This study analysed recent transformation processes that have followed a commitment
by the Cameroon government to use higher education (HE) as a driver of its poverty
reduction strategies and to become an emergent industrialised economy by 2035. It was a
theory-driven qualitative study; a country case study of HE which took a constructivistinterpretive
approach to understand the perceptions of the use of HE in poverty
reduction. The theoretical framework was built from the literature on the integration of
HE in economic development with the major aim being to examine the links and missing
links between the practices and the theoretical framework. The study relates to the strand
of research which reveals that universities are going through a second revolution of the
socio-economic relevance of their mission, thus suggesting an entrepreneurial paradigm
encompassing a third mission. Participants in the study express belief in HE as a strategic
sector in the sense where HE can intervene to develop all the sectors of national life. HE
possesses the potential to address countries’ specific contexts of poverty depending on the
way it embraces the societal preoccupations into its operations. This involves teaching,
training, promoting and researching the problems of poverty and in general, that the
university should be in the business of understanding what poverty is and tailoring
knowledge to build capacities for poverty reduction.
The broad approach of a “national innovation system” (NIS) that was used to depict the
systemic environment of HE suggests that the university’s contribution to socio-economic
development in Cameroon could be more direct than it is supposed to be if given a strong
macro supportsystem with linkages. Some significantresults can and could always emerge
from the universities but are hardly moved to their logical conclusions because of lack of
macro linkages. The NIS makes it possible to understand that there is as yet, no status for
university research in Cameroon and that the university is not sufficiently recognised and
integrated into its national research, innovation and production systems. These translate
into a conspicuous absence of a national strategic plan and no central (system) funding for
university research. This lack of system status and recognition implies that a large portion
of the country’s knowledge potential is being neglected, which is a serious weakness given
that it is no longer clear from which knowledge organisation, major innovations and
technological breakthroughs emanate. In any case, they are either deeply enmeshed or
parasitic upon the university. We also note the general absence of bridging structures to
link the university to societal problems.
Although the broad national innovation system (NIS) was used as a starting point, it
was difficult at one point to escape the spirit of the triple helix because of the involvement
of the university as the organisational configuration of higher education. Besides, it
could be seen from a recent university-industry charter in Cameroon that, it was along
the government-university-industry nexus (triple helix) that the socio-economic role
of the university was being conceived. The triple helix was therefore seen to provide a
readymade framework from which analyses about the university in the Cameroonian
NIS can transit from simple to complex situations. From another perspective, the triple
helix was seen to be unrealistic and narrow in the sense that it fails to reflect developing
countries, where much of their production capacities may heterogeneously be in the
informal sectors. It can only be realistic from the perspective, where as confirmed in the
current study, universities mostly go after major industries to the neglect of much in their
environments. The adoption of a community innovation system in combination with
small business and technology incentives was seen to be capable of solving this general
weakness of universities going after major industries and would be most appropriate for
developing countries’ universities to enable them connect directly into smaller businesses
with the poorer segments of the population.
The use of an entrepreneurial framework makes it possible to observe that autonomy
is well affirmed and devolved to Cameroonian HE institutions and operational units,
which is important for them to become more market-smart and interactive with socioeconomic
operators. It is also possible to assert that the HE system in Cameroon is
composed of a relatively strong academic heartland which is an important prerequisite
for entrepreneurship. Similarly, very significant efforts were observed to have been made
in creating internal interface structures which are important to connect or open up the
university to its external socio-economic environment. Where one of the most strategic
areasfortransformation liesis“cultural”. Thisincludes changing the mindset of the people
and putting in place more appropriate incentive systemsto promote entrepreneurship. For
instance, there seemed to be no status for the funding of exploratory socio-economic and
poverty reduction activities and no performance based mechanisms to achieve results.
Finally, the use of the third mission framework suggests that Cameroonian universities
are mostly involved in the social dimension of third mission. The innovative dimension
crucial for a knowledge economy was lacking.