South-South-North University Collaboration: South Perspectives Interpreted by a Northern Researcher

South perspectives on impacts of Norwegian supported international university cooperation are essential for its legitimacy and to bring forward mutually responsible ways of working. The paper addresses the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU) supported cooperation between Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering (IOE), Kathmandu, Nepal and Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The start was in 1993 and the project ended in 2007. This paper builds on an inquiry into the south – south component, but also the south – north part of the co-operation. The method of inquiry is qualitative and itinerant addressing a few, but central, key informants. The unstructured in dept interviews were explorative. What are their main concerns? What will they address first? They knew about the terms of reference for the paper addressing south – south – north perspectives – but how would they respond to this and what would they give importance? During the 14 years of project cooperation we had many constructive discussions, but have we been good listeners? I was curious, but tried my best to avoid asking directly: How do the south parties view the north party in their understanding of the context of institutional development which the south party works? And secondly, how does the south party view their own efforts of south - south university cooperation, and support from north in this endeavor? The quantitative project results were significant in terms of new master degrees, successful master students and PhD candidates. But what about the UiS understanding and the institutional part in terms of integrity and independency in south – south – north cooperative relationships? This is, definitely, essential on the path towards project sustainability, where the Universities in the South (UiS) had the capability and perspectives required to work towards the ambitious goal of project sustainability which is “the extend to which partner country institutions will continue to pursue the objective after the project assistance is over” (Samset 1993). In conclusion some of the findings of a more general nature are: First, as personal relationships are strong and affectionate in Asia, this also seems to be the main factor behind working south – south relationships. Not only is it essential to have key persons as “entry points”. The development, and the discovery and implementation of mutually beneficial cooperation are very much based on trust and positive personal and professional cooperation. Secondly, it was brought forward an impression of an incomplete understanding by the Norwegian party of the overall institutional and professional development process at the University in the South (UiS) of which the NUFU project was only a part. This, the author suggests, was rather a result of lack of prior and process inquiry, and not a lack of transparency. The south – south cooperation has showed signs of external support dependency, but also here both from Nepali and Indian side there are very well intended initiatives without external support and expectations of reciprocity. Third, there is a call for agencies for local capacity building. Considering the staff of the university to be agencies, or agents of change, a further study should contribute to a constructive environment, making the positive efforts in south – south and south – north university collaboration more known. Universities consist of individuals – and our challenge is to better understand complex representations of knowledge. This study identifies UiS partners in full command of the situation and the terms and process of cooperation. A study also expanding to the UiN partner would show if a platform of common understanding, and trust, has been created also in the south – north relations.