Strengthening research management and support services in sub-Saharan African universities and research institutions

Abstract

Background: International development partners and research councils are increasingly funding research management and support (RMS) capacity strengthening initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) as part of a broader investment in strengthening national and regional research systems. However, the evidence-base to inform RMS capacity strengthening initiatives is limited at present. This research note presents a synthesis of 28 RMS capacity assessments completed in 25 universities/research institutions from across 15 SSA countries between 2014 and 2018. Methods: All 28 capacity assessments were completed following a standardised methodology consisting of semi-structured interviews conducted with research and research support staff at the respective institution as well as document reviews and observation of onsite facilities. Data were extracted from the 28 reports detailing the findings of each assessment according to a framework synthesis approach. Results: In total, 13 distinct capacity gap categories emerged from across the 28 RMS capacity assessment reports. Almost all the institutions assessed faced multiple gaps in RMS capacity within and across each of these 13 categories. The 13 categories were not independent of each other and were often closely inter-connected. Commonalities were also evident across multiple categories, the two most obvious of which were severe fiscal constraints and the often-complex bureaucracy of the institutional operating environment. Conclusions: The synthesis findings reveal multiple, commonly shared RMS capacity gaps in universities and research institutions across SSA. No single intervention type, or focus, would be sufficient to strengthen capacity across all 13 areas; rather, what is needed to facilitate a significant shift in RMS capacity within such SSA universities and research institutions is a combination of interventions, consisting of differing levels of cost and complexity, variously led (or supported) by both internal and external actors.

How to improve research capacity strengthening efforts: learning from the monitoring and evaluation of four research consortia in Africa

“…4 ), and the level of capacity building being measured, that is, measures of individual versus institutional versus societal research capacity (Fig. 5 ) (individual: at the level of individual scientists; institutional: at the level of an institution/organization; societal: at the level of national and regional systems) [ 12 , 15 ]. Most of the indicators used were a mixture of output and outcome indicators with only consortium 2 listing one impact indicator.…”

“…The research team consisted of 15 individuals in total; 13 were representatives of the different consortia, typically, the director/co-director, consortium manager and M&E lead. The two additional team members were representatives from the DELTAS Africa LRP who were included to help facilitate discussions since they had extensive experience of RCS evaluations in different health and non-health contexts across Africa [ 15 ]. Our approach is displayed in Fig.…”

Factors affecting African postdoctoral researcher capacity development within ‘learn-by-doing’ international research partnerships: findings from the ‘Partnership for Increasing the Impact of Vector Control (PIIVeC)’

“…Three other hindering factors were contextual in nature and, as such, may be less amenable to easy resolution. Two of these pertained to workload and work environment challenges common to conducting research in resource constrained environments24 25 and the third to the disruptive impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic. The final hindering factor, fellowship duration, was structural in nature although at the level of the funder (who stipulated programme length) as opposed to PIIVeC-specific programme design.…”

Three-decade research development of ibogaine use for the treatment of substance-related disorders: a bibliometric analysis

“…48 This scenario contrasts with the slow scienti c development in some other countries. 49 A key issue in the USA may be subsidies from the National Institute of Health (NIH), which supports activities related to scienti c research, and new achievements for health promotion. One alternative to the lack of government funds has been the support within private institutes and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), for the exploration of other psychedelics as innovative resources in mental health, e.g.…”