Short Abstract

We applied realist evaluation approach to test the programme assumption that individual researchers can be institutional change agents in African universities. The resultant evidence catalysed practice-relevant dialogue among stakeholders and highlighted the need to strengthen research ecosystem

Description

In the global health space, health research capacity strengthening (HRCS) has been deemed a strategic way of fostering [health] research equity, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). While the majority of HRCS initiatives focus on developing a critical mass of individual researchers, evidence on the effectiveness of the ‘individuals as agents of institutional change’ model remains underdeveloped. We conducted a realist evaluation to examine how and why research partnerships under the ‘Developing Excellence in Leadership Training and Science in Africa’ (DELTAS Africa) programme – an initiative delivered through a global North-South research partnership – strengthen the health research capacity of African universities. Two cases representing unique research consortia were studied using realist-informed qualitative methods to test an initial programme theory (IPT). We conducted realist interviews with African principal investigators (PIs), collaborators, research support staff, PhD researchers and postdoctoral fellows, and programme-level staff. Retroductive theorising guided the testing of the IPT through the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configuration framework. Through theoretical abstraction, we refined the IPT using CMOs from the case theories. Multiple mechanisms (e.g., empowerment, inspiration, sense of agency, vulnerability) were triggered to generate varied research capacity outcomes for individual researchers and their institutions across the two cases. Findings show that the research partnerships provided researchers with access to research resources and opportunities, triggering an empowerment, motivation and inspiration mechanism that resulted in short-term outcomes such as improved research outputs (e.g., increased publications and funding) and enhanced technical and soft research skills and researchers’ career growth in a context where there was buy-in and support by university leadership. A sense of agency mechanism was activated to generate medium-term outcomes, such as improved supervisory capacities in research departments and the establishment of research hubs, in a context where the university research environment was conducive, with researchers spending more time on research than on teaching activities. Even when researchers were empowered with the appropriate skills to mobilise research funding through grant writing, they were often frustrated and rendered vulnerable in contexts where the environment was less supportive, such as poor remuneration, a lack of protected time for research, and deprioritised funding by national governments. The evidence challenges the use of individuals as change agents as an HRCS model and argues that the institutions within which the individuals are based should have minimal supportive research systems in place. Shared with the programme stakeholders, the evidence catalysed discussions about the need to extend beyond individual-level research capacity to sustainably address systemic challenges and weaknesses, thereby building a conducive research environment that retains individual talent and enables research to thrive.