Cultivating a research culture in Tanzanian higher education

ABSTRACT

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are primarily responsible for producing high-quality research and training the next generation of researchers to achieve socio-economic development. However, empirical evidence suggests that a significant number of HEIs in Tanzania and sub-Saharan Africa generally have limited involvement in research. This situation requires an in-depth analysis of how this challenge is addressed. This paper¹ reports the findings of a study that examined how Tanzanian HEIs cultivate a research culture. Data were generated through interviews with senior leaders, academic staff and postgraduate students from four public and private Tanzanian HEIs. The study found that research culture is cultivated by creating research governance tools; reinforcing desired research behaviours; building research capacity; supporting research dissemination; and promoting research collaboration and networking. Overall, these approaches to research development were found to be less rigorous in fostering a robust research culture because many structural constraints remain that need to be addressed by key stakeholders in the higher education sector. Universities committed to cultivating a research culture should prioritise strategies that promote an equitable, transparent and inclusive research environment that recognises and supports academics as critical thinkers, researchers, educators and learners rather than simply as producers of measurable research outputs.

KEYWORDS:

• Research culture
• research development
• knowledge valorisation
• research incentives
• research collaboration

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs) are the primary institutions responsible for producing high-quality research, training the next generation of researchers and contributing to socio-economic development through knowledge valorisation activities. Empirical evidence suggests that a significant number of HEIs in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have limited involvement in research and innovation activities, resulting in a lack of knowledge and expertise in potential areas of need where it can be applied, such as education, agriculture, health and industry (Cloete, Bunting, & Maassen, 2015; Temoso, Tran, & Myeki, 2023). For example, Africa’s contribution to the diagnosis and study of vaccines against the COVID-19 pandemic was low, accounting for only 1% of the global research output (Association for the Development of Education in Africa - [ADEA], 2022). Overall, the UNESCO Science Report: Towards 2030 indicates that Africa’s contribution to the world’s research-based publications, researchers and patents between 2008 and 2014 was only 2.6%, 2.4% and 0.1% respectively (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015, pp. 32–36). In contrast, individual countries in other continents, such as Brazil, Canada and Malaysia, have made significant contributions despite their smaller populations. For example, Brazil produced 2.9%, 2% and 0.1% of all research publications, researchers and patents, while Canada produced 2.1%, 4.3% and 2.8% respectively. Malaysia’s contributions were 0.8%, 0.7% and 0.1% for research publications, researchers and patents respectively (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015, pp. 32–36). The limited participation of sub-Saharan African HEIs in research and innovation activities calls for an in-depth analysis of how these regional HEIs address this challenge.

A thorough review of the available literature suggests that the development of research cultures in HEIs remains an under-researched topic both locally and globally (Cannell et al., 2023; Jeyaraj & Wald, 2023). Most of the existing literature on this topic is based in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Notable examples include Ortiga, Chou, and Wang (2020), who found that Singaporean universities have resorted to recruiting international faculty to strengthen their research systems and increase their global competitiveness. Hill and Haigh’s (2012) study in Australia, New Zealand, Norway and South Africa revealed that fostering communities of research practice can help junior academics learn alongside their more experienced colleagues and become full-fledged research academics. Quimbo and Sulabo’s (2014) study found that promoting strong faculty development programmes, research collaborations and good incentive systems are critical to fostering and improving research culture in HEIs. Similarly, Jeyaraj and Wald (2023) established that collegial leadership and intellectual collegiality are critical to the development of research capacity among academics in a teaching-oriented private university college in Malaysia. While overseas experience remains an invaluable source of insight and inspiration, it is important to note that the implications of these studies may not be directly transferable to the African context, which differs significantly in terms of economic, social and political development, as well as the evolution of their respective HEIs.

Several studies have been conducted on the development of research culture in sub-Saharan African HEIs. These studies include research by Dessie and Mesfin (2013) in Ethiopia, Okon, Owan, and Owan (2022) in Nigeria, Cannell et al. (2023), Cloete, Bunting, and Maassen (2015), and Johnson and Louw (2014) in South Africa, and Musiige and Maassen (2015) in Uganda. The focus of these studies has been mainly on the southern and northern regions of Africa. The studies mentioned, although limited in number, have laid the groundwork for various HEIs and governing bodies in the region to develop more suitable policies and approaches to enhance their research systems. To further explore the development of research culture and its implications for national and regional development, additional research from various regions and countries in sub-Saharan Africa is required. The study reported in this article aims to provide insights into the approaches implemented in Tanzanian HEIs to develop a research culture. In doing so, our study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the development of a research culture in higher education by addressing how Tanzanian HEIs develop such a culture. It also provides practical knowledge that can be used to develop effective higher education policies and practices to create a thriving research culture in Tanzania and other countries with similar demographic, social, cultural, and economic characteristics.

This paper is organised into seven sections. The first section is the introduction, followed by a section that provides background information on higher education in Tanzania. Section three reviews the literature on research culture and the common initiatives used to develop research cultures in higher education systems. The fourth section describes the research design and methodology used in the study, while sections five and six respectively present and discuss the findings. Finally, section seven provides conclusions and recommendations.

2. Higher education in Tanzania

The higher education sector in Tanzania began in 1961 when the country gained independence from Britain. It began with one university college affiliated with the University of London. The development of higher education in Tanzania and Africa in general was hindered by the restrictive nature of colonial educational policies. Colonial policies gradually discouraged Africans from pursuing higher education because of the fear of educated Africans fomenting resistance to colonial rule (Zeleza, 2009). At the time of independence, many African countries faced a shortage of educated individuals to serve as public administrators and to run universities. As a result, expatriates who continued to follow the academic models of the former colonial powers predominantly filled senior positions in African universities (Assié-Lumumba, 2006; Ekundayo & Ekundayo, 2009). Due to a lack of educated personnel in many high-priority development areas, newly independent African states assigned African national universities the task of training civil servants. However, this training predominantly focused on teaching (Assié-Lumumba, 2006; Ekundayo & Ekundayo, 2009), which created a poor foundation for future research endeavours in these universities.

University growth in Tanzania peaked in the 2000s due to the liberalisation of education and a shift in government policy towards private sector partnerships. Following the liberalisation of education policies, the number of universities in Tanzania increased significantly from one in 1961 and two in 1990 to 49 from the 2000s to the present − 2023 (Tanzania Commission for Universities [TCU], 2023). Of the 49 universities, 19 are public and 30 are private (Tanzania Commission for Universities [TCU], 2023). The main difference between public and private universities in Tanzania is their funding and management. Public universities are funded by the government and overseen by civil servants, whereas private universities are financed and administered by their proprietors. Although public and private universities in Tanzania operate autonomously with individual charters, they are under national supervision by the Tanzania Commission for Universities, an agency of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoEST).

In 2023, Tanzania’s higher education academic workforce consisted of 8,507 members who taught approximately 240,523 students across various degree programmes (Tanzania Commission for Universities [TCU], 2023). These statistics demonstrate that the number of academic personnel is inadequate compared to the number of enrolled students, exacerbating the disparity in the staff-student ratio. To address the shortage of academic staff, universities, particularly private and newly established public ones, rely heavily on part-time academic staff. These individuals are employed full-time at established public universities, raising concerns about the quality of education provided by institutions that rely on part-time academic staff. Similarly, part-time work can limit the time and energy available for academic staff to engage in research and knowledge-exchange activities. Essop (2020) noted a similar concern regarding the effects of relying on part-time and contracted staff for academic work in South Africa. He argued that the increased use of temporary academic staff reflects the growing casualisation and precariousness of academic work (p. 37), which can have negative impacts on research performance and the development of a research culture.

Additionally, the qualification level of academic staff members in Tanzanian HEIs is a concern. Unfortunately, there are no national-level aggregated data available that provide information on the qualifications of the academic staff. Recent statistics from a national university indicate that by the end of the 2020/2021 academic year, 52% of its academic staff did not hold a doctoral degree (University of Dar es Salaam, 2022, pp. 28–29). This highlights the importance of developing a research culture to support research and education activities in the country’s HEIs.

The Tanzanian government allocates approximately 17–20% of the total national budget to the education sector each year (United Republic of Tanzania [URT], 2023). However, the funds allocated by the government to education are insufficient to meet the requirements of the country’s education sector. The Higher Education Students’ Loans Board (HELSB) receives at least 50% of the higher education budget to facilitate the provision of student loans, while universities typically receive only 20–30% of their annual budget requests (United Republic of Tanzania [URT], 2023). The Tanzanian government spends only 0.3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on research and development (R&D) (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 2015). The allocation of only 0.3% goes against the agreement made at the Ninth Executive Council of the African Union held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2007. The council strongly urged member states to promote Africa’s research and development and develop innovation strategies for wealth creation and economic development by allocating at least 1% of their national GDP by 2010 (African Union, 2007). This situation makes Tanzania dependent on international donor (Global North) funding for its higher education and research activities, which often leads to external pressures when it comes to research priorities and the choice of collaborators. This prompts consideration of whether a country’s HEIs are adequately prepared to attain financial and operational independence.

3. Research culture in higher education

Research culture is conceptualised as the attitudes, ideals and beliefs about research within the organisation, held by both management and members, which manifest themselves in a commitment to excellence in the discovery and advancement of knowledge for the betterment of humankind. According to the Royal Society (2023), “Research culture encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of our research communities. It influences researchers’ career paths and determines the way that research is conducted and communicated”. The Royal Society’s statement is in line with Evans (2007) who defines research culture as “shared values, assumptions, beliefs, rituals and other forms of behaviour, the central focus of which is the acceptance and recognition of research practice and output as a valued, worthwhile and preeminent activity” (p. 2).

From the description of research culture presented so far, two important characteristics emerge, namely collegiality and learnability. First, collegiality is essential because research culture in institutions is seen as a collegial or collaborative activity. Hill (1999) asserts that one of the purposes of developing a research culture in HEIs is to create a situation in which research becomes and is seen as an interrelated group activity. As a result, collegiality enables academic staff to help each other develop ideas, critique each other’s work or suggest references that might improve their research after discussion. Research collaboration between colleagues and/or institutions is indicative of a thriving research culture in an institution and a country, as opposed to individuals conducting research on their own (Heleta & Jithoo, 2023; Mgqwashu, 2023; Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018). Second, learnability is part of developing a research culture because research culture is a learned process from experiences and what Hill (1999, p. 4) calls “significant others”. These significant others may include friends, colleagues, managers and research supervisors who are seen as role models and mentors. Research assumptions and behaviours are shared primarily through interaction and socialisation with colleagues, mentors, management and even the environment. It follows, then, that these research assumptions and behaviours are accepted and seen as important to practise, which are eventually acquired and become an integral part of the research life of academic staff and hence of their culture.

Brennan (1995) identified two dimensions as essential to the creation of a thriving research culture: institutional activity and national activity. Research as an institutional activity is when one understands that research is carried out to maintain the intellectual rigour of the institution or, in other words, “basic research”. Similarly, research as a national activity is when one understands that research is carried out for the development process, linked to issues of national economic advantage and competitiveness (applied research). Institutions that strive to develop a research culture capable of linking the two cogs – institutional and national activities – are increasingly operating or aspiring to operate at global levels of excellence.

Higher education institutions can foster a research culture in a number of ways, which include funding for research projects, access to research facilities and opportunities for professional development (Cannell et al., 2023; Hill & Haigh, 2012; Quimbo & Sulabo, 2014). Another key strategy is to create a culture of collaboration and mentorship, which involves encouraging faculty to work together on research projects, providing more training to potential and active researchers within the university and providing opportunities for junior faculty to learn from senior faculty (Heleta & Jithoo, 2023; Mgqwashu, 2023). In a mixed-method study conducted in 34 sub-Saharan African countries, Mouton, Prozesky, and Lutomiah (2018) highlighted the importance of collaboration in higher education institutions. Several interviewees participated in their study stated that they engaged in collaborative efforts to secure and increase (international) funding, thereby advancing their research careers. Many respondents called for additional support from mentors and at the institutional level to aid them in their efforts to collaborate more (Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018). Cannell et al. (2023) also revealed that the writing group of postgraduate research students wishing to develop their research writing skills became a supportive community of practice model that enhanced individual writing confidence, research writing identity and overall wellbeing at the University of South Africa.

In addition, fostering a research culture could involve developing policies and guidance that support the success of researchers in all stages of their career, such as decreasing the workload of academic staff engaged in scientific research, recognising and rewarding research excellence through financial incentives for research publications and grants, and offering faculty members opportunities for career advancement based on their research achievements. In their study to determine the research culture of universities in the Philippines, Quimbo and Sulabo (2014) found that the most common incentives offered to academic staff in all five universities studied were honorarium and credit load. These incentives were found to contribute significantly to the academic staff’s research self-efficacy and productivity. In contrast, Mouton and Prozesky (2018, p. 146) provide evidence of the challenges that young scientists in sub-Saharan Africa face when acculturating to the university research culture and “breaking into” the scientific publication system. Many young scientists report a lack of a supportive research environment at their institutions, including heavy teaching workloads and a lack of mentoring and training support.

4. Methodology

We used a qualitative research approach to engage with participants from four universities in Tanzania. The participants provided invaluable insights into their experiences, practices and perspectives regarding the development of a research culture in their respective institutions. A multiple case study design was used because the study was conducted in four universities with different characteristics in terms of ownership, location, date of establishment and accreditation status. All four participating universities received full accreditation from the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU), a national regulatory body for higher education in Tanzania. Two of the universities were public, while the other two were private, with different dates of establishment, and located in different regions of Tanzania, namely Dar es Salaam, Morogoro, Arusha, and Mwanza.

Approval for the study was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee, which is responsible for issuing research permits to researchers in Tanzania. In addition, individual consent was obtained from participants at the four participating universities who were duly informed of the ethical issues relevant to their involvement in the study. Participants were assured that the information they provided would remain confidential and would be used only for research purposes. The study involved four research sites; however, to ensure anonymity in the reporting of findings, the four research sites were coded as RS1, RS2, RS3 and RS4, where RS stands for Research Site. Participants in this study were identified by their academic title or leadership position only, e.g. Academic Staff, Postgraduate Student, or Director of Research.

A group of 29 participants, consisting of two Deputy Vice-Chancellors (DVCs), three Directors of Research, eight Faculty Deans, eight academic staff members and eight postgraduate students, were involved in the data collection process. The selection of participants was based on both purposive and stratified sampling techniques. Purposive sampling was used to select university leaders: DVCs, Directors of Research and Faculty Deans, as they were the only individuals in these positions and were strategically positioned to provide necessary information. In each participating university, the DVC and research-related Directors and Deans were selected from both the social and natural sciences. Stratified sampling was used to select participants from the academic staff and postgraduate students, considering their discipline (social sciences or natural sciences) and seniority. The study included two senior academic staff members with at least a PhD and two postgraduate students from each university, covering both the natural and social sciences.

We used in-depth face-to-face semi-structured interviews to collect data from all participants. The main research question that guided the interviews was: “How do Tanzanian HEIs develop a research culture?” To obtain the participants’ perspectives, the following specific research questions were asked: How is the career structure of academic staff organised at your institution? What procedures are adopted to evaluate the performance of academic staff? Does your institution have a research policy or guidelines? If so, to what extent is the current research policy effective in promoting a research culture within your institution? How does your institution provide resources for academic staff to conduct research? What methods do your institutions use to cultivate a research culture among academics? Do these approaches or strategies indicate viability for improving university or faculty research productivity? Is there evidence?

Interviews provided the researcher with the necessary context to interpret participants’ actions and decisions. In fact, the approaches to developing a research culture in Tanzanian universities could best be generated by interviewing relevant individuals, as dialogue is the most common and powerful method of accessing individuals’ mental processes, revealing the meaning of their experiences, and understanding the world from their perspective (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). All interview sessions were conducted in the university environment, particularly in the participants’ offices. As agreed upon, both the researcher and participants found these settings comfortable. Prior to each interview session, participants were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. The interviews lasted between 30 and 50 minutes. To supplement manual note-taking, the interviews were audio-recorded with the consent of the interviewees. The recorded interviews were transcribed to minimise bias and provide a comprehensive record of the data generated.

We used Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis to analyse the data, which involved six main stages: familiarisation with data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 87). The researcher was involved in each stage of thematic analysis to speed up the data analysis process and provide insightful findings. The outcome of the data analysis framed five themes that represented significant approaches adopted by participating HEIs in their efforts to cultivate a research culture. These themes included creating research governance tools, reinforcing desired research behaviours, developing research capacity, supporting research dissemination, and promoting research collaboration and networking. The findings of the study are presented in the following section.

5. Findings

The findings are presented in subsections in line with the five main themes resulting from the data analysis.

5.1. Creating research governance tools

All four participating universities have established research offices called the Directorate of Research and Innovation, with officials responsible for facilitating and recording university research. The exception was one public university which, in addition to establishing the Directorate for Research and Innovation, had gone further and created the post of Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) for research in addition to the two DVCs already in place (one academic and the other financial). The creation of the position of DVC-Research at this institution is a result of the university’s recognition that there needs to be given a greater focus on research. During the interviews, one academic staff member shared this information.

The University of […] recently introduced the Office of DVC-Research. This is deliberate to try to raise the profile of research activities at the university among lecturers, senior lecturers and professors, as well as to monitor the research activities of different units of the university. Academic Staff: RS3

Participating universities have also developed tools for good research practices, such as research ethics policies, guidelines for the assessment of academic staff performance, scholarly publication and dissemination guidelines, and intellectual property (IP) policies. These tools have been deliberately developed to provide guidance on how to conduct ethically sound research, highlight national research priorities, disseminate research outputs, and protect the intellectual assets and efforts of researchers and universities. However, research and IP policies only exist in participating public universities. The lack of research and IP policies in private universities is attributed to the nascent nature of these institutions, which began operating in Tanzania in the 2000s.

Moreover, all four participating universities integrated research into their respective university missions, academic staff career paths, and promotion criteria. The career structure of academic staff consists of six ranks: Professor, Associate Professor, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer, Assistant Lecturer and Tutorial Assistant. Progression through ranks – for example, from Tutorial Assistant, the lowest rank, to Professor, the highest – is linked to research and publication. This is clearly illustrated in the following statements made by the two participants.

If we want to promote academic staff, there should be some kind of research and publication. In the promotion criteria, there are some points for research and publications as well as teaching. Therefore, academic staff must achieve these points to be promoted. Director of Research: RS4

Lecturers are expected to conduct research and publish papers in journals, and they use these published papers for promotion. If the papers are accepted by a panel of professors, these lecturers are promoted. Postgraduate Student: RS3

One of the criteria used to promote someone is the number of publications, such as refereed journal articles, books, book chapters, and technical notes. Academic Staff: RS1

The foregoing responses suggest that research constitutes an essential prerequisite for academic staff members to advance for promotion. University guidelines for the recruitment and promotion of academic staff also indicate that the research required for promotion is primarily in the form of publications in refereed journals and in the form of books, book chapters, consultancy reports and published conference papers. The research and publication guidelines applicable to all universities in Tanzania are adapted from the National Harmonised Scheme of Service for Academic Staff 2022 (United Republic of Tanzania [URT], 2022) and the National Handbook for Standards and Guidelines for University Education in Tanzania 2019 by the Tanzania Commission for Universities (TCU, 2019).

5.2. Reinforcing the desired research behaviour

This approach relies on a combination of positive and negative reinforcements, including career advancement, financial incentives and demotions. In terms of career advancement, all four participating universities require their academic staff to have a number of peer-reviewed publications to move up the career ladder. For example, to move from Tutorial Assistantship to Assistant Lectureship, a research-based master’s degree is required. Promotion from Assistant Lectureship to Lectureship requires a Ph.D. A faculty member from one of the participating universities shared the following:

If the person employed here started with a Tutorial Assistant, after a while, she/he must go for a master’s programme to obtain a master’s degree. Eventually, one will become an Assistant Lecturer after obtaining a master’s degree. Then, one has to go to PhD studies, where he/she will move to become a Lecturer. Academic Staff: RS4

Promotion from Lectureship to Senior Lectureship requires a PhD and at least three single-authored or six co-authored peer-reviewed publications since the last promotion. Promotion from Senior Lectureship to Associate Professorship requires a PhD and at least six single-authored or 12 co-authored peer-reviewed publications since the last promotion. Finally, promotion from Associate Professorship to Professorship requires a PhD and at least seven single-authored or 14 co-authored peer-reviewed publications since the last promotion. A minimum of three years in a single appointment is required before promotion to the next level, and promotion to the rank of Professor requires peer-reviewed articles published in international journals. Publications required for promotion include journal articles, books, book chapters, dictionaries, consultancy reports and published conference papers. Peer-reviewed journal articles were highly valued and preferred by all participating universities. One could not be promoted if the weight of peer-reviewed journal articles in one’s promotion portfolio was less than 50%. The following statement confirms the requirements for academic promotion.

Academics are encouraged to publish in reputable journals at this university. For example, to become an Associate or Full Professor, you must publish in international journals indexed in Scopus or the Web of Science. In addition, papers cannot be approved until they are read by at least two independent referees, who are experts in the field. This peer review segment helps ensure quality but also monitors where someone is publishing. Faculty Dean: RS2

The peer-review process is assessed in two ways. First, publications considered for promotion must have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals (such as those listed in Web of Science or Scopus) or similar publication outlets, both nationally and internationally. Second, publications that are considered for promotion, whether they have undergone a rigorous peer review process at the time of publication, are also assessed by two impartial referees, one internal and one external to the university.

Financial incentives consist of financial rewards for the research process and research output or product. Rewarding the research process involves funding academic research proposals or projects that have the potential to produce valuable research outputs. To access such funding, academics must submit their research proposals in response to a university call for research proposals. Although the financial rewarding of the research process is practiced by all participating universities, the findings suggest that the approach is erratic and highly dependent on the availability of research funding. This is captured in the following statements from two academic staff members.

Monetary rewards for research are inadequate and, in some cases, unreliable; you cannot be sure if you will get the money this year or not. From my own experience, I won a research fund two years ago; it was about seven million Tanzanian shillings [equivalent to $2900], but to date, I have not received the money. This means that the next time the university announces a call for proposals, I will be reluctant to respond. Academic Staff: RS1

I once led the project as a PI [Principal Investigator]. I applied for the first tranche of funding and we were told that the university had no money at that time. They called me in early June to fill in the imprest form, and they said that you had to retire by the end of June. You can ask yourself what kind of research project can be done in one or two weeks? Even then, as academic staff, we are not just idly waiting for one activity or project; we also have to implement other activities. Academic Staff: RS3

This implies that an unreliable source of research funding has led to a delay in the release of funds for conducting accepted research projects. Such situations discourage members of the university research community from seriously taking university calls for research proposals.

Similarly, the financial reward for research output consists of awarding a certain amount of money each year to academics active in research through their publications. This approach has been applied by two public universities, one of which started more recently, in 2022, and the other since 2010. The awards are based on research outputs, such as journal articles, books, book chapters, and patents published or registered during the year. At R4 University, awards ranged from 300,000 Tanzanian shillings (TZS) (equivalent to US$120) for each journal article or book chapter to 700,000 TZS (equivalent to US$290) for each book. The more publications researchers have in a year, the more money they would receive. One researcher boasted that he had received a publication prize of two million TZS (up to $840) in one year. While R3 University awards TZS 4,000,000 per patent to individuals who register patents based on university research projects, a total of TZS 3,000,000 to individuals who publish a scholarly book of more than 150–200 pages with a reputable international publisher, TZS 300,000 for a book chapter and TZS 500,000 for an article in a reputable international journal.

On the other hand, demotion is a punitive measure for dealing with academics who have been inactive in research. In this situation, academics are either left in their current title for the rest of their careers or are reclassified into administrative positions with lower salaries. This is evident from the following statements shared by academic staff members:

The University of [RS3] encourages people to do research and to publish. There’s no way you can go from, say, lecturer to senior lecturer to professor without publishing, and so the people who haven’t done that over the years have either retired without promotion or been re-categorised. Academic Staff: RS3

Academic staff who do not publish will not be promoted. I have examples of colleagues who have stayed in one position for 10 years, but they should have been promoted every three years if they had sufficient points from publications. Academic Staff: RS4

The statements suggest that academic staff without adequate research output are more likely to miss out on other benefits associated with career advancement, all of which contribute to an individual’s academic reputation, professional development and financial benefits.

5.3. Developing research capacity

The provision of research-based undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing education programmes is the primary approach used to achieve institutional research capacity development. Two of the participating private universities have incorporated research into their undergraduate programmes, with a research dissertation as a criterion for awarding a bachelor’s degree. During the interviews, both postgraduate students and academic staff members shared the following regarding developing research capacity.

It is a requirement at [RS2] that every third-year student must undertake research. There is also an opportunity for study tours in some courses; thereafter, we insist that students produce project reports which are then assessed and awarded marks. Academic Staff: RS2

What I know is that research, especially that culminated in a dissertation, is required for undergraduate and postgraduate students to complete their degree. Postgraduate Student: RS1

Again, all four participating universities offer various master’s and doctoral programmes. In these postgraduate programmes, students attend research courses before writing dissertations and theses. In addition to research training, there are regular postgraduate seminars in which students present their research proposals, reports and papers. In one public university, a peer-reviewed journal article (at least one) from a dissertation or thesis is one of the requirements for the successful completion of doctoral studies.

Although the participating universities have a range of postgraduate programmes, master’s programmes dominate postgraduate education. In all four participating universities, the number of students enrolled in master’s programmes was higher than the number of students enrolled in doctoral programmes. For example, two of the universities had a total of 14 doctoral students over the 9-year enrolment period, while the number of master’s students was 6,700.

5.4. Supporting research dissemination

Participating universities fund the publication of in-house university journals and provide financial support and/or permission to their academic staff to attend research dissemination events such as conferences and workshops, both locally and internationally. Two Faculty Deans from the participating universities highlighted the following in relation to in-house journal publication.

When we started our Law Journal, we obtained capital from the university. They financed the launch of the journal, and we promised them that after two years, we would be independent, meaning that we would pay our own expenses. Then, we realised that two years was not enough. Therefore, we asked for another two years of support. Faculty Dean: RS4

Speaking of our Journal of Education, the first two volumes, which came out almost three years ago, were all funded by the university. Then, the university said that we should sponsor the publication of the next volume. The next volume, which will be published around April, is funded by the Faculty. Faculty Dean: RS2

Budgetary constraints tend to limit the financial support that is provided for research dissemination. Only a few start up issues or volumes of newly established in-house journals have been funded. Similarly, academic staff members are rarely funded to attend research conferences and workshops. However, the opportunity to attend research conferences and workshops is available to any member of the academic staff who can self-fund or secure sponsorship elsewhere.

The surveyed universities also participated in an annual free national science and technology exhibition organised by the Tanzania Commission for Universities. This national exhibition targets the universities and research institutions in the country. At exhibitions, universities display their research publications and innovations and market themselves to the public. The following statement from the Director of Research provides further explanation.

Our university participates in annual science and technology exhibitions where universities are invited to exhibit their innovations, ongoing research and publications. There, universities share their knowledge and create mutual understanding, and sometimes this understanding leads to multidisciplinary research. Director of Research: RS3

Similarly, some universities in the country organise annual research exhibitions at the institutional level, including one of the universities involved in this study. Research exhibitions are popularly known as “Research Weeks”, and they last for at least three days during one week in summer. During the research weeks, different academics and students get an opportunity to showcase their research work and present their research results or papers. The target audience for the research weeks included secondary school students and teachers, alumni of the host institution, donors, policy makers, government officials, industry partners, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and R&D institutions. The main objective is to bring together different groups of researchers to share and promote scientific and creative research and to highlight some of their best research results and innovations. During these events, the university community recognises students, faculty, departments, schools, colleges and institutes for their cutting-edge scholarly and creative research activities through a series of discussions, forums, dialogues, symposia, exhibitions, seminars, workshops and award ceremonies.

5.5. Promoting research collaboration and networking

All four participating universities collaborate and network with other HEIs and development partners both locally and internationally. The main aim of these collaborations is to raise the research profile of the institutions and enhance the reputation and professional visibility of the academic staff. Interviews with participants revealed that these institutions collaborate and network with universities such as Helsinki, Abo Akademi, VIA, Erlangen Nurnberg and Glasgow in Europe; Kyungpook, Dalian, Tongji and Shanghai Jiao Tong in Asia; Ohio and Columbus in North America; and multilateral organisations, including the World Bank, Royal Norwegian Government, UN agencies, German Academic Exchange Service, Danish International Development Agency, Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency, International Development Research Centre and Japan International Cooperation Agency. The statements from the participants underlined the following points.

[RS1] has signed a record number of collaborative agreements with prestigious universities around the world, which will lead to an increase in research collaboration, student and staff exchanges, sabbaticals, mutual assistance in establishing new programmes and the exchange of information and publications. An important result of the internationalisation efforts is the agreement between our university and Zhejiang Normal University, People’s Republic of China, which culminated in the establishment of the Confucius Institute. DVC Research: RS1

Most of the collaborations we have here are international, for example, Denmark, Belgium and China, although we are also open to local institutions. We rely mostly on external universities because they have resources and expertise. Again, there are people from our institution who get the opportunity to go to these international universities for PhD studies. Director of Research: RS3

At [R4], for example, between 2012 and 2016, the collaborations led to five joint master programmes between this local institution and four international institutions, sponsorship opportunities for 15 masters and 12 doctoral students, and four major international research projects. Faculty Dean: RS4

According to the participants, research collaborations and networks have improved the exchange of experts and expertise as well as the sharing of learning materials and infrastructure, such as IT services and libraries. The collaborations also resulted in the joint offering of master’s programmes, funding opportunities for postgraduate students and international research projects.

Despite some successes to date, the participating universities also reported that they faced bottlenecks in making effective use of research collaborations and networks. These bottlenecks include insufficient and inexperienced academic staff to bid for research projects, an underdeveloped intellectual property system, and poor links between universities and industry, as indicated in the following statements.

I think there is a weak link between research institutions, including universities, the government, and the people in the industry and the community who are supposed to use the research results. This situation diminishes institutional efforts to promote internal collaboration and disseminate research results beyond academic circles. Academic Staff: RS2

There is a problem of lack of capacity to write winning proposals, because members of the academic staff in my department have been trying to write proposals, but when competing with others, they are not selected. Faculty Dean: RS4

The university face challenges in terms of research management. For example, we still need to develop an intellectual property policy that will enable us to benefit from all research collaborations, both local and international. Director of Research: RS2

These statements suggest that the bottlenecks faced by participating universities hampered their efforts to take full advantage of research collaborations.

6. Discussion

This paper reports the findings of a study that examined how Tanzanian HEIs cultivate a research culture. The main approaches used include developing research governance instruments, reinforcing desired research behaviour, developing research capacity, supporting research dissemination and promoting research collaboration and networking.

The participating HEIs have implemented research governance instruments, such as research ethics and intellectual property policies, created research offices, such as the DVC-Research and the Directorate of Research and Innovation, and integrated research into the university’s mission and career path. These findings are consistent with those of other studies. For example, in South Africa, Cloete and Bunting (2013) found that all five universities surveyed had research offices, research centres, research-based career paths, research-led university missions and intellectual property services. These South African universities have also created a dual-level leadership system in relation to the core functions of the university to effectively manage teaching and research. The research leadership consists of the Deputy Vice Chancellor (DVC) at the top, the Director of Research in the upper middle, the College or School or Faculty Dean for Research in the middle, and the Departmental Research Leader at the bottom. The teaching leadership followed the same order as the research leadership, with the DVC for teaching and other successive positions or offices. Contrasting findings were reported by Dessie and Mesfin (2013) in Ethiopia, Nguyen (2016) in Vietnam and Heng, Hamid, and Khan (2022) in Cambodia. These studies found an unpaired system of university governance overseeing both teaching and research, a lack of clearly defined career paths and professional ranks for academic staff and confusing research policies.

As the study reports, only one university in Tanzania has recently established a DVC Research Office, and even then the DVC Research Office lacks a broad-based system of support from the bottom up, with successive offices, such as those of the College or School or Faculty or Department, operating under an unpaired governance system. The establishment of only the DVC – Research Office at the top leadership level is in line with the standardisation or centralisation orientation, as opposed to the diversification of research management in the university environment (Cloete & Bunting, 2013; Temoso, Tran, & Myeki, 2023). Standardisation implies that research procedures and structures are centrally developed and dominated, which many consider to be unhealthy for the development of a sustainable research culture. Diversification implies a commendable degree of intra-institutional autonomy, where organs at the lowest level, such as the faculty or department, are also involved in the development and control of research standards and structures (Cloete & Bunting, 2013; Olsson & Cooke, 2013; Temoso, Tran, & Myeki, 2023). In this regard, it is essential for Tanzanian universities to subscribe to the dual-level leadership profile in order to strengthen the effective management of research and teaching.

The dual-level system has been successful in enhancing the research portfolios of South African universities. South Africa is the only African nation with a large number of the world’s best universities, according to the 2023 Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings. In this THE World University Rankings, South Africa is represented by 15 universities, while Tanzania is represented by two universities (THE World University Rankings, 2023). The 2021 ranking marks the first time Tanzania has appeared in THE World University Rankings since its inception in 2004. Despite reservations about these international university rankings due to data reliability (Hazelkorn, 2015), they are indicators of a successful HEI (Toutkoushian & Webber, 2011) and are closely watched by politicians, policymakers, researchers, students and the general public around the world. It is widely accepted that top-ranked HEIs are often more research productive and contribute more to society than other universities (Hazelkorn, 2015; Toutkoushian & Webber, 2011).

Moreover, universities in Tanzania have institutionalised various incentive schemes to encourage research behaviour. The main incentives are financial and career advancement based on the research performance of individual academic staff. However, financial incentives were found to be erratic and highly dependent on the availability of research funding and the affinity of university administrators for research. In their studies, Cloete and Bunting (2013) in South Africa, Quimbo and Sulabo (2014) in the Philippines, Nguyen (2016) in Vietnam and Xu, Oancea, and Rose (2021) in China found the existence of different incentives to promote university research, such as academic promotion based on research performance and different forms of financial rewards.

Incentives have been found to enable a research culture in universities, but this is highly dependent on the type of incentive and how it is administered (Mgqwashu, 2023; Mouton & Prozesky, 2018; Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018). For example, despite being reported as the dominant and most reliable incentive scheme to encourage research behaviour in Tanzania, research-based promotions lack strong measures to deal with inactive researchers who, for one reason or another, choose not to engage in research throughout their careers. In the participating universities, the standard length of stay in a position is three to four years, and there is a provision in the institutional policy guidelines that a member of the academic staff who has been stagnating in a position for six years without promotion should seek alternative employment elsewhere or be reclassified. Notwithstanding this provision, the findings of this study show that there were cases where the majority of academic staff in the universities surveyed remained in the same position for more than 10 years due to a lack of adequate research output. Senior university leaders involved in the study admitted that dismissals for the lack of research productivity by individual academics are rarely exercised due to severe academic staff shortages. Since some academics who often fall into the trap of not producing enough research to be promoted are senior academics with PhDs, university leaders see it imperative to retain these academics to teach students, even if such lecturers remain inactive in research. In this respect, faculty members who are not active in research tend to remain in their current academic positions throughout their careers until retirement, concentrating only on teaching. Such an approach could entertain and attract more passive researchers to higher education, which requires energetic and sophisticated individuals to engage in knowledge production and translation to lead the country’s development.

In academic institutions, research has been shown to have a positive impact not only on the status of academics, but also on the quality of teaching and learning, which in turn leads to innovation for both teachers and students; ultimately the cycle of knowledge continues in a continuum (Hajdarpasic, Brew, & Popenici, 2015; Heng, Hamid, & Khan, 2022; Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018; Temoso, Tran, & Myeki, 2023). Thus, the unintended consequence of retaining less active researchers is that the higher standards required of such universities to promote research-led teaching, and to make research an integral part of their existence, are ultimately compromised. In this situation, Tanzanian universities might consider establishing teaching posts where less active researchers can be explicitly identified and relegated to teaching posts. In this way, universities in the country could be assured of a record of active and less active researchers to allow for better planning of their core academic functions and avoid the current situation where institutional policies and practices generally allow academics to choose an active or passive research path without any repercussions on their tenures.

Furthermore, the participating universities had limited opportunities for most undergraduate students to be exposed to research, as only private universities integrated research into undergraduate programmes. The public higher education sector in Tanzania has the largest number of undergraduate students. By the 2022/2023 academic year, it had enrolled at least 67.5% (162,553 of 240,523) of the total number of undergraduate students (TCU, 2023, p. 7). This means that in the absence of research-led undergraduate programmes, especially in most public universities, many students in Tanzania complete their undergraduate studies without a strong research foundation. Even the postgraduate training on which the Tanzanian universities largely relied mainly consisted of master’s programmes. During the fieldwork, one public university had only 13 PhD graduates in an eight-year period, while it had 6,566 master’s graduates. Similarly, one participating private university had only one doctoral programme with only two students, while around 500 students were enrolled in various master’s programmes. The statistics on doctoral enrolment at the surveyed universities reflect the total national doctoral enrolment. In the 2022/2023 academic year, doctoral enrolment in Tanzania was 11% (1,652 of 15,214), while master’s enrolment accounted for 89% of total postgraduate enrolment (Tanzania Commission for Universities [TCU], 2023).

Other African universities also experience a shortage of PhD graduates. In their study of eight leading universities in eight sub-Saharan African countries, Cloete, Bunting, and Maassen (2015) found that undergraduate enrolment accounted for 88% of the total enrolment at each of the seven institutions, with the exception of one, which accounted for 70% of undergraduate enrolment. This implies that the current model of postgraduate research training in Tanzania and Africa, which enrols few doctoral students, provides a poor foundation for the continent’s human resources with advanced research and analytical skills. With this trend, Africa will continue to experience a shortage of skilled and innovative personnel, not only in universities but also in various public and private offices outside the university environment (Cloete, Bunting, & Maassen, 2015). Postgraduate programmes, especially at the doctoral level, are important for the development of university lecturers and professors, and thus, for the quality of higher education now and in the future. Doctoral graduates are also required to operate independent R&D institutions and high-tech manufacturing firms.

Similarly, it is a professional duty of a university to disseminate research-based knowledge to the academic society and the wider community so that the findings can be used to facilitate teaching and learning in educational institutions and the production of better policies, goods and services in government and commercial organisations (Gaus & Hall, 2016; Olmos-Pe˜nuela, Castro-Martínez, & D’Este, 2014), ultimately supporting socio-economic development. However, the approach to research dissemination in the participating universities was found to be too weak to ensure that university research knowledge reaches the right people or destinations at the right time. The approach to research dissemination is typically based on supporting the university research community in disseminating research knowledge largely to the academic community in the form of journals and conferences. Journal publications and conference presentations belong to a closed system of research knowledge dissemination because they focus on scholar-to-scholar communication as opposed to an open system that includes scholar-to-government, scholar-to-industry and scholar-to-community knowledge communication (Trotter, Kell, Willmers, Gray, & King, 2014). The university research community has less incentive to disseminate its research or knowledge beyond academic audiences to groups such as policymakers, industry personnel, community leaders and members.

We also found that the participating universities are collaborating and networking with different universities and organisations in their quest to strengthen their research culture. Institutional research collaboration and networking have been identified in various studies as an integral part of established approaches to promoting a sustainable research culture. For example, communities of research practice have been found to be important in building the research capacity of HEI researchers in Norway, Australia, the UK, New Zealand and Malaysia (Cannell et al., 2023; Hill & Haigh, 2012; Jeyaraj & Wald, 2023). Similarly, collaborative practices were found to contribute significantly to the research productivity of both experienced and early career researchers across all surveyed sub-Saharan African countries (Kassie & Angervall, 2022; Mouton & Prozesky, 2018; Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018; Okon, Owan, & Owan, 2022; Owusu-Agyeman, 2022).

Faced with challenges such as inexperienced academic staff and insufficient investment in research, Tanzanian academics collaborate primarily with counterparts outside the African continent. In line with this, Mouton and Blanckenberg (2018) provide bibliometric data on the lack of intra-African research collaboration. As in many African countries, most research projects and collaboration activities in Tanzania are largely funded by international donor institutions. This situation often leads to a lopsided system of collaboration regarding research priorities and the choice of collaborators. The donor funding can come with strings attached that would go unchallenged by developing country partners in desperate need of research funding. Mouton, Prozesky, and Lutomiah (2018) mixed-method study conducted in 34 sub-Saharan African countries revealed that academics in these countries sometimes feel disadvantaged when participating in international collaborations. “Some interviewees made explicit reference to the fact that the locus of decision-making in such collaborations does not lie with them” (Mouton, Prozesky, & Lutomiah, 2018, p. 173). In this regard, there is a need to strengthen domestic collaborations and networks that can encourage universities to participate in international collaborations as equal partners, rather than as weak institutions in dire need of support and funding.

7. Conclusion

This paper reports the findings of a study that examined how Tanzanian higher education institutions (HEIs) cultivate a research culture. The paper has shown that research culture in the four participating Tanzanian HEIs is cultivated by creating research governance tools, reinforcing desired research behaviours, building research capacity, supporting research dissemination and promoting research collaboration and networking. These approaches to research development were found to be less rigorous in fostering a robust research culture because many structural constraints remain that need to be addressed by key stakeholders in the higher education sector. These constraints refer specifically to the unpaired system of university governance that oversees both teaching and research, the lack of strong measures to deal with inactive researchers, limited opportunities for research-based undergraduate education, a shortage of PhD programmes, an unsupportive environment for disseminating research knowledge to the non-academic community, the lack of intra-African research collaboration, and the continued dependence on international funding from the Global North for research activities. In line with Xu, Oancea, and Rose (2021), we conclude that universities committed to cultivating a research culture should prioritise strategies that promote an equitable, transparent and inclusive research environment that recognises and supports academics as critical thinkers, researchers, educators and learners rather than simply as producers of measurable research outputs.

Our study contributes to the existing body of knowledge on the development of a research culture in higher education by addressing how Tanzanian HEIs develop such a culture. It also provides practical knowledge that can be used to develop effective higher education policies and practices to create a thriving research culture in Tanzania and other countries with similar demographic, social, cultural and economic characteristics. The study makes the following suggestions.

First, universities in Tanzania should subscribe to a dual-level leadership system in relation to the core functions of the university to effectively manage teaching and research. This entails appointing separate individuals to oversee research and teaching activities at the departmental, faculty, directorate, and deputy vice-chancellor level. Second, there is a need to formulate and implement viable institutional research policies and intellectual property frameworks to guide ethically informed and nationally relevant research agendas and protect the rights and efforts of institutions and researchers. Third, there is a need to provide appropriate incentives for active researchers and encourage more institutional and international research collaboration. It is also essential that universities adhere to their guidelines and policies on career advancement, which requires the reclassification or dismissal of academic staff who exceed a limited number of years in a position without valid reasons for promotion. Fourth, there is a need to develop a research-oriented undergraduate curriculum and improve the provision of postgraduate education to promote an ingrained research culture. Fifth, there is a need to support academic staff financially and intellectually in publishing and disseminating their research results to academic and non-academic communities. Accordingly, universities should train and motivate academic staff to use Web 2 technologies, such as ResearchGate, Facebook, Twitter and institutional research repositories to disseminate their research outputs so that they can reach a wider and more distant audience.

Ethics statement

The current study met the ethics/human subject requirements of researchers’ institution at the time the data were collected. Apart from being granted research clearance to conduct the study, key ethical principles have been observed in the current study including informed consent, voluntary participation, respects for participants, rights of participants to withdraw, anonymity and confidentiality, and honesty.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2024.2342012

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Daniel Sidney Fussy

Daniel Sidney Fussy is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Educational Foundations and Management at Mkwawa University College of Education (MUCE) – a Constituent College of the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. He holds a PhD in Education from the University of Glasgow, UK. His research interests include learning development, higher education research and development, literacy learning, research culture and researcher development, comparative education and teacher professionalism.

Notes

1. The findings reported in this paper is part of a Ph.D. study conducted by the author in 2017, entitled The Development of a Research Culture in Tanzania’s Higher Education System (Fussy, 2017). This paper does not differ much from the work undertaken in the PhD thesis, except that some statistics and literature have been updated to capture the latest academic facts and information.