Bangladesh has discussed the gap between universities and industries for many years. The diagnosis is no longer in doubt. What is still missing is a working system that connects academic knowledge with real economic and social problems. In January 2026, University Grants Commission Member Professor Mohammad Ayub Islam rightly warned that students cannot remain globally competitive if universities ignore the needs of industry and depend only on traditional classroom teaching. The discussion also proposed industry relations officers, science parks and regular curriculum updates (BSS, 2026). These are welcome ideas. But another seminar, committee or memorandum of understanding will not be enough.
Research and learning must now become more industry-driven. This does not mean allowing businesses to control universities or influence research findings. It means starting research with a real problem, not simply an abstract topic chosen to produce another paper. Industries must also accept their responsibility. They cannot continue complaining about unskilled graduates while investing very little in academic research and training. They should identify practical problems, share relevant data, provide field access and co-fund research. Academics, in return, should use proper theory and research methods to design solutions, assess their viability and test them independently.
One side brings the problem, funding and field experience. The other brings theory, evidence, analytical skills and academic independence. Meaningful innovation becomes possible when these strengths meet. Theory remains essential. It helps researchers understand why a problem exists and why one intervention may work better than another. However, theory must eventually reach the factory, farm, hospital, bank, transport system or community where the problem is experienced. A model that works only in a classroom, laboratory or regression table is not yet a complete solution. A major review by Perkmann and colleagues, published in Research Policy in 2013, showed that collaborative research, contract research, consulting and informal relationships are important channels for transferring knowledge between universities and industry. The study also found that industry engagement can remain closely connected to normal academic research (Perkmann et al., 2013). Likewise, a systematic review published in the Scandinavian Journal of Management described university-industry collaboration as an important vehicle for innovation through knowledge exchange (Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa, 2015).
The message is clear: practical research does not reduce academic quality when it is designed properly. Instead, it allows academic knowledge to create visible value. Each collaborative project should begin with a clear diagnosis and baseline assessment. The researchers and industry representatives should then co-design a model, develop a prototype, conduct a small pilot and collect feedback from field users. Only after independent evaluation and necessary improvement should the model receive funding for wider implementation.
Technical feasibility alone is not enough. A project must also be financially viable, socially acceptable, environmentally responsible and manageable within the local context. The people who face the problem farmers, factory workers, technicians, nurses, small business owners or consumers should not be treated only as survey respondents. Their experiences and reflections should help shape the solution. Projects should also follow SMART objectives: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound, based on the approach introduced by George T. Doran in Management Review in 1981 (Doran, 1981). A project should not simply promise to ‘increase agricultural productivity.’ It should state exactly what will improve, by how much, for whom and within what period.
Several global models show how this can be done. Germany’s Fraunhofer system combines public base funding with industry contracts and competitive public projects. At least two-thirds of its funding comes from competitively secured private- and public-sector contracts, helping keep its research connected to economic and social needs. India’s IIT Madras Research Park brings university researchers, corporate R&D teams, laboratories and startups into one ecosystem. More than 3,000 professionals work there to connect knowledge with real products and services. The United Kingdom’s High Value Manufacturing Catapult allows firms to develop, demonstrate, test and validate technologies before commercial use. Canada’s Mitacs Accelerate programme uses co-funded research internships through which students, academics and partner organisations work together on practical challenges. These are not occasional networking events. They are organised partnerships involving funding, facilities, fieldwork, deadlines and measurable results.
Although there are problems in industry-academia collaborations in Bangladesh, in 2025, the finance division of the Ministry of Finance, Government of Bangladesh, launched a grant for such collaboration. With a loan from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), this Bangladesh Industry Research Development & Innovation (BIRDI) grant provides nearly Tk2.5 crore for each industry-academia collaborative project. Last year, a total of 32 proposals completed the first round of evaluation, submitted by different research teams in collaboration with industries from textile, pharmaceuticals, leather and footwear, agriculture, IT, chemical, etc. This initiative will have a spillover effect in the future, so that without government support, industry-academia collaboration will continue in future. But the speed at which such collaboration will take place is uncertain.
The changing funding environment makes this transition urgent. OECD data show that official development assistance fell by 23.1 percent in 2025, the largest annual decline on record. Although not all research funding comes from foreign assistance, donor-dependent countries should understand the warning. Money is becoming more limited, and competition is becoming stronger. Funders are increasingly asking for prototypes, field validation, market potential and measurable milestones. The European Innovation Council, for example, requires accelerator applicants to demonstrate validation in a relevant environment and provide market activities, milestones and implementation plans. The time of spending continuously on ideas without evidence of practical or sustainable results is ending.
Bangladesh should establish co-funded research programmes where industries, universities and the government share responsibility. Funding should be released in stages following baseline completion, prototype development, field piloting and independent evaluation. Industries funding genuine research may receive tax incentives, while universities should adopt clear rules for intellectual property, publication and commercialisation. Faculty promotion should also recognise meaningful field engagement, not only the number of journal publications. Academic independence, however, must remain protected. An industry may fund research, but it must never be allowed to purchase a favourable result.
The era of hypothetical solutions should end, not the era of theory. Bangladesh does not need fewer theories; it needs theories that are tested against reality. Theory without practice becomes distant from society, while practice without theory becomes trial and error. Sustainable development begins when both meet in the field and solve problems that people can actually see, use and measure.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
Dr. Zobayer Ahmed is an Associate Professor, Bangladesh Institute of Governance and Management. Email: [email protected]
Mostafizur Rahman is an Economist, North South University. Email: [email protected]
