This policy brief presents evidence from a study that examined university-industry partnerships in Kazakhstan. The research explored how, and in what ways, universities and industry collaborate; and how current and future partnerships might be improved. More specifically, the study investigated the benefits and challenges of university collaborations with industry, and identified the supporting factors and potential barriers to developing effective and sustainable university-industry partnerships.
Policy Context of UIP in Kazakhstan
Around the world the desire to promote knowledge-based and innovation-driven economies has made promoting collaboration between higher education and industry crucial for economic development over the past few decades. With university–industry partnerships (UIP), universities strive to realize their “third mission” by facilitating innovation, knowledge development, and technology transfer. In Kazakhstan, UIPs have been promoted and supported by the government through numerous state policies and strategic initiatives. These have been extensively articulated in various policy documents including (i) 2025 Strategic Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan (SDP), (ii) 2010-2014 State Program of Forced Industrial and Innovative Development of Kazakhstan (SPIID), (iii) 2015-2019 State Program of Industrial-Innovative Development of Kazakhstan (SPIID-2), (iv) Strategy Kazakhstan 2050: New Political Course of the Established State (SK2050), and (v) both 2016-2019 and 2020-2025 State Program of Education Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan (SPED) (Jonbekova et al., 2020). In particular, SPIID and SPIID-2 were key programs that brought a systematic approach in fostering UIPs in Kazakhstan.
However, despite these government policies and programs that emphasize collaboration between university and industry, there is little research that has explored the motivations for developing UIPs and perceptions about their benefits and challenges. Moreover, according to international reports, Kazakhstan is underperforming in terms of innovation and research commercialization. Therefore, our study examined the nature, motivations, benefits, and challenges for current UIPs in Kazakhstan. The overarching research question that guided the study: How and in what ways do universities and industries collaborate in Kazakhstan and how can the development of partnerships be facilitated?
The sub questions were:
- What are examples of current forms of university-industry partnerships?
- What are the benefits and challenges of university collaborations with industry?
- What are the supporting factors and potential barriers to developing effective and sustainable university-industry partnerships?
Methodology
The study examined UIPs at four public and four private universities in Kazakhstan. Using maximum variation sampling, the universities were selected based on university type (private and public), programs (STEM and social sciences), and location (across different regions in Kazakhstan). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 134 participants, including 55 state university participants, and 17 industry participants connected to state universities, as well as 44 private university participants, and 18 industry participants connected to private universities. University stakeholders included 29 senior leaders (rectors, vice-rectors, and deans) and 70 faculty members (47 and 23 participants from STEM and non-STEM fields, respectively). Participants from the industry worked closely with universities and represented senior leaders, human resource managers, and heads of departments. Most belonged to STEM disciplines, such as mining, metallurgy, engineering, IT, and construction, and were from central Kazakhstan (a highly industrial region) and Almaty (the largest financial center).
Findings
Purpose of UIP (university and industry views)
The findings demonstrate that the main purposes of UIPs are compliance with the government regulations, human capital development/future employability, and addressing industry core technological challenges. Government regulations play a crucial role in university-industry collaborations in Kazakhstan, through accreditation requirements and ranking systems. University rankings require continuous efforts such as fostering partnerships with industry, improving employment rates, increasing research capacity, and augmenting scholarly publications. According to industry stakeholders, UIPs are driven, to some extent, by governmental regulations, particularly in the natural resources sector. In this sector, companies are obligated to allocate a portion of their profits to support science and technology initiatives. The study findings indicate that the initiation of UIPs is primarily motivated by stakeholders’ adherence to government requirements rather than their intrinsic willingness to collaborate based on a belief that such partnerships could be a strategic advantage.
Universities are primarily driven to collaborate with industry out of a desire to enhance the employment opportunities for their students. Typically, universities form partnerships with industries experiencing a shortage of skilled workers. All universities have departments that closely monitor the career progression and salaries of their graduates. From the perspective of industry stakeholders, UIPs are a means of securing a competent and skilled workforce . These educational collaborations ensure that graduates are well-prepared for immediate employment after university, minimizing the need for extensive retraining. They also are a way to advance technologies through research. Some companies aimed to advance fundamental technologies through contractual and collaborative research. The significance of technology advancement was primarily emphasized by senior executives within STEM-focused companies. This can be related to the fact that these senior leaders are tasked with establishing the strategic course of the organization and acknowledge that technology plays a crucial role in shaping business strategies and attaining organizational objectives.Benefits of UIP
The study points to a number of benefits of UIPs. These including promoting the quality and relevance of education for the changing labor market, future employability of students, regional development, infrastructure development, and offering stipends and scholarships for students. Universities prioritized the enhancement of educational programs, which included initiatives like student internships, improvement of curricula, the introduction of dual education programs and branch campuses, and the engagement of industry professionals in teaching. These efforts aimed to equip students with practical knowledge and skills pertinent to the job market, providing them with hands-on experience in professional settings. By engaging in UIPs, industries obtain the opportunity to observe and assess the professional attributes of students. This facilitates the identification and recruitment of students who align most closely with the industries’ requirements and expectations upon graduation. Some industry partners offer financial support, such as stipends and scholarships, to promising students. These incentives are provided with the stipulation that the selected students commit to working with the company for a specified period after finishing their studies.
Another benefit of UIPs is contribution to regional development. The substantial contribution of UIPs to regional development lies in the cultivation of human capital, achieved through academic collaborations that demand active participation from both partners. UIPs are recognized as a vital mechanism for training skilled professionals tailored to the requirements of the local job market. A frequently highlighted contribution of UIPs to regional development is innovation aimed at enhancing local industrial sectors. This is manifested through research partnerships in STEM fields, where contractual research and consultancy empower faculty members to apply their expertise in developing technological solutions tailored to the needs of the local industry.
UIPs also benefit universities by developing university infrastructure. There are three ways in which these practices are implemented. Firstly, companies supply universities with hardware and software that mirrors what is used in industrial settings for educational purposes. Students trained on such equipment can seamlessly transition to work without the need for retraining or disrupting business processes. Secondly, universities upgrade their laboratory facilities through state educational grants, programs like SPIID, and business contracts. While the equipment acquired through these means is primarily intended for research, universities utilize it for student education after fulfilling their commitments to government and industry partners. Thirdly, companies assist universities in acquiring necessary equipment and establishing accredited laboratories by recommending producers and contractors.
Impediments to UIP development
The impediments to the development of UIPs are grouped into three levels, namely the organizational, inter-organizational and individual levels. At the organizational level, the main barriers to UIP development include poor research infrastructure, higher education bureaucracy, and industry’s poor awareness about university research/collaboration possibilities. Poor research infrastructure is related to the fact that research funds come mainly from ministerial research grants. The research investment from the industry are constrained due to a preference for short-term gains over long-term commitments. Industries seem inclined towards acquiring ready-made technology from overseas rather than engaging in extensive, uncertain research, as it’s seen as a more efficient and economical option for improving production methods. Bureaucracy within universities was also identified as a barrier that hindered the effectiveness of UIPs. Both industry partners and faculty members observed that the hierarchical decision-making processes within university administrative systems led to delays in approving documents and created bureaucratic obstacles in UIPs. Industry representatives expressed difficulties in maintaining effective communication due to frequent changes in public university administrative personnel. Additionally, the lack of awareness among industries about the potential for collaboration with universities impeded UIPs. Industry participants proposed that universities should take a more proactive approach in publicizing their accomplishments to a wider audience.
At the interorganizational level UIPs were challenged by issues with trust, communication, and problems with research funding allocation mechanisms. Industry participants highlighted concerns regarding trust and communication, citing difficulties in reaching out to universities and receiving prompt responses. They pointed out that the frequent turnover of administrative staff at universities posed challenges in establishing enduring partnerships. According to industry representatives, universities have limited capabilities in conducting high-caliber research, which could lead to technological advancements. Another notable interorganizational barrier involves challenges associated with the allocation of state research grants and the absence of clear procedures for distributing funds provided by subsoil users for research purposes. Respondents from social science disciplines admitted to facing setbacks in securing state grants related to UIPs, establishing business agreements with industries, and engaging in UIP-specific initiatives like SPIID. One possible rationale for this trend could be attributed to the government’s perception that STEM fields play a more substantial role in advancing the knowledge-based economy the country aspires to achieve.
At the individual level, UIPs were challenged by issues with research/entrepreneurship capacity, low motivation and interest, lack of resources and high teaching load. The faculty hesitated to engage in partnerships with industries due to their insufficient understanding of industrial requirements, a lack of familiarity with collaboration strategies, and a deficit in entrepreneurial thinking. Conversely, industries voiced criticism regarding the faculty’s limited research capabilities and professional proficiency. Another important barrier was the partners’ perceived low motivation and interest in UIPs. According to university stakeholders, industries are reluctant to engage with UIPs due to their inclination to maintain the current state of affairs as long as they achieve satisfactory financial outcomes. In other words, industries seem to be content with their current business practices, which meet their financial expectations, and, as such, do not perceive a necessity for technological advancements or exploring new opportunities. Considering the country’s general absence of a robust knowledge-intensive manufacturing sector and heavy reliance on a commodity-based economy, industries perceive minimal necessity for receiving research aid from universities. One more significant barrier at the individual level centered around lack of resources. Just as university participants faced hurdles in advancing UIPs due to heavy teaching commitments, the industry hesitated to accommodate students for internships because it necessitates assigning a supervisor from the industry who would be occupied with interns, thereby hindering their regular tasks. Finally, industry representatives believe that UIPs are challenged because of the bureaucratic decision-making processes and frequent turnover of administrative personnel within universities.
Key Recommendations
For policy makers
There is a need for establishing more transparent mechanisms for research funding allocation that are based on relevance and scientific potential. Transparent criteria would keep the research community engaged and motivated. It is also recommended to reduce the bureaucracy associated with state grants allocation. By simplifying regulatory procedures, policymakers can facilitate faster decision-making and empower scientists to do more research.
The government should prioritize a substantial increase in funding for research, both fundamental and applied. This will enable universities to transfer developed prototypes to industry. Furthermore, research funding needs greater flexibility in duration as the current short-term oriented practices push faculty to opt for safer and less ambitious research projects which in turn leads to less relevant outcomes for industry. Additionally, in order to make industries more interested in partnership with universities, incentives, such as tax reduction and others, need to be introduced.
More academic and financial autonomy should be granted to universities so that they have greater control over faculty research, infrastructure development, allocation of resources, diversification of revenue streams, etc. Instead of forcing universities to submit to the state and industry demands, it is better to motivate universities to invest into the development of faculty capacity and research and teaching infrastructure.
Reconsidering employability assessment criteria is necessary as current requirements place too much pressure on universities and make them almost solely responsible for graduate outcomes. In the same vein, the current mechanism of assessing and ranking educational programs in Kazakhstan should be revisited so that research, UIP and teaching receive greater weight and balance employment and labor market-driven indicators. This will motivate universities to improve the quality of research and teaching and to engage in more UIP projects.
For universities
Universities need to invest in improving faculty and students’ research capacity and research infrastructure. This, in turn, cannot be done without a balanced system of diversified funding sources that universities must find ways to improve.
Reducing faculty workload and introducing research-track career options will potentially attract more scholars into research and UIP. The same goes for implementing incentive and promotion policies that reward faculty members’ engagement with external partners and their contribution to UIP. Furthermore, inside university, UIP experience for faculty should become less bureaucratic and more supportive with generous assistance from administrative departments and improved communication practices. It would be beneficial to share good collaboration practices among faculty, university administration and industry to ensure success of future projects. It is also recommended to create more networking opportunities for faculty and industry professionals to boost collaborative relationships.
Our findings show that universities should use autonomy to the fullest and develop their own UIP agenda. This would mean less blind compliance with state and industry demands, switching focus from adjusting academic programs to market needs to developing research and becoming centers of innovation which are one step ahead of industry.
For industry
It is important for professional associations to become more active and take on a greater role in preparing work ready graduates. Eventually, the market will regulate itself and if industry needs can be fulfilled via UIP, this will happen naturally without stimulations from the government.
Conclusions
While the government seems to be the dominant player on the UIP agenda, universities and industries should adopt a more proactive and innovative approach in developing UIPS. Our study demonstrates that the major barriers take place at the organizational level and include poor research infrastructure, bureaucracy, limited faculty capacity to conduct quality research and limited university authority. Universities should deal with these issues in order to drive meaningful research and UIP outcomes. Another challenge is state regulations that tend to be inconsistent and change too often that inhibits developing long-term UIP strategies. This requires that universities have more power to decline unjustified and unfeasible regulations of the government. All in all, our study shows that the only way for UIP to flourish is for universities to position themselves as market players that can provide solutions for cutting costs and generating profit based on academic research. Highlighting potential for profit and practical applications of research will attract industries to partner with universities and see them as viable partners. This will lead to more dynamic and mutually beneficial partnerships.
This research was supported by Nazarbayev University Collaborative Research Program, Kazakhstan.