science, etc.) while the remaining are from other non-STEM disciplines
like economics, management, education, law, social work, political
science, etc. For both public and private institutions, the most frequent
academic grades are lecturers and assistant lecturers. This corresponds
to the reported experience and age of staff because the average experi­
ence was estimated at 8.7 years, while the average age was 41.5 years
old with standard deviations of 6.5 and 8.3 respectively. Also important
to note is that the majority of the teaching staff (approximately 56%)
have obtained their degrees from universities located in other devel­
oping countries, about 24% possess a degree from a developed country
and the remaining 20% have obtained their degree from an institution in
Rwanda. This is rooted in the fact that the Rwandan tertiary education
system has only recently started to deliver programs at the post-graduate
level (Master’s and Ph.D.) while degrees at these levels are required to
be able to teach in higher learning institutions. Table 1 combines sta­
tistics for academic grades, the type of institution where staff are affil­
iated, the domain of qualification, and the origin of their highest degree.
5.2. Description of the status of academia-industry interactions in
Rwanda
5.2.1. Extent of interaction
A high proportion of respondents reported that they have never
performed UIC activities in the three years before the date of the survey,
except for some few cases like using knowledge from research to
improve teaching and learning materials, encouraging students to
engage in entrepreneurship, informally exchanging knowledge with
professionals during internship supervision, and providing advice to
students who want to engage in entrepreneurship. The following are the
top five activities that most of the staff have never performed: (1)
research resulting in a new invention presented for patent, (2) lab ex­
periments for a firm, (3) developing a business idea from research
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

Table 1
Distribution of surveyed staff by academic grade and institution, domain and origin of qualification (N=334).
Type of Academic The domain of Qualification and Origin of degree Total %
Institution Grade Not STEM STEM
From From Developing From Developed From From Developing From Developed
Rwanda country country Rwanda country country

Private Tutorial 5 2 4 11 3.31

Assistant
Assistant 5 25 4 1 13 5 53 15.96
Lecturer
Lecturer 3 27 4 1 10 2 47 14.16
Senior Lecturer 6 3 8 3 20 6.02
Associate 1 2 3 0.90
Professor
Subtotal 13 61 13 6 31 10 134 40.36
private
Public Tutorial 2 1 12 2 17 5.12
Assistant
Assistant 11 12 8 19 33 14 97 29.22
Lecturer
Lecturer 2 17 3 1 23 11 57 17.17
Senior Lecturer 3 8 1 3 10 25 7.53
Associate 1 1 0.30
Professor
Professor 1 1 0.30
Subtotal 15 33 20 33 61 36 198 59.64
public
Grand Total 28 94 33 39 92 46 332 100.00
% per origin of degree 8.43 28.31 9.94 11.75 27.71 13.86 100.00
% per domain of qualification 46.69 53.31 100.00

Table 2
Frequencies and percentage of staff by the degree of engagement in various interaction activities (N=334).
Forms of interaction Interaction activities Frequencies Percentages
Never Did it Did it Did it 3 Never Did it Did it Did it 3
done it once twice times or done it once twice times or
more more

Educational Designed students projects 118 63 52 101 35.33 18.86 15.57 30.24
Interactions Designed curriculum 171 79 41 43 51.20 23.65 12.28 12.87
Organized field visits 109 58 56 111 32.63 17.37 16.77 33.23
Invited professionals as guest lecturer 186 69 42 37 55.69 20.66 12.57 11.08
Used knowledge from research to improve 33 47 60 194 9.88 14.07 17.96 58.08
teaching and learning
Informally exchanged knowledge during 65 47 64 158 19.46 14.07 19.16 47.31
internship supervision
Jointly supervised students thesis with 203 40 28 63 60.78 11.98 8.38 18.86
professionals from industry
Supervised practical oriented thesis 115 49 48 122 34.43 14.67 14.37 36.53
Academic Encouraged students to engage in 59 50 45 180 17.66 14.97 13.47 53.89
entrepreneurship entrepreneurship
Provides advices to students who want to 83 40 60 151 24.85 11.98 17.96 45.21
engage in entrepreneurship
Developed a business idea from research 217 66 26 25 64.97 19.76 7.78 7.49
results
Conducted research with invention 270 31 20 11 80.84 9.28 5.99 3.29
submitted for patent
Research related Conducted research solving a problem of 159 79 51 44 47.60 23.65 15.27 13.17
interactions industry
Conducted research to solve a problem of 181 65 44 44 54.19 19.46 13.17 13.17
NGO
Conducted research together with 193 66 51 24 57.78 19.76 15.27 7.19
professionals
Conducted consultancy commissioned by a 214 48 45 27 64.07 14.37 13.47 8.08
private firm on behalf of my institution
Conducted consultancy commissioned by 182 70 47 35 54.49 20.96 14.07 10.48
private firm through personal arrangements
Conducted consultancy for public institutions 208 60 43 23 62.28 17.96 12.87 6.89
through personal arrangements
Published together with professionals 214 52 39 28 64.07 15.57 11.68 8.38
Participated in a conference with 75 86 85 87 22.46 25.75 25.45 26.05
professionals
Conducted lab experiments for a firm 256 31 16 30 76.65 9.28 4.79 8.98
Used private firm’s infrastructure to conduct 194 59 43 38 58.08 17.66 12.87 11.38
research
Trained staff for industry firm 185 58 41 50 55.39 17.37 12.28 14.97

6
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

results, (4) conducting consultancy commissioned by a private firm
through personal arrangements and (5) publishing together with pro­
fessionals. Table 2 provides detailed frequencies and percentages of staff
by the degree of engagement in the various interaction activities for the
three forms of interaction.
5.2.2. Barriers to interaction
Results regarding barriers to collaboration show that in general
academia in Rwanda recognize four major barriers to their interaction
with industry. Those barriers include (1) lack of public funding for
research with 69.17% of respondents indicating that it exists, (2) low
interest of companies in collaborating with TEIs with 61.26% of re­
spondents agreeing that it exists, (3) lack of network with firms and (4)
departments not having structure and procedures related to academia-
industry interaction being recognized by 65.87% and 58.68% respec­
tively. On the contrary, the low quality of research, irrelevant research
to the field, and lack of experience and entrepreneurship to deal with
industry are the top three barriers identified by many respondents as not
existing in Rwanda with disagreement to their existence raising to
around 80%, 70%, and 59% respectively. Table 3 provides the re­
spondents’ views on the different barriers tested in the survey.
the regression models provide a good fit to describe the extent of in­
teractions. The salient finding regarding educational collaboration is
that the type of institution and academic grade are significantly asso­
ciated with the extent to which academic staff interact with industry for
five of the eight educational collaboration variables considered. The
odds of engaging at a higher level vary between 1.24 and 2.08 for aca­
demic grade and between 1.24 and 2.93 for the type of institution. The
latter translates a higher probability of engaging in education collabo­
ration when the type of institution to which the staff is affiliated passes
from public to private, while the former translates a higher probability
in case of increase of academic grade from a lower to the next higher
level. Having a degree from STEM discipline or not is statistically sig­
nificant only in determining the extent of collaboration for inviting
professionals as guest lecturers. The odd ratio, in this case, is lower than
1 (OR=0.59) which indicates a lower likelihood of academic staff with
STEM degrees to engage in this activity. Experience of academic staff,
the type of country where they obtained the degree, and gender have no
significant impact on any variable considered. Table 4 provides the odds
ratios for each of the eight regressions performed on outcome variables
related to education collaboration. Other regression results (coefficients
of the models and their level of significance) can be found in Appendix B.

5.3. Understanding the patterns of academia-industry interactions (a) Results obtained for academic entrepreneurship.

5.3.1. Extent of interactions
To understand the trends of academia-industry interactions in
Rwanda, ordered logit regressions were performed. The outcome vari­
ables consisted of 23 activities of educational collaboration, academic
entrepreneurship, and research-related collaboration. For each of those
variables respondents were requested to choose between four options i.
e. “Never done it”, “did it once”, “did it twice” and “did it three times or
more”. Results are hence in the form of rankings, which justifies the use
of ordered logit regression. Before performing the regressions, tests of
collinearity were first made on the considered independent variables
and for every two variables correlated (i.e. with r higher than 0.5), one
was dropped. Appendix A provides a correlation matrix for the set of
independent variables initially considered. Results from the matrix
indicate that the type of institution, domain of qualification, the origin
of the degree, experience, academic grade, and gender were not strongly
correlated and therefore were retained as independent variables for
regressions. Results presented in the following subsections present only
odds ratios to facilitate understanding of the probability attached to
each pair of relationships. Other regression details are presented in
appendices.
(a) Results obtained for educational collaboration.
All the regression models related to educational collaboration were
highly significant with p values between 0.000 and 0.045 meaning that
All regression models explaining the propensity to engage in UIC
were significant, therefore fitting the description of the extent to which
academic staff engages in academic entrepreneurship activities. The
type of institution is significantly associated with the propensity to
engage in all the four activities considered. The domain of qualification
is only significant to the provision of advice to students who would like
to engage in entrepreneurship, while the academic grade is significant
for developing business ideas from research results. Like in educational
collaboration, in the case where the domain of qualification is signifi­
cant, the odds ratio is less than one (0.61), which means that staff with
degrees from STEM disciplines are less likely to engage in the provision
of advice to students aspiring to entrepreneurship. Experience, the
origin of the degree, and gender have no significant linkage with any of
the academic entrepreneurship activities considered. Table 5 provides
odds ratios for the regression models. Other regression results including
regression coefficients and degree of significance are found in
Appendix C.
(a) Results obtained for research related collaboration.
All eleven models were highly significant. In other words, the re­
gressions with the selected independent variables provide a good fit to
the probability to interact with industry. Results indicate that academic
grade is significantly associated with the probability to interact in ten of
the eleven activities considered. The odds ratios for this independent

Table 3
Respondents’ views on possible barriers to collaboration (N=334).
Barriers Frequencies Percentage
Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
disagree agree disagree agree

Lack pubic funding 41 61 124 108 12.28 18.26 37.13 32.34

Companies are not interested to collaborate 25 104 140 64 7.51 31.23 42.04 19.22
Research in my field is viewed as irrelevant 103 135 59 36 30.93 40.54 17.72 10.81
The quality of my research is not good enough 134 143 38 18 40.24 42.94 11.41 5.41
My department lacks infrastructure and qualified personnel 70 129 108 26 21.02 38.74 32.43 7.81
I lack network with firms from industry of concern 35 79 171 49 10.48 23.65 51.20 14.67
I lack experience and entrepreneurship to deal with industry 77 121 108 27 23.12 36.34 32.43 8.11
My department lacks structures and procedures 56 82 149 47 16.77 24.55 44.61 14.07
Government and university policies do not incentivize UIC 56 108 112 58 16.77 32.34 33.53 17.37
Face or foresee conflicts on property rights 63 134 94 43 18.86 40.12 28.14 12.87
Industry does not trust in the capacity of academia to solve its 62 122 92 57 18.62 36.64 27.63 17.12
problems

7
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

Table 4
Odds ratios from ordered logit regressions on educational collaboration.
ED_1 ED_2 ED_3 ED_4 ED_5 ED_6 ED_7 ED_8
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio

Institution 1.90*** 1.24 1.33 1.51* 1.63** 1.76** 1.77** 2.93***

Domain Qualification 1.21 0.69 1.40 0.59** 0.91 1.14 1.47 0.92
Origin of degree 0.90 0.98 1.14 1.12 0.93 0.77 1.15 1.30
Experience 1.00 0.96 1.02 1.00 1.01 0.98 0.99 1.03
Academic Grade 1.61*** 2.08*** 1.32* 1.24 1.25 1.51*** 1.48** 1.43**
Gender 0.83 1.03 1.26 0.99 0.80 1.02 0.62 0.82
/cut1 1.22* 1.73*** 1.30** 1.42** -1.28* -0.17 2.17*** 2.21***
/cut2 2.05*** 2.88*** 2.05*** 2.41*** -0.20 0.58 2.76*** 2.87***
/cut3 2.78*** 3.76*** 2.77*** 3.37*** 0.64 1.39** 3.26*** 3.56***

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Description of Variables
ED-1: designed and facilitated students projects geared towards solving problems of professional organizations
ED-2: designed curriculum in collaboration with professionals from the industry
ED-3: organized students’ field visits to professional organizations
ED-4: invited experienced professionals to contribute to my course delivery as guest lecturers
ED-5: used knowledge generated from research in improving my teaching and learning materials
ED-6: informally exchanged knowledge with professionals during internship supervision and used it in my teaching and learning activities
ED-7: jointly supervised students’ thesis with personnel from professional organization
ED-8: supervised students’ thesis projects drawn from real life professional problems

namely institution, academic grade, and gender were then significant

Table 5
and explain the likelihood to perceive barriers to collaboration in eight
Odds ratios from ordered logit regressions on academic entrepreneurship.
cases. In all those cases, gender appeared to be a significant determinant.
ESHIP_1 ESHIP_2 ESHIP_3 ESHIP_4 In a bid to identify the relationship between perceiving a barrier and
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio
engagement in research-related interaction, regressions were performed
Institution 1.78** 2.27*** 1.71** 2.28*** using created research interaction dummy variables (with 0 corre­
Domain Qualification 0.72 0.61** 0.97 1.79*
sponding to “never done it” and 1 to “did it at least once”). Results with
Origin of degree 1.34 1.05 0.91 1.08
Experience 0.99 0.99 0.99 1.01
all the dummy variables introduced also generated significant models
Academic Grade 1.22 1.18 1.68** 1.44* for only four barriers. With forward stepwise regressions, six models
Gender 0.80 0.81 0.67 1.29 became statistically significant when including four dummy variables
/cut1 -0.18 -0.01 2.00*** 4.58*** namely: interacting in conducting research together with professionals
/cut2 0.67 0.59 3.18*** 5.45***
at least once or not (Res_3dummy), publishing with professionals at least
/cut3 1.27** 1.38** 4.06*** 6.50***
once or not (Res_7dummy), attending a conference with professionals at
** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 least once or not (Res_8dummy), conducting lab experiments for firms at
Description of Variables least once or not (Res_9dummy), and training staff from the industry at
SHIP_1: Encouraged students to create their own business from the knowledge
least once or not (Res_11dummy). In this case, regression results indicate
they acquire at school
that providing training to firms’ staff or not is significantly associated
ESHIP_2: provided advice to students who want to create their own business
ESHIP_3: developed a business idea from research conducted while teaching at
with the probability to identify seven of the eleven barriers. Those are:
University/Higher Learning Institution (1) research in my field is viewed as irrelevant to companies, (2) the
ESHIP_4: conducted or participated in research that ended up with a new in­ quality of my research is not good enough to enable academia-industry
vention and I/we filed for its patent linkages, (3) my department lacks adequate infrastructure and qualified
personnel, (4) my department lacks adequate structures and procedures
variable are all above one except for dependent variable RES_9 (“made for collaboration with industry, (5) government and university policies
laboratory experiments/analysis on behalf of a firm from industry”). do not incentivize collaboration with industry, (6) I face or foresee
This means that the odds of interacting with industry in research-related conflicts with companies pertaining to intellectual property rights, (7)
activities is higher when academic grade passes from lower to the next the industry does not trust the capacity of academia to solve their
higher level, except for RES_9, where the probability reduces as the problems. The corresponding odds ratios vary between 1.52 and 2.11,
academic grade goes up in level. The domain of qualification is linked to indicating that the odds of recognizing the concerned barriers as existing
only conducting lab experiments for industry and using company are higher when the academic staff has trained staff from industry firms
infrastructure to conduct research, while the type of institution was at least once. The other independent variables used were significant only
significant in determining the propensity to interact in solving a problem in few models. For example, results indicated that conducting research
of industry, conducting research with professionals, and attending together with professionals at least once or not (Res_3dummy) is sig­
conferences with professionals from the industry. Table 6 provides the nificant in perceiving the lack of network with firms, department lacking
odds ratios for regressions of all the eleven models. structure and procedures, and lack of policies incentivizing UIC. The
odds ratios, in this case, are less than 1, therefore indicating a reduction
5.3.2. Barriers to interaction of the odds of recognizing those barriers for academic staff who con­
For the barriers to interaction, two regressions were performed. The ducted research together with professionals at least once. Similarly
first regressions used individual characteristics (institution of affiliation, attending conferences with professionals at least once or not
domain of qualification, experience, gender, and origin of the degree). (Res_8dummy) was significant for lack of public funds, low quality of
With all these independent variables introduced at the same time, results research, and lack of experience and entrepreneurship to deal with in­
indicated that only five regression models out of eleven had a statisti­ dustry with odds ratios less than 1. In other words, academic staff who
cally significant fit. We then decided to use forward stepwise regression declared having attended a conference with professionals at least once
by introducing one variable after another. Three independent variables had lower odds of agreeing to the existence of the concerned barriers.

8
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

Table 6
Odds ratios from ordered logit regressions on academic entrepreneurship.
RES_1 RES_2 RES_3 RES_4 RES_5 RES_6 RES_7 RES_8 RES_9 RES_10 RES_11
Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds Odds
Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

Institution 1.81*** 1.32 1.79*** 1.25 1.14 0.90 1.48 1.97*** 1.07 1.03 0.98
Domain 1.06 0.98 1.13 0.78 1.05 0.77 1.26 1.49* 3.94*** 1.74** 0.67*
Qualification
Origin of degree 1.05 1.37* 1.08 1.05 0.94 1.06 1.17 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.63**
Experience 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.02 0.99 1.01 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.95** 0.99
Academic Grade 1.35** 1.83*** 1.63*** 1.63*** 1.78*** 1.92*** 1.74*** 1.51*** 0.96 1.44** 1.75***
Gender 0.78 0.95 1.08 0.70 0.76 0.64 0.66 0.95 0.53* 0.93 0.54**
/cut1 1.26** 2.70*** 2.43*** 1.87*** 1.37** 1.59** 2.34*** 0.82 1.33 1.00 -0.33
/cut2 2.32*** 3.65*** 3.40*** 2.65*** 2.37*** 2.57*** 3.19*** 2.05*** 1.98** 1.84*** 0.47
/cut3 3.33*** 4.56*** 4.80*** 3.84*** 3.41*** 3.86*** 4.24*** 3.22*** 2.48*** 2.78*** 1.25

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Description of Variables
RES_1: conducted research geared towards solving a practical problem(s) faced by a firm from the industry
RES_2: conducted research geared towards solving a practical problem(s) faced by a specific public organization or NGO
RES_3: conducted research together with professionals from the industry
RES_4: conducted consultancy commissioned by a private company/companies on behalf of my institution
RES_5: conducted consultancy commissioned by a private company/companies under personal arrangements
RES_6: conducted consultancy commissioned by a government organization or NGO under personal arrangements
RES_7: published scientific papers in collaboration with professionals from the industry
RES_8: attended conferences with professionals from private companies and academia participation
RES_9: made laboratory experiments/analysis on behalf of a firm from industry
RES_10: used a professional organization’s infrastructure to conduct research
RES_11: trained staff from industry organizations

Table 7
Odds ratios from regressions on barriers to collaboration with individual characteristics.
BAR_1 BAR_2 BAR_3 BAR_4 BAR_5 BAR_6 BAR_7 BAR_8 BAR_9 BAR_10 BAR_11
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio

Institution 1.97*** 1.13 1.39 1.22 1.05 0.91 1.18 0.78 0.96 1.01 1.39
Academic 1.05 1.15 1.23* 1.09 1.26** 0.94 0.89 1.17 1.41*** 1.27** 1.18
Grade
Gender 0.55** 0.57** 0.83 0.99 0.44*** 0.47*** 0.80 0.57** 0.80 0.57** 0.52**
/cut1 -1.68*** -2.69*** -0.06 0.10 -1.68*** -3.37*** -1.54*** -2.26*** -1.07** -1.53*** -1.40**
/cut2 -0.49 -0.60 1.68*** 2.10*** 0.10 -1.85*** 0.05 -0.98* 0.53 0.34 0.33
/cut3 1.15** 1.33** 2.89*** 3.37*** 2.22*** 0.61 2.11*** 1.22** 2.17*** 1.91*** 1.73***

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Description of Variables
BAR_1: I lack access to public funding for research
BAR_2: Companies are not interested or available to collaborate
BAR_3: Research in my field is viewed as irrelevant to companies
BAR_4: The quality of my research is not good enough to enable academia-industry linkages
BAR_5: My department lacks adequate infrastructure and qualified personnel
BAR_6: I lack network with the firms from my industry of concern
BAR_7: I lack experience and entrepreneurship to deal with the business world
BAR_8: My department lacks adequate structures and procedures for collaboration with industry
BAR_9: Government and university policies do not incentivize collaboration with industry
BAR_10: I face or foresee conflicts with companies pertaining to intellectual property rights
BAR_11: The industry does not trust in the capacity of academia to solve its problems

Tables 7 and 8 indicate the odds ratios for the two series of regressions
on barriers. Regression coefficients and level of significance can be
found in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively.
6. Discussion
This research aimed at procuring more understanding about the
extent to which academic staff from TEIs in Rwanda interact with in­
dustry, factors underlying the propensity to interact, and barriers or
challenges faced. Results presented were from a unique dataset from 334
academic staff employed by TEIs in Rwanda. This section begins by
discussing the salient findings in the perspective of the literature on UIC
processes presented in section two above and thereafter proposes policy
implications for the attention of concerned stakeholders. It ends with a
discussion of the limitation and suggestions for further studies.
6.1. Discussion of salient findings
Results from the descriptive statistics indicated that the majority of
academic staff have never performed most of the activities related to
academia-industry interaction, therefore translating into a low level of
interaction between academia and industry in Rwanda. Such results are
in line with findings from other Sub-Saharan African countries by
Zavale and Macamo (2016), Zavale (2017) and Kruss et al. (2012). The
only activities that respondents indicated being involved in more
frequently (i.e., activities done 3 times or more) were using the
knowledge from research to improve the teaching and learning mate­
rials, informally exchanging knowledge with professionals from

9
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

Table 8
Odds ratios from regressions on barriers to collaboration with research dummy variables.
BAR_1 BAR_2 BAR_3 BAR_4 BAR_5 BAR_6 BAR_7 BAR_8 BAR_9 BAR_10 BAR_11
Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio Odds Ratio

Res_3dummy 0.91 0.93 0.86 0.71 0.68* 0.56** 0.69 0.47*** 0.57** 0.77 0.82
Res_7dummy 1.33 1.29 1.05 0.62** 1.06 0.85 0.75 0.53*** 0.88 0.87 0.72
Res_8dummy 0.60** 0.97 0.69 0.56** 0.73 0.93 0.57** 0.70 1.02 1.06 0.88
Res_9dummy 0.94 1.02 1.26 1.94** 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.19 1.38 1.47 1.40
Res_11dummy 1.38 1.30 1.52** 2.11*** 1.82*** 1.25 1.19 1.96*** 2.11*** 2.16*** 1.77***
/cut1 -2.20*** -2.37*** -0.91*** -0.71*** -1.40*** -2.36*** -1.76*** -2.19*** -1.51*** -1.18*** -1.48***
/cut2 -1.04*** -0.30 0.83*** 1.41*** 0.37 -0.84*** -0.12 -0.86*** 0.11 0.70*** 0.24
/cut3 0.55** 1.61*** 2.04*** 2.70*** 2.50*** 1.63*** 1.97*** 1.44*** 1.77*** 2.29*** 1.64***

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Description of Variables
Res_3dummy: Interacting in conducting research together with professionals at least once or not
Res_7dummy: Publishing with professionals at least once or not
Res_8dummy: Attending a conference with professionals at least once or not
Res_9dummy: Conducting lab experiments for firms at least once or not
Res_11dummy: Training staff from the industry at least once or not

industry during internship supervision, encouraging students to engage
in entrepreneurship and participating in a conference with professionals
from the industry. These activities are essentially informal and they
belong to the traditional dimension of UIC, thus confirming the findings
from Zavale and Langa (2018) describing UIC in SSA as weak, indirect,
informal, and taking place in DUI innovation mode (González-Pernía et
al., 2014). The low level of involvement especially in
educational-related activities such as designing students’ projects and
involving professionals as guest lecturers means that academia-industry
interactions are less based on relational learning, therefore less likely to
generate new knowledge (Kunttu, 2017). Furthermore, academic
entrepreneurship activities such as conducting research resulting in a
new invention and presenting it for patent as well as developing a
business idea from research results are among the top three activities in
which academia involvement was rated very low. This finding is not
only confirming the shift in focus regarding academic entrepreneurship
(Siegel & Wright, 2015; Amelia & Robertson, 2015), but also it confirms
the findings of Dalmarco et al. (2018) about the emphasis on equipping
students with an entrepreneurial mindset and ambition and supporting
those with business ideas in their start-up process.
There can be many explanations of the low level of interaction with
industry, especially those concerning the commercialization of research
results. For instance, studies on academic staff motivation to interact
with industry often report conflicts between engagement in commer­
cialization activities and the Mertonian ethos of modern science (Lam,
2011), therefore requiring researchers who want to engage in them to
have a change of mindset and adopt a hybrid identity (Jain et al., 2009).
This poses a kind of conceptual and behavioral barrier since not
everyone has the required personality traits for such a cognitive process.
Moreover, according to Bonaccorsi (2016), for universities to contribute
effectively to the regional innovation system, some preliminary condi­
tions need to be in place. Those include among others research excel­
lence, absorptive capacity of industrial firms, and co-specialization
between industry R&D and university research orientation. Fischer et al.
(2019: p337) also referred somehow to this necessity of
co-specialization when they related “the lack of embeddedness of uni­
versities in firm-level innovation activities to the lack of market in­
centives for R&D”. In the specific case of Rwanda, Yongabo and
Göransson (2020) argue that the lack of interactions between academia
and the private sector stems from poor coordination and facilitation by
the concerned public institutions as a result of a weak institutional
framework and lack of clear policy frameworks. We can therefore
similarly argue that the low involvement of academic staff found in our
study especially in commercialization activities is an indication of
absence or inadequacies of these conditions in the Rwandan context.
Although the percentages of staff who have never conducted con­
sultancy commissioned by a private firm either on behalf of their
institutions or through personal arrangements are high (64% and 54%
respectively), an aggregation of those who conducted each of those two
activities at least once indicates that more academic staff (45.51%)
conduct consultancies through personal arrangements rather than
through contracts on behalf of their institutions (35.92%). Through this
contract research and consultancy, firms engage more in contractual
arrangements directly with the individual researchers without neces­
sarily passing through the university (Bodas-Freitas et al., 2013) and this
kind of relationship is often found in UIC pattern from developing
countries (Zavale & Macamo, 2016; Kruss et al., 2015). Such findings
may be interpreted as a result of the lack of institutional structure at the
university and department level to regulate cooperation (Vega-Jurado
et al., 2007; Ryan et al., 2008; Muscio & Pozzali, 2012) and this
confirmed by the fact that the majority of respondents (58.68%) agreed
to a lack of structure and procedures at their departments as a barrier to
their interaction with industry. They may also translate a high level of
bureaucratic barriers in the surveyed institutions (Fischer et al., 2019).
Four barriers to academia-industry interaction in Rwanda were
identified, namely: lack of public funding for research, low interest of
companies in collaborating with TEIs, lack of network with firms and
departments not having structure and procedures related to academia-
industry interaction. Such results confirm findings of Zavale and Mac­
amo (2016) for the case of Mozambique but also Nsanzumuhire and
Groot (2020) contended that the absence of public funding and lack of
adequate linkage structure are part of the major barriers reported in the
literature on UIC processes from developing countries. The identified
four barriers may also be viewed as indications of poor support to UIC
from the government and university (Tsubouchi et al., 2008; Smirnova,
2014; Zavale & Macamo, 2016; Vega-Jurado et al., 2007; Ryan et al.,
2008; Muscio & Pozzali, 2012; Belkhodja & Landry, 2007; Decter et al.,
2007) which may be associated, in return, to the lack of technology
upgrading environment (Fischer et al., 2019).
Although the literature on barriers to collaboration indicates that the
most frequent barriers are those related to poor mastery of industry
practices (Tsubouchi et al., 2008; Ryan et al., 2008; Smirnova, 2014;
Attia, 2015; Peksatici & Ergun, 2019; Zavale & Macamo, 2016; Vega-­
Jurado et al., 2007; Belkhodja & Landry, 2007; Muscio & Vallanti, 2014;
Gümüsay & Bohné, 2018), a big majority of respondents in this study
indicated not recognizing them. Indeed, barriers like “the quality of my
research is not good enough to meet the requirements of UIC”, “research
in my field is not relevant to industry”, and “I lack experience and
entrepreneurship to deal with industry” which are related to academia’s
capability to interact with industry were among the least recognized.
Since to Ssebuwufu et al. (2012), TEIs in SSA lack entrepreneurial
expertise to interact with industry, the low recognition of the above
barriers probably results from the lack of collaborative experience
especially since to Bruneel et al. (2010) such experience exerts influence

10
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
on the propensity to perceive barriers.
Results from regressions about the extent of the interactions indi­
cated that the type of institution to which the staff is affiliated and the
academic grade are the major factors of the probability to engage in
academia-industry interaction activities. Since academic grades are also
conferred to academic staff following the institutional governance sys­
tem, this linkage with the two variables confirms findings by Bekkers &
Bodas Freitas (2008) associating the working environment of re­
searchers to the variance of interaction channels. The prevalence of the
type of institution as a factor in academia-industry interaction confirms
somehow the characterization of institutions by Rajalo and Vadi (2017)
and Bonaccorsi (2016) as context creators for UIC. The high odds ratio of
the institutional context in the equation determining the odds to interact
can also be interpreted from the non-significance of academic staff
experience in almost all the regressions performed. In other words,
whether you have high experience or low, if you are not affiliated to an
institution that fosters UIC, your odds of interacting with industry firms
will be lower. However, this finding contradicts results from D’Este and
Patel (2007) and Giuliani et al. (2010) linking the propensity to engage
in UIC to age and experience.
The domain of specialization was significant only with inviting
professionals as guest lecturers, conducting laboratory experiments for
industry firms, using private company’s infrastructure for research, and
providing advice to students who want to engage in entrepreneurship.
The odds ratios of this variable in the first and last case are below one,
meaning that possessing a degree from a STEM discipline reduces the
likelihood of inviting professionals from private companies as guest
lecturers and providing support to students engaging in entrepreneur­
ship. According to the Rwanda Development Board (2018: P 6), “…no
high-skill sub-sector [in Rwanda] accounts for more than 5% of total
employment”. Thus, the lower likelihood to invite STEM professionals as
guest lecturers may be linked to difficulties to find qualified pro­
fessionals in STEM disciplines. On the contrary, the odds of conducting
laboratory experiments for private companies and using the private
infrastructure for research increase significantly when an academic staff
possesses a STEM degree (odds ratio = 3.93 in the first case and 1.74 in
the second). This is logical if we consider the fact that the STEM disci­
plines often need laboratories or other practical tools in their research
activities more than non-STEM. All these results are consistent with
findings from Olmos-Peñuela et al. (2014) contending that researchers
from social science and humanity disciplines interact with non-academic
communities to help them meet symbolic, conceptual and instrumental
societal knowledge needs. They also somehow challenge the assumption
implicitly or explicitly expressed by many scholars of UIC and policy­
makers that University-industry interactions take place mostly through
STEM disciplines (Zhao et al., 2018).
Based on the results from Bercovitz and Feldman (2008) stipulating
that academia-industry interaction would be more likely if the staff
involved had been trained at institutions that adopted the initiative, it
was expected that the origin of the degree (from Rwanda, developing
countries, or developed countries) would be significantly linked with the
propensity to interact with industry. But surprisingly, results show that
the origin of the degree is not significant in all the models performed
except in the model related to training industry firm’s staff and using
private company’s infrastructure. Also in both cases, the odds ratios are
below but closer to one (0.91 for the first and 0.99 for the second) which
leads to thinking that the three have almost the same odds of influencing
academia involvement. Experience of academic staff affects also only
one type of interaction namely the use of private company infrastruc­
ture. The lack or low influence of the origin of the degree and experience
show that the probability for academic staff to interact with industry in
Rwanda is more influenced by the localized social context and profes­
sional imprinting (Bercovitz & Feldman, 2008) thus forming an
isomorphic phenomenon (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983), where individual
actions are rather pushed towards homogenization of practice than
being differentiated by the cultural background of institutions where
11
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
they were trained.
The analysis of the patterns associated with perceiving barriers was
conducted by performing two series of regressions. First regressions
were performed using individual characteristics and results produced
indicated that academic grade and gender are significant in explaining
some of the barriers. In particular, results suggest a greater likelihood of
perceiving barriers for female than male researchers. For academic
grades, the odds ratios higher than one imply that the odds of recog­
nizing the existence of the concerned barriers increase when the aca­
demic grade passes from lower to the next higher level. Since academic
grades in Rwanda TEIs are awarded following the qualification and
academic performance especially in terms of publication and experi­
ence, these results confirm findings by Belkhodja and Landry (2007)
indicating that individual and environmental context affect barriers.
In the second phase, analysis was focused on understanding the ef­
fects of engagement in research-related interactions or not on the
probability to perceive barriers. This approach was taken based on
studies such as Muscio and Vallanti (2014), Bruneel et al. (2010) and
Blair and Shaver (2019). On the one hand, Muscio and Vallanti (2014)
and Bruneel et al. (2010) contend that previous experience in collabo­
ration affects the perception of barriers or tends to lower the barriers to
collaboration faced by partners. On the other hand, the study conducted
by Blair and Shaver (2019) considered some personality traits drawn
from the theory of planned behavior and from the “big five” of behav­
ioral predispositions (namely Openness to experience, Conscientious­
ness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) in analyzing the
perceptions and reasons to engage in academic entrepreneurship.
Although in this study of Blair and Shaver (2019) the statistical tests on
these psychological characteristics were not significant, their consider­
ation in understanding perceptions can be used to hypothesize the ex­
istence of a distorted view on UIC process from academic staff who have
little or no experience in UIC. Indeed, many studies in the field of psy­
chology indicated that personality traits have a great influence on
cognition (Rammstedtet al., 2016; Soubelet & Salthouse, 2011), per­
formance, and the way we perceive the surrounding environment (Yan,
2010). Results from the regressions revealed that the odds of perceiving
many barriers increase when the academic staff has trained the com­
pany’s staff at least once. The opposite happens for experience in
research with professionals, publishing with professionals, attending a
conference with professionals, and conducting lab experiment for pro­
fessionals which have negative coefficients and odds ratios lower than
one. These results are a ratification of results from other studies (e.g.,
Muscio & Vallanti, 2014; Bruneel et al., 2010) supporting the relation­
ship between prior collaborative experience and the propensity to
perceive barriers.
6.2. Policy implications
Findings from this study show that the type of institution and aca­
demic grade are key factors affecting the probability for academic staff
to interact with industry in Rwanda. Besides, descriptive statistics
indicate that the most frequent interactions between academia and in­
dustry are less based on relational learning, therefore less likely to
generate new knowledge (Kunttu, 2017). Regarding barriers faced, a
lack of public funding for research, low interest of companies in
collaborating with TEIs, a lack of networks with firms and departments
not having structures and procedures related to academia-industry
interaction were identified by most respondents. Drawing from these
factors and the identified barriers, the following policy-level implica­
tions can be proposed to concerned stakeholders of tertiary education in
Rwanda.
First, considering the identified context creator role expected from
TEIs, UIC capacity-building efforts at the institutional level should be
complemented by putting in place a specialized structure for UIC coor­
dination and adopting explicit procedures and regulations in this regard
to ensure that institutions effectively play such a role. Concerning the
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
specialized structure, rather than simply recommending the creation of
the traditional structures such as business incubation centers or Tech­
nology Transfer Offices, TEIs could put in place “UIC knowledge man­
agement centers”. The mission of such centers would be to scan, collect,
process, integrate, store and disseminate knowledge generated from
interactions. We believe that these centers would not only reduce the
bureaucracy often reported by the industry as a barrier to collaboration
(Gümüsay & Bohné, 2018; Attia, 2015) but also it would enhance
organizational learning, play the boundary spanning role through
organizational alignment (Chau et al., 2017) and solve the problem of
poor networks reported by respondents in this study as one of the major
obstacles faced. Concerning procedures and regulations, since the aca­
demic grade of staff appears to be linked with the probability to engage
in interactions with industry, institutions should rely more on this
finding to design a code of conduct for appointment and promotion
destined to leverage interactions between academia and industry (Sie­
gel et al., 2007, Polt et al., 2001).
Second, according to the World Bank (2019: P 27), the “Tertiary
education sector is an ideal space to foster innovation in Rwanda... [and]
creating incentives for researchers to develop and adopt innovations that
benefit industries in Rwanda can help Rwanda to reap the maximum returns
to local innovation. A practical way to do this follows the model common in
high-income countries, where private firms finance university research to
solve production challenges. Given the nascent private sector, the government
may need to play a supporting role”. To support collaboration between
academia and industry, the literature proposes several alternatives for
the governments including among others, setting a clear Intellectual
Property Rights policy (the most referred to being the Bayh–Dole Act in
the USA), incentivizing the private sector through tax cuts for R&D ac­
tivities, putting in place programs directly funding R&D projects in
given priority areas, etc. Although some of these measures are already
being adopted by the Government of Rwanda, their effectiveness re­
mains problematic (Yongabo & Göransson, 2020). This is most probably
due to the earlier mentioned absence or inadequacy of UIC preliminary
conditions such as the low absorptive capacity of industry,
co-specialization of R&D between university research orientation and
industry (Bonaccorsi, 2016) as well as other structural challenges
inherent in the country’s socio-economic development stage (Kruss
et al., 2012; Kruss et al., 2015). Therefore, on top of the already existing
actions such as funding joint R&D projects as well as the different im­
plicit policies adopted (Yongabo & Göransson, 2020), the Government
should invest more efforts in ensuring that explicit policies and pro­
grams with UIC related goals are developed and that policies already in
place are coherently contributing to setting the stage for UIC. To do this,
the Government can for instance build on the positive experience from
the Gender Monitoring Office created by law No 51/2007 of
20/09/2007 (Rwanda’s worldwide score in gender equality related as­
pects are very satisfactory) to similarly create a UIC Monitoring Office.
The mandate of this UIC Monitoring Office would be (1) to coordinate
and facilitate initiatives taken by the concerned public and private in­
stitutions, (2) to set the conducive policy framework and monitor its
implementation, and (3) to inspire more proactive actions. With regard
to enhancement of industry’s absorptive capacity and fostering a
conducive social capital, the Government could support the creation and
operationalization of communities of learning and practice between
TEIs and industry firms from the already identified key priority areas of
economic transformation. Such communities of learning and practice
would constitute a relational learning space which was also found to be
low in interactions between academia and industry in Rwanda.
6.3. Limitations and recommendation for further studies
As mentioned earlier, this study was focused on the academic
perspective and analyses were made at the individual dimension. This
scope constitutes its limitation because, considering the contextual
embeddedness of UIC process (Galán-Muros & Davey, 2017), to have a
12
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
full picture of the collaboration experience all perspectives and di­
mensions ought to be considered. For instance, according to Silva et al.
(2020), the propensity of technology-based SMEs is determined by in­
ternal barriers such as financial and knowledge barriers, while this study
indicated institutional affiliation and other individual characteristics as
driving this propensity. Therefore, testifying to the existence of different
aspirations and determinants. To address this limitation, further study
on UIC in Rwanda needs to focus on collaboration experience and the
perception from industry and on existing institutional level drivers,
barriers, and prospects. It would also be worthwhile to further analyze
the extent and nature of the underlying academia-industry interactions
by interacting the explanatory variables and by extension, assessing the
net effects and/or thresholds to avoid the pitfall of interactive re­
gressions documented in Brambor et al. (2006).
7. Conclusion
In SSA the literature indicates a low number of UIC-related studies as
compared to developed and emerging economy countries, despite the
necessity to develop context-specific knowledge about UIC before
setting up any related policies and strategies. To address this gap, this
study has analyzed academia-industry interactions in Rwanda using a
holistic approach and a unique primary data collected at 17 higher
learning institutions. Results indicated that interactions between
academia and industry in Rwanda, as reported by academic staff, is still
low except in some areas such as using knowledge from research to
improve teaching and learning materials, informally exchanging
knowledge with professionals during internship supervision, encour­
aging students to engage in entrepreneurship and participating in con­
ferences with professionals. Regression analyses indicated that the type
of institution to which the researcher is affiliated as well as the academic
grade are major factors significantly associated with the propensity of
academic staff to interact with industry, while staff experience and
origin of the degree were not significant for most of the outcome vari­
ables. Regression results indicated also that possessing a degree from
STEM disciplines positively influences the propensity to interact in some
types of activities like conducting laboratory experiments for private
companies and using private company’s infrastructure to conduct
research and play a negative role in others. Four main barriers to
interaction namely lack of public funding for research, low interest of
companies in collaborating with TEIs, lack of network with firms and
departments not having structure and procedures related to academia-
industry interaction have been identified.
The uniqueness of this study is its holistic approach. Data on each of
the three forms of UIC (educational collaboration, research-related
collaboration, and academic entrepreneurship) were explicitly and
distinctly collected and analyzed. This permitted to make an integrated
study of all the possible facets of interactions between academic staff
and the business world. Therefore, allowing to observe and conclude
that (1) academia and industry in Rwanda interact albeit at low levels,
and (2) the institutional, social and professional context play a more
important role in shaping the relations than the individual characteris­
tics. This implies that there is a need to elaborate explicit policies and
strategies at country and institutional levels to enhance more such
indispensable interactions.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
Researchers hereby acknowledge the financial support from NUFFIC
through MDF Training and Consultancy BV and Mott MacDonald BV.
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

They are also thankful to the editor of this paper, Professor Yuya Kaji­ contribution to its quality improvement.
kawa and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback and

Appendix A. Matrix of correlation for analysis of collinearity between independent variables

Variables Instit Dept Origin degree Exp Acad Dom Qual Qualif Age Gender

Institution 1.000
Department -0.337 1.000
Origin degree -0.002 -0.006 1.000
Experience -0.088 -0.233 0.304 1.000
Academic Grade 0.078 -0.142 0.455 0.513 1.000
Domain of Qualification -0.298 0.849 0.000 -0.185 -0.087 1.000
Qualification 0.024 -0.088 0.435 0.362 0.753 -0.044 1.000
Age 0.042 -0.290 0.280 0.710 0.449 -0.266 0.312 1.000
Gender -0.093 0.095 0.007 -0.039 -0.112 0.075 -0.076 -0.153 1.000

Appendix B. Regression results for educational collaboration

ED_1 ED_2 ED_3 ED_4 ED_5 ED_6 ED_7 ED_8

Institution 0.645*** 0.216 0.289 0.413* 0.490** 0.569** 0.576** 1.077***

(0.224) (0.228) (0.228) (0.229) (0.242) (0.233) (0.244) (0.235)
Domain of Qualification 0.192 -0.363 0.337 -0.512** -0.089 0.132 0.391 -0.080
(0.222) (0.225) (0.221) (0.228) (0.237) (0.225) (0.244) (0.229)
Origin degree -0.097 -0.018 0.137 0.122 -0.070 -0.258 0.144 0.266
(0.172) (0.179) (0.171) (0.183) (0.183) (0.177) (0.195) (0.178)
Experience 0.008 -0.031 0.024 0.009 0.019 -0.016 -0.007 0.030
(0.019) (0.019) (0.021) (0.018) (0.022) (0.019) (0.020) (0.021)
Academic Grade 0.477*** 0.737*** 0.285* 0.216 0.227 0.418*** 0.397** 0.359**
(0.145) (0.151) (0.146) (0.148) (0.159) (0.153) (0.159) (0.151)
Gender -0.184 0.033 0.238 -0.001 -0.221 0.021 -0.467 -0.192
(0.267) (0.273) (0.257) (0.284) (0.279) (0.266) (0.310) (0.274)
cut1:_cons 1.224* 1.738*** 1.310** 1.429** -1.284* -0.175 2.176*** 2.214***
(0.636) (0.642) (0.638) (0.655) (0.675) (0.643) (0.708) (0.666)
cut2:_cons 2.053*** 2.887*** 2.053*** 2.416*** -0.204 0.586 2.767*** 2.875***
(0.642) (0.655) (0.644) (0.664) (0.662) (0.640) (0.715) (0.672)
cut3:_cons 2.780*** 3.764*** 2.776*** 3.375*** 0.642 1.395** 3.263*** 3.560***
(0.650) (0.670) (0.652) (0.680) (0.662) (0.646) (0.722) (0.683)
Obs. 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331
Pseudo R2 0.033 0.045 0.019 0.026 0.017 0.019 0.032 0.063
P-Values 0.0001 0.0000 0.0098 0.0027 0.0449 0.0124 0.0009 0.0000
LR Chi2 (6) 29.13 35.73 16.87 20.07 12.88 16.26 22.83 53.94
Standard errors are in parenthesis
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Description of Variables
ED_1: designed and facilitated students projects geared towards solving problems of professional organizations
ED_2: designed curriculum in collaboration with professionals from the industry
ED_3: organized students’ field visits to professional organizations
ED_4: invited experienced professionals to contribute to my course delivery as guest lecturers
ED_5: used knowledge generated from research in improving my teaching and learning materials
ED_6: informally exchanged knowledge with professionals during internship supervision and used it in my teaching and learning activities
ED_7: jointly supervised students’ thesis with personnel from professional organization
ED_8: supervised students’ thesis projects drawn from real life professional problems

Appendix C. Regression results for academic entrepreneurship

ED_1 ED_2 ED_3 ED_4 ED_5 ED_6 ED_7 ED_8

Institution 0.645*** 0.216 0.289 0.413* 0.490** 0.569** 0.576** 1.077***

(0.224) (0.228) (0.228) (0.229) (0.242) (0.233) (0.244) (0.235)
Domain of Qualification 0.192 -0.363 0.337 -0.512** -0.089 0.132 0.391 -0.080
(0.222) (0.225) (0.221) (0.228) (0.237) (0.225) (0.244) (0.229)
Origin degree -0.097 -0.018 0.137 0.122 -0.070 -0.258 0.144 0.266
(0.172) (0.179) (0.171) (0.183) (0.183) (0.177) (0.195) (0.178)
Experience 0.008 -0.031 0.024 0.009 0.019 -0.016 -0.007 0.030
(0.019) (0.019) (0.021) (0.018) (0.022) (0.019) (0.020) (0.021)
Academic Grade 0.477*** 0.737*** 0.285* 0.216 0.227 0.418*** 0.397** 0.359**
(0.145) (0.151) (0.146) (0.148) (0.159) (0.153) (0.159) (0.151)
Gender -0.184 0.033 0.238 -0.001 -0.221 0.021 -0.467 -0.192
(0.267) (0.273) (0.257) (0.284) (0.279) (0.266) (0.310) (0.274)
(continued on next page)

13
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

(continued )
ED_1 ED_2 ED_3 ED_4 ED_5 ED_6 ED_7 ED_8

cut1:_cons 1.224* 1.738*** 1.310** 1.429** -1.284* -0.175 2.176*** 2.214***

(0.636) (0.642) (0.638) (0.655) (0.675) (0.643) (0.708) (0.666)
cut2:_cons 2.053*** 2.887*** 2.053*** 2.416*** -0.204 0.586 2.767*** 2.875***
(0.642) (0.655) (0.644) (0.664) (0.662) (0.640) (0.715) (0.672)
cut3:_cons 2.780*** 3.764*** 2.776*** 3.375*** 0.642 1.395** 3.263*** 3.560***
(0.650) (0.670) (0.652) (0.680) (0.662) (0.646) (0.722) (0.683)
Obs. 331 331 331 331 331 331 331 331
Pseudo R2 0.033 0.045 0.019 0.026 0.017 0.019 0.032 0.063
P-Values 0.0001 0.0000 0.0098 0.0027 0.0449 0.0124 0.0009 0.0000
LR Chi2 (6) 29.13 35.73 16.87 20.07 12.88 16.26 22.83 53.94
Standard errors are in parenthesis
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Description of Variables
ESHIP_1: Encouraged students to create their own business from the knowledge they acquire at school
ESHIP_2: provided advice to students who want to create their own business
ESHIP_3: developed a business idea from research conducted while teaching at University/Higher Learning Institution
ESHIP_4: conducted or participated in research that ended up with a new invention and I/we filed for its patent

Appendix D. Regression results for research related collaboration

RES_1 RES_2 RES_3 RES_4 RES_5 RES_6 RES_7 RES_8 RES_9 RES_10 RES_11

Institution 0.595*** 0.281 0.584** 0.226 0.127 -0.105 0.389 0.677*** 0.069 0.031 -0.024
(0.228) (0.233) (0.236) (0.245) (0.237) (0.247) (0.248) (0.223) (0.297) (0.243) (0.236)
Domain of Qualification 0.055 -0.022 0.120 -0.249 0.046 -0.265 0.234 0.400* 1.371*** 0.555** -0.404*
(0.226) (0.232) (0.234) (0.242) (0.234) (0.244) (0.247) (0.216) (0.318) (0.239) (0.234)
Origin degree 0.051 0.314* 0.075 0.052 -0.061 0.060 0.159 0.006 0.000 -0.015 -0.461**
(0.177) (0.187) (0.188) (0.200) (0.184) (0.195) (0.198) (0.169) (0.225) (0.186) (0.191)
Experience -0.007 -0.000 -0.031 0.017 -0.007 0.010 -0.021 -0.004 0.003 -0.053** -0.009
(0.019) (0.019) (0.020) (0.019) (0.020) (0.020) (0.021) (0.020) (0.025) (0.023) (0.020)
Academic Grade 0.302** 0.605*** 0.486*** 0.486*** 0.579*** 0.655*** 0.552*** 0.415*** -0.040 0.361** 0.561***
(0.145) (0.151) (0.155) (0.161) (0.154) (0.160) (0.160) (0.146) (0.193) (0.159) (0.155)
Gender -0.253 -0.047 0.079 -0.355 -0.275 -0.453 -0.410 -0.049 -0.641* -0.077 -0.622**
(0.273) (0.279) (0.282) (0.325) (0.282) (0.317) (0.314) (0.256) (0.370) (0.275) (0.303)
cut1:_cons 1.261** 2.698*** 2.427*** 1.875*** 1.365** 1.593** 2.335*** 0.820 1.329 0.996 -0.329
(0.632) (0.676) (0.675) (0.711) (0.664) (0.695) (0.720) (0.616) (0.837) (0.661) (0.664)
cut2:_cons 2.323*** 3.654*** 3.404*** 2.654*** 2.367*** 2.574*** 3.191*** 2.050*** 1.978** 1.840*** 0.469
(0.642) (0.691) (0.688) (0.719) (0.674) (0.706) (0.732) (0.621) (0.842) (0.666) (0.665)
cut3:_cons 3.329*** 4.564*** 4.804*** 3.839*** 3.409*** 3.858*** 4.243*** 3.222*** 2.481*** 2.780*** 1.254*
(0.659) (0.707) (0.719) (0.742) (0.692) (0.739) (0.755) (0.639) (0.848) (0.680) (0.673)
Obs. 330 331 331 331 331 331 330 330 330 331 331
Pseudo R2 0.021 0.050 0.029 0.040 0.029 0.053 0.037 0.026 0.049 0.021 0.035
P-Value 0.0087 0.0000 0.0014 0.0001 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.0005 0.0003 0.0145 0.0002
LR Chi2 17.85 38.65 21.63 27.66 22.53 36.46 25.26 24.12 25.18 15.86 26.81
Standard errors are in parenthesis
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Description of Variables
RES_1: conducted research geared towards solving a practical problem(s) faced by a firm from the industry
RES_2: conducted research geared towards solving a practical problem(s) faced by a specific public organization or NGO
RES_3: conducted research together with professionals from the industry
RES_4: conducted consultancy commissioned by a private company/companies on behalf of my institution
RES_5: conducted consultancy commissioned by a private company/companies under personal arrangements
RES_6: conducted consultancy commissioned by a government organization or NGO under personal arrangements
RES_7: published scientific papers in collaboration with professionals from the industry
RES_8: attended conferences with professionals from private companies and academia participation
RES_9: made laboratory experiments/analysis on behalf of a firm from industry
RES_10: used a professional organization’s infrastructure to conduct research
RES_11: trained staff from industry organizations

Appendix E. Regression results for barriers with institution, academic grade and gender as independent variables

BAR_1 BAR_2 BAR_3 BAR_4 BAR_5 BAR_6 BAR_7 BAR_8 BAR_9 BAR_10 BAR_11

Institution 0.678*** 0.124 0.329 0.202 0.051 -0.099 0.166 -0.254 -0.036 0.014 0.331
(0.209) (0.208) (0.207) (0.213) (0.208) (0.211) (0.205) (0.207) (0.202) (0.204) (0.204)
Academic Grade 0.047 0.142 0.204* 0.090 0.230** -0.059 -0.115 0.159 0.347*** 0.237** 0.165
(0.112) (0.116) (0.113) (0.116) (0.117) (0.117) (0.114) (0.115) (0.113) (0.114) (0.114)
Gender -0.595** -0.563** -0.187 -0.009 -0.819*** -0.754*** -0.226 -0.563** -0.221 -0.559** -0.649**
(0.257) (0.264) (0.258) (0.263) (0.264) (0.265) (0.256) (0.255) (0.258) (0.267) (0.262)
cut1:_cons -1.676*** -2.690*** -0.060 0.103 -1.684*** -3.366*** -1.536*** -2.256*** -1.071** -1.526*** -1.396**
(0.545) (0.591) (0.550) (0.556) (0.556) (0.585) (0.549) (0.559) (0.538) (0.549) (0.555)
(continued on next page)

14
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913

(continued )
BAR_1 BAR_2 BAR_3 BAR_4 BAR_5 BAR_6 BAR_7 BAR_8 BAR_9 BAR_10 BAR_11

cut2:_cons -0.492 -0.603 1.684*** 2.101*** 0.104 -1.853*** 0.054 -0.982* 0.530 0.335 0.335
(0.532) (0.558) (0.558) (0.568) (0.547) (0.559) (0.542) (0.549) (0.534) (0.540) (0.545)
cut3:_cons 1.145** 1.333** 2.892*** 3.369*** 2.219*** 0.605 2.107*** 1.217** 2.167*** 1.909*** 1.734***
(0.537) (0.563) (0.577) (0.601) (0.573) (0.554) (0.565) (0.555) (0.549) (0.557) (0.555)
Obs. 334 333 333 333 333 334 333 334 334 334 333
Pseudo R2 0.021 0.010 0.008 0.002 0.018 0.010 0.003 0.010 0.012 0.011 0.014
P-Values 0.0004 0.0493 0.0708 0.6549 0.0015 0.0418 0.5120 0.0427 0.0127 0.0207 0.0051
LR Chi2(6) 18.29 7.84 7.04 1.62 15.39 8.21 2.30 8.16 10.83 9.77 12.80
Standard errors are in parenthesis
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Description of Variables
BAR_1: I lack access to public funding for research
BAR_2: Companies are not interested or available to collaborate
BAR_3: Research in my field is viewed as irrelevant to companies
BAR_4: The quality of my research is not good enough to enable academia industry linkages
BAR_5: My department lacks adequate infrastructure and qualified personnel
BAR_6: I lack network with the firms from my industry of concern
BAR_7: I lack experience and entrepreneurship to deal with the business world
BAR_8: My department lacks adequate structures and procedures for collaboration with industry
BAR_9: Government and university policies do not incentivize collaboration with industry
BAR_10: I face or foresee conflicts with companies pertaining to intellectual property rights
BAR_11: The industry does not trust in the capacity of academia to solve its problems

Appendix F. Regression results for barriers with dummy variables related to research related interaction

BAR_1 BAR_2 BAR_3 BAR_4 BAR_5 BAR_6 BAR_7 BAR_8 BAR_9 BAR_10 BAR_11

Res_3dummy -0.092 -0.069 -0.149 -0.345 -0.383* -0.579** -0.367 -0.759*** -0.555** -0.260 -0.195
(0.226) (0.225) (0.223) (0.236) (0.226) (0.233) (0.225) (0.229) (0.223) (0.226) (0.224)
Res_7dummy 0.285 0.255 0.049 -0.486** 0.061 -0.162 -0.286 -0.635*** -0.132 -0.139 -0.331
(0.229) (0.232) (0.231) (0.242) (0.230) (0.234) (0.233) (0.231) (0.226) (0.231) (0.228)
Res_8dummy -0.516** -0.027 -0.374 -0.586** -0.312 -0.075 -0.564** -0.361 0.023 0.061 -0.126
(0.254) (0.253) (0.252) (0.262) (0.249) (0.261) (0.254) (0.253) (0.251) (0.252) (0.249)
Res_9dummy -0.057 0.019 0.233 0.660** 0.369 0.396 0.416 0.178 0.325 0.387 0.335
(0.242) (0.252) (0.249) (0.263) (0.257) (0.261) (0.253) (0.257) (0.249) (0.246) (0.245)
Res_11dummy 0.320 0.262 0.422** 0.748*** 0.600*** 0.224 0.178 0.671*** 0.747*** 0.771*** 0.574***
(0.211) (0.214) (0.213) (0.222) (0.215) (0.218) (0.211) (0.218) (0.214) (0.216) (0.214)
cut1:_cons -2.200*** -2.366*** -0.914*** -0.711*** -1.396*** -2.358*** -1.756*** -2.193*** -1.511*** -1.182*** -1.476***
(0.268) (0.290) (0.242) (0.246) (0.245) (0.285) (0.258) (0.266) (0.249) (0.245) (0.247)
cut2:_cons -1.040*** -0.301 0.834*** 1.405*** 0.373 -0.839*** -0.122 -0.865*** 0.114 0.696*** 0.242
(0.240) (0.235) (0.238) (0.256) (0.231) (0.248) (0.238) (0.239) (0.232) (0.237) (0.229)
cut3:_cons 0.547** 1.610*** 2.042*** 2.703*** 2.496*** 1.635*** 1.974*** 1.436*** 1.769*** 2.289*** 1.637***
(0.233) (0.253) (0.268) (0.319) (0.287) (0.263) (0.280) (0.252) (0.254) (0.270) (0.250)
Obs. 334 333 333 333 333 334 333 334 334 334 333
Pseudo R2 0.008 0.004 0.008 0.032 0.015 0.012 0.016 0.038 0.020 0.019 0.012
P-Values 0.2155 0.6531 0.2535 0.0002 0.0287 0.0840 0.0178 0.0000 0.0032 0.0064 0.0598
LR Chi2 (5) 7.07 3.30 6.58 24.49 12.48 9.71 13.68 32.11 17.82 16.17 10.61
Standard errors are in parenthesis
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
Res_3dummy: Interacting in conducting research together with professionals at least once or not
Res_7dummy: Publishing with professionals at least once or not
Res_8dummy: Attending a conference with professionals at least once or not
Res_9dummy: Conducting lab experiments for firms at least once or not
Res_11dummy: Training staff from the industry at least once or not

References Awasthy, R., Flint, S., Sankarnarayana, R., Jones, R.L., 2020. A framework to improve
university-industry collaboration. J. Ind. Univ. Coll. 2 (1), 49–62. https://doi.org/
10.1108/jiuc-09-2019-0016.
Aldridge, A.E., Levine, K., 2001. Surveying the Social World: Principles and Practice in
Banal-Estañol, A., Macho-Stadler, I., Pérez-Castrillo, D., 2018. Endogenous Matching in
Survey Research. Open University Press, Buckingham.
University-Industry Collaboration: Theory and Empirical Evidence from the United
Amelia, R., Robertson, K.T, 2015. The role of academic entrepreneurs in the process of
Kingdom. Management Science 64 (4), 1591–1608. https://doi.org/10.1287/
technology transfer and commercialization: the case of a university of technology in
mnsc.2016.2680.
South Africa. Environ. Econ. 6 (4), 25–37.
Bekkers, R., Bodas Freitas, I.M., 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between
Arza, V., 2010. Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge
universities and industry: to what degree do sectors also matter? Res. Policy 37 (10),
transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Sci. Public Policy 37 (7),
1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007.
473–484. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234210x511990.
Belkhodja, O., Landry, R., 2007. The Triple-Helix collaboration: why do researchers
Arza, V., Carattoli, M., 2016. Personal ties in university-industry linkages: a case-study
collaborate with industry and the government? what are the factors that influence
from Argentina. J. Technol. Trans. 42 (4), 814–840. https://doi.org/10.1007/
the perceived barriers? Scientometrics 70 (2), 301–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10961-016-9544-x.
s11192-007-0205-6.
Attia, A.M., 2015. National innovation systems in developing countries: barriers to
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Lafuente, E., Solé, F., 2013. The pursuit of knowledge transfer
university–industry collaboration in Egypt. Int. J. Technol. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 14
activities: An efficiency analysis of Spanish universities. Journal of Business
(2), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1386/tmsd.14.2.113_1.
Research 66 (10), 2051–2059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.031.

15
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the
individual level. Organ. Sci. 19 (1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1287/
orsc.1070.0295.
Blair, C., Shaver, K., 2019. Of horses and jockeys: perceptions by academic
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Res. J. 10 (2) https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2019-
0011.
Bonaccorsi, A., 2016. Addressing the disenchantment: universities and regional
development in peripheral regions. Journal of Economic Policy Reform 20 (4),
293–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2016.1212711.
Bodas Freitas, I.M., Geuna, A., Rossi, F., 2013. Finding the right partners: institutional
and personal modes of governance of university–industry interactions. Res. Policy 42
(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.007.
Bodas Freitas, I.M., Verspagen, B., 2017. The motivations, institutions and organization
of university-industry collaborations in the Netherlands. J. Evolut. Econ. 27 (3),
379–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0495-7.
Brambor, T., Clark, W.R., Golder, M., 2006. Understanding interaction models:
improving empirical analyses. Political Anal. 14 (1), 63–82. https://doi.org/
10.1093/pan/mpi014.
Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., Salter, A., 2010. Investigating the factors that diminish the
barriers to university–industry collaboration. Res. Policy 39 (7), 858–868. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006.
C. Burns (2017). Systematic Analysis of Industry Engagement Activities on Student
Learning in the Undergraduate Technology Program. doi:10.31274/etd-180810-
4898.
Chau, V.S., Gilman, M., Serbanica, C., 2017. Aligning university–industry interactions:
The role of boundary spanning in intellectual capital transfer. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 123, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.013.
D’Este, P., Patel, P., 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors
underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res. Policy 36 (9), 1295–1313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.002.
D’Este, P., Perkmann, M., 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The
entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. J. Technol. Trans. 36 (3),
316–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z.
G. Dalmarco, W. Hulsink, & G.V. Blois (2018). Creating entrepreneurial universities in an
emerging economy: evidence from Brazil. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.015.
De Fuentes, C., Dutrénit, G., 2012. Best channels of academia–industry interaction for
long-term benefit. Res. Policy 41 (9), 1666–1682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2012.03.026.
Decter, M., Bennett, D., Leseure, M., 2007. University to business technology transfer-UK
and USA comparisons. Technovation 27 (3), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2006.02.001.
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48 (2), 147–160.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101.
Eom, B.-Y., Lee, K., 2010. Determinants of industry–academy linkages and, their impact
on firm performance: the case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge
industrialization. Res. Policy 39 (5), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2010.01.015.
Faisal, R., Chong, A.L., Voon Yee, A.S., 2017. Systematic Review of Sustainable
Knowledge Transfer Process in Government-Industry-Academia Consortium. Asian
Journal of Innovation and Policy 6 (3), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.7545/
ajip.2017.6.3.295.
Filippetti, A., Savona, M., 2017. University–industry linkages and academic
engagements: individual behaviours and firms’ barriers. Introduction to the special
section. J. Technol. Trans. 42, 719–729.
Fischer, B.B., Schaeffer, P.R., Vonortas, N.S., 2019. Evolution of university-industry
collaboration in Brazil from a technology upgrading perspective. Technol. Forecast.
Soc. Change 145, 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.05.001.
Galán-Muros, V., van der Sijde, P., Groenewegen, P., Baaken, T., 2015. Nurture over
nature: how do European universities support their collaboration with business?
J. Technol. Trans. 42 (1), 184–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9451-6.
Galan-Muros, V., Davey, T., 2017. The UBC ecosystem: putting together a comprehensive
framework for university-business cooperation. J. Technol. Trans. 44 (4),
1311–1346.
Garousi, V., Petersen, K., & Ozkan, B. (2016). Challenges and best practices in industry-
academia collaborations in software engineering: A systematic literature review.
Information and Software Technology, 79, 106–127. 10.1016/j.infsof.2016.07.006.
Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., Rabellotti, R., 2010. Who are the researchers
that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South
Africa, Italy. Res. Policy 39 (6), 748–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2010.03.007.
González-López, M., Dileo, I., Losurdo, F., 2014. University-industry collaboration in the
european regional context: the cases of galicia and apulia region. J. Entrep. Manag.
Innov. 10 (3), 57–87. https://doi.org/10.7341/20141033.
González-Pernía, J.L., Parrilli, M.D., Peña-Legazkue, I., 2014. STI–DUI learning modes,
firm-university collaboration and innovation. J. Technol. Trans. 40 (3), 475–492.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9352-0.
Gümüsay, A.A., Bohné, T.M., 2018. Individual and organizational inhibitors to the
development of entrepreneurial competencies in universities. Res. Policy 47 (2),
363–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.11.008.
Inter-University Council for East Africa, 2014. Report from a Study Establishing the
Status of Higher Education Qualifications Systems and their Contributions to Human
Resources Development in East Africa. IUCEA, Kampala.
16
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
Jain, S., George, G., Maltarich, M., 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role
identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity.
Res. Policy 38 (6), 922–935. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.02.007.
Kruss, G., Adeoti, J., Nabudere, D., 2012. Universities and knowledge-based
development in sub-Saharan Africa: comparing university–firm interaction in
Nigeria, Uganda and South Africa. J. Dev. Stud. 48 (4), 516–530. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00220388.2011.604410.
Kruss, G., Adeoti, J.O., Nabudere, D., 2015. Bracing for change: making universities and
firms partners for innovation in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Albuquerque, E., Lee, K.,
Suzigan, W., Kruss, G. (Eds.), Developing National Systems of Innovation. Edward
Elgar, UK, pp. 31–54. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784711108.00009.
Kunttu, L., 2017. Educational involvement in innovative university–industry
collaboration. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev. 7 (12), 14–22. https://doi.org/
10.22215/timreview/1124.
Lam, A., 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research
commercialization: "Gold", "ribbon" or "puzzle"? Res. Policy 40 (10), 1354–1368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Higher Education policy. retrieved from https://mineduc.
gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Higher_Educ.pdf.
Silva, M., D., D.R., Lucas, L.O., Vonortas, N.S, 2020. Internal barriers to innovation and
university-industry cooperation among technology-based SMEs in brazil. Ind. Innov.
27 (3), 235–263.
Muscio, A., Pozzali, A., 2012. The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry
collaborations: some evidence from Italian universities. J. Technol. Trans. 38 (4),
486–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9262-y.
Muscio, A., Vallanti, G., 2014. Perceived Obstacles to university–industry collaboration:
results from a qualitative survey of italian academic departments. Ind. Innov. 21 (5),
410–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2014.969935.
Nsanzumuhire, S.U., Groot, W., 2020. Context perspective on university-industry
collaboration processes: a systematic review of literature. J. Clean. Prod. 258,
120861 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120861.
Olmos-Peñuela, J., Castro-Martínez, E., D’Este, P, 2014. Knowledge transfer activities in
social sciences and humanities: Explaining the interactions of research groups with
non-academic agents. Research Policy 43 (4), 696–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2013.12.004.
Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., Adebowale, A., 2012. University-industry collaboration as a
determinant of innovation in Nigeria. Inst. Econ. 1, 21–46.
Peksatici, O., Ergun, H.S., 2019. The barriers against effective university industry
collaboration-a study in Turkish aviation industry. Pressacademia 6 (1), 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2019.1032.
Philbin, S., 2008. Process model for university-industry research collaboration. Eur. J.
Innov. Manag. 11 (4), 488–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911138.
Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., 2001. Benchmarking industry–science relations: the
role of framework conditions. Sci. Public Policy 28 (4), 247–258.
Rajalo, S., Vadi, M., 2017. University-industry innovation collaboration:
reconceptualization. Technovation 62 (63), 42–54.
Ranga, M., Etzkowitz, H., 2013. Triple helix systems: an analytical framework for
innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Ind. High. Edu. 27 (4),
237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165.
Rammstedt, B., Danner, D., Martin, S., 2016. The association between personality and
cognitive ability: going beyond simple effects. J. Res. Personal. 62, 39–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.03.005.
Ramos-Vielba, I., Fernández-Esquinas, M., 2011. Beneath the tip of the iceberg: exploring
the multiple forms of university-industry linkages. High. Edu. 64 (2), 237–265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9491-2.
Rwanda Development Board. (2018). National skills development and employment
promotion strategy 2019–2024. Retrieved from https://rdb.rw/wp-content/uploads
/2019/07/NSDEPS.pdf.
Ryan, J.G., Wafer, B., Fitzgerald, M., 2008. University–industry collaboration: an issue
for Ireland as an economy with high dependence on academic research. Res. Eval. 17
(4), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820208x382841.
Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., Lockett, A., 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at
universities: organizational and societal implications. Ind. Corp. Change 16 (4),
489–504.
Siegel, D.S., Wright, M., 2015. Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink? Br. J.
Manag. 26 (4), 582–595. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12116.
Smirnova, Y.V., 2014. Attitudes of companies in kazakhstan towards knowledge
collaboration with universities. Proced. Soc. Behav. Sci. 109, 639–644. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.520.
Soubelet, A., Salthouse, T.A., 2011. Personality–cognition relations across adulthood.
Dev. Psychol. 47 (2), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021816.
Ssebuwufu, J., Ludwick, T., Béland, M., 2012. Strengthening University-Industry
Linkages In Africa: a Study on Institutional Capacities and Gaps. Association of
African Universities (AAU), Accra.
Teixeira, A.A.C., Mota, L., 2012. A bibliometric portrait of the evolution, scientific roots
and influence of the literature on university–industry links. Scientometrics 93 (3),
719–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0823-5.
Tsubouchi, M., Morishita, R., Tabata, Y., Matsui, S., Kawakami, K., 2008. Critical issues
for effective collaboration between academia and industry in the field of
regenerative medicine in Japan. Regen. Med. 3 (4), 497–504. https://doi.org/
10.2217/17460751.3.4.497.
Vega-Jurado, J., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., Huanca, R., 2007. University–industry relations
in Bolivia: implications for university transformations in latin America. High. Edu.
56 (2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9098-9.
Weckowska, D.M., 2015. Learning in university technology transfer offices: transactions-
focused and relations-focused approaches to commercialization of academic
S.U. Nsanzumuhire et al.
research. Technovation 41-42, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
technovation.2014.11.003.
Williams, R., 2016. Understanding and interpreting generalized ordered logit models.
J. Math. Soc. 40 (1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250x.2015.1112384.
Wood, M.S., 2011. A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Bus. Horizons 54 (2),
153–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.11.004.
World Bank, 2019. Future Drivers of Growth in Rwanda Innovation, Integration,
Agglomeration, and Competition (Conference Edition). International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development /The World Bank, Washington. https://doi.org/
10.1596/978-1-4648-1280-4.
M. Wright, A. Lockett, B. Clarysse, & P. Mustar (2007). Academic Entrepreneurship in
Europe. doi:10.4337/9781847205575.
Wu, Y., Welch, E.W., Huang, W.-L, 2015. Commercialization of university inventions:
individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents.
Technovation 36 (37), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.004.
/.
Yamane, T., 1967. Statistics, an Introductory Analysis, 2nd Ed. Harper and Row, New
York.
Yan, J., 2010. The impact of entrepreneurial personality traits on perception of new
venture opportunity. N. Engl. J. Entrep. 13 (2), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/
neje-13-02-2010-b002.
P. Yongabo, & B. Göransson (2020). Constructing the national innovation system in
Rwanda: efforts and challenges. Innov. Dev., 1–22. doi:10.1080/
2157930x.2020.1846886.
Zhao, Z., Broström, A., Cai, J., 2018. Promoting academic engagement: university
context and individual characteristics. J. Technol. Trans. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10961-018-9680-6.
Zaharia, N., 2017. University-industry knowledge transfer: channels of sport research
interaction. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 12 (9), 1. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v12n9p1.
N.C. Zavale, & P.V. Langa (2018). University-industry linkages’ literature on sub-saharan
Africa: systematic literature review and bibliometric account. Scientometrics, doi:
10.1007/s11192-018-2760-4.
Zavale, N.C., Macamo, E., 2016. How and what knowledge do universities and academics
transfer to industry in African low-income countries? Evidence from the stage of
university-industry linkages in Mozambique. Int. J. Edu. Dev. 49, 247–261. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.04.001.
17
Technological Forecasting & Social Change 170 (2021) 120913
N.C. Zavale (2017). Expansion versus contribution of higher education in Africa:
university–industry linkages in mozambique from companies’ perspective. Sci.
Public Policy, doi: 10.1093/scipol/scx089.
Mr. Silas Nsanzumuhire is a PhD scholar at Maastricht Graduate School of Governance,
University of Maastricht, The Netherlands and lecturer in the Department of Management
at INES-Ruhengeri, a University of Applied Science operating in RWANDA.
Prof. Dr. Wim Groot is full professor at the School for Public Health and Prim Care, Fac.
Health, Medicine and Life Sciences Maastricht University. He is also a Professor of Evi­
dence Based Education and Labor Market Policy at the University of Amsterdam since
2015. He is currently a member of the board of governance of the Dutch Patient Federation
(NPCF), a member of the ZoNMW committees ‘Topzorg’ and Uitkomstgerichte Zorg’,
chairman of the Vidi committee ‘Economie and Bedrijfskunde’, chairman of the expert
panel of NFK, and a member of the Advisory Board Health Care of the ING Bank. He was a
consultant for various ministries in the Netherlands and for organizations like the EC,
OECD and the Worldbank. From 2014 to 2016 he was a Consultant for the European
Commission DG EAC to advise about the implementation and progress about the National
Reform Program for the Netherlands as part of the Growth and Stability Pact.He has
published more than 300 papers in international scientific journals. Until 2018, he suc­
cessfully supervised 34 PhD students.In 2004 he obtained an honorary doctorate from the
National University of Kiyv-Mohyla Academy in the Ukraine.
Dr. Sofie Cabus is currently a research manager at Research Institute for Work and So­
ciety, KU Leuven HIVA, Belgium. She holds a PhD in Economics of Education from
Maastricht University. Her areas of specialization include among others data management;
economics of education; evidence-based impact evaluation; lifelong learning; policy
Support; quantitative analysis; school dropout; skills mismatch.
Dr. Bizimana Benjamin is the Director of Academic Quality Assurance at INES-Ruhengeri
and lecturer at the same institution. He holds a PhD in educational planning and
management.