Barriers and opportunities of successful internship program in

Barriers and opportunities of successful internship program in Estonia Lee Pukkonen Merike Kaseorg University of Tartu

About the TIPS programme (1) • The Research and Innovation Policy Monitoring Programme (TIPS Programme) • Commissioned by the Estonian Ministry of Education and Research • Implemented by: University of Tartu Tallinn University of Technology • Period: 2011 -2015 • Financed by ESF (85%), Estonian government (10%) and two universities (5%) • Budget: EUR 1 272 412

About the TIPS programme (2) • Aim: to provide high quality research competencies for policymaking and strategic development of Estonian RDI policy • 23 research studies in seven working packages • 70 employees, of whom 20 Ph. D students • Outcomes: policy recommendations for designing both the new Estonian RDI strategy (2014 -2020) and policy measures.

Introduction • University-Industry collaboration • Knowledge transfer vs Knowledge exchange • Higher education and unemployment • The aim of this presentation is to shed light on barriers that we face in internship field and to bring out some of the possible solutions.

Subjects of internship Individual and collective subjects in knowledge exchange process (compiled by authors)

Benefits of internship • Narayanan, Olk, and Fukami (2010): − organizational benefits from the completion of the internship project − enhanced capabilities of the company and the university − on student level: skill development and career enhancement • Fox (2001) and Mihail (2006) consider internship as an opportunity to close the gap between theory and practical reality.

• Students as interns Method − 418 students − from five Estonian universities − 66% female, 34% men • Site supervisors − 194 site supervisors − 33% large; 31% medium; 25% small; 11% micro companies − 71% female, 29% men − 52% of all respondents were over 40 years old − 43% had worked in company over 10 years • Web-based questionnaire

Positive results • Motivations for participating in internship process are similar – to find an employee or to find potential job. • Money didn`t reveal as the main motivation factor – although more important to micro companies. • Student`s ability to learn – expectation by the companies and skill that students have. • Site supervisors were satisfied with performance of interns and vice versa.

Critical results • Lack of contact with university supervisors – 46% of site supervisors and 35% of interns. • University-Industry collaboration was considered important, but this role was not contributed. • Both site supervisors and interns were not satisfied with performance of university supervisor. • Evaluation as feedback process: − defence of an internship is rare in universities − 58% of site supervisors were not informed about that procedure • There is no knowledge exchange

Possible solutions • “Internship share” – amount of money given as grants: − to create a system and train internship subjects − to site supervisor as salary − to intern as salary − for accommodation • To distinguish two different university supervisors` professions: − administrative − substantive (knowledge exchange) • Offer academic credit points for site supervisors so they can take free lectures in university.

Conclusion • Company, as a collective subject, is ready to learn and develop from internship but university learns nothing from this process. • There is no knowledge exchange due to university supervisors. • Future: to carry out in-depth interviews with university supervisors.

Thank you for listening! Any questions?