How an international research programme can contribute to improvements in the research environment: the perspective of doctoral students in sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

Strengthening research capacity in countries in the global south is a goal of many international research funders and development agencies because research can help to solve national problems and thereby drive socioeconomic development (UNESCO, 2015). Sustainable funding to conduct research and to enhance institutions’ research environments is important for training, motivating and retaining researchers (Colenbrander et al., 2015), yet most African research institutions continue to face serious funding shortfalls (Teferra, 2013). Increasingly this is being addressed through collaborative arrangements for joint support from external partners and governments (UKCDR, 2021). The UK spend on strengthening research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is vast. Between 2016-2021 the UK government and the Wellcome Trust alone spent £873M on dedicated research capacity strengthening schemes and £1.2B on projects that ‘add on’ capacity strengthening (UKCDR, 2021). 80% of this spend was on African institutions, predominantly universities, and much of this was through research consortia.

Between 2012-2022 the UK Government’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), in partnership with the Royal Society funded the Africa Capacity Building Initiative (ACBI), a pilot study to ‘strengthen the research and training capacity of higher education institutions and to support the development of individual scientists in sub-Saharan Africa through UK-Africa research collaborations’ (Royal-Society, 2018). The ACBI programme focused on three research areas: i) water and sanitation, ii) renewable energy and iii) soil-related science and aimed to initiate lasting improvements in the research environment within the African host institutions. ACBI comprised ten research consortia, each involving one UK and three African institutions. Each ACBI-affiliated African institution hosted at least one PhD student: in total the ten ACBI consortia supported 38 PhD students based in 26 African institutions across 18 sub-Saharan African countries. Each consortium received funding for five years, including for PhD studentships which covered the students’ research expenses, travel and training and a contribution to equipment costs.

The Centre for Capacity Research (CCR) at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine was responsible for monitoring, evaluating and learning about capacity strengthening aspects of the ACBI programme and was not directly involved in any of the activities of the consortia or PhD students. As new learning emerged from the programme, this was disseminated to the ACBI management team, funders and consortia through regular meetings and presentations at programme conferences. In collaboration with all of the African and UK research leads, and with the PhD students themselves, CCR guided research in two phases to better understand and improve the capacity strengthening processes used within ACBI. In the first phase, and in partnership with the lead researchers in African institutions, we conducted qualitative baseline assessments of research capacity across eight ACBI-affiliated African institutions to identify existing capacity gaps and strengths, and to highlight examples of good practice and problem-solving strategies that could be shared within and beyond the programme. The assessments identified institutions’ strengths and gaps in postgraduate training and overall research environment against an evidence-informed benchmark (Bates et al., 2014). A detailed account of these findings has been published elsewhere (El Hajj et al., 2020). Whilst findings revealed significant differences in PhD programmes, institutions commonly experienced challenges with registration and induction, finances, communication, supervision, workload, infrastructure, research management and professional development and networking opportunities (El Hajj et al., 2020; Pulford et al., 2020).

These findings clearly indicated a need to strengthen PhD training programmes but before making recommendations for improvement, it was important to explore the perspectives of the African PhD students themselves. This was the focus of the second phase of the research and of this manuscript. In particular we aimed to understand how to improve a) consortium-based PhD training and b) PhD programmes provided by institutions, based on the challenges identified and experiences of the cohort of ACBI PhD students, including creating a constructive and supportive environment where everyone’s contributions to research are valued.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods approach (Creswell & Clark, 2017) combining qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (questionnaire) data using in-depth interviews as the primary source of data complemented by quantitative self-administered questionnaires. This approach enabled us to validate findings from the interviews and to provide an idea of the weighting behind the students’ responses. The combined information could then be used to better understand which issues were common among the students. The PhD students were asked to consider the contributions made to their PhD experience by their institutions and their consortium at three levels – their individual development, the research infrastructure and support mechanisms, and their opportunities for interactions at the (inter) national level. To help ensure validity, the items included in the interviews and questionnaires were primarily based on findings from the baseline study (El Hajj et al., 2020). These findings were then discussed with the African lead researchers to identify and prioritise issues that related to PhD programmes for inclusion in our data collection instruments. We also took account of published descriptions about the organisation of PhD programmes that were used to guide the baseline survey and informal feedback from the PhD students themselves about their experiences. Data collection instruments, consent forms and participant information sheets are available at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DRKNED (Centre for Capacity Research, 2024). We invited all 38 doctoral students directly supported by the ACBI programme to participate. We focused on the challenges that hindered their research progress, and the role ACBI played in addressing the challenges and in improving their institutions’ research environment.

Results

Characteristics of the PhD students

Of the 35 PhD students interviewed, 60% (21) were males and 40% (14) were females. Of the 33 students who completed the questionnaire, 58% (19) were males and 42% (14) were females (mean age 37 years). The majority of students (61%; 20) were conducting their research in a renewable energy related field; this reflects that five of the ten ACBI consortia (22/38 students) had a focus on renewable energy. The remaining students were doing research in soil-related sciences (21%; 7) or water and sanitation (18%; 6). The majority (79%; 26) were in their second (13) or third year (13) of studies at the time they filled the questionnaire, and were mainly hosted at a “public university” (85%; 28/33). The rest were hosted either at a “research institution” (9%; 3/33) or at a “private university” (3%; 1/33). Only one student reported “other” for their type of institution. 79% (26/33) of students had “English” and 21% (7/33) had “French” as the main language of instruction at their host institution.

Themes that emerged from our analysis of the students’ interviews and questionnaire responses were divided into those that primarily focused on the infrastructure, facilities and research environment provided by students’ institutions and those that focused on the individual students’ supervision and personal development. Only one student did not want their interview recorded: instead running notes were taken during the interview. To avoid sharing personal health information or because of concerns about power dynamics, three students asked for the recording to be turned off temporarily and another three requested some information not to be disclosed. Overall the vast majority of interview data was available for analysis. We first describe the challenges experienced by the PhD students and then explain how many of these were mitigated by being part of a research consortium and, through the consortium, involved in the overarching ACBI programme.

Institutions’ research infrastructure and facilities

Inadequate research infrastructure and facilities in students’ institutions occasionally hindered their PhD progress and also had implications for their motivation and longer-term retention.

Institutional financial and procurement systems

Inadequate or slow financial and procurement systems within students’ institutions impacted on the processing of their stipends and procurement of equipment and consumables. In some instances the consortia intervened to process stipend payments, procure equipment and pay for travel through a UK or African institution to avoid delays.

Laboratory facilities

80% of ACBI’s PhD students needed laboratory facilities for their research so challenges with these featured highly in interviews with students. They had difficulties accessing the laboratory itself or the equipment because it was being used by another student, researcher or laboratory technician, or else the laboratory was occupied by undergraduate students or equipment had access restrictions.

More than half the students reported that their laboratories had dysfunctional equipment that occupied vital space but was not disposed of or repaired. Some students sought alternative ways of accessing the equipment they needed such as through commercial laboratories or other academic institutions, mostly in the UK.

Students who had to access facilities in external laboratories also experienced delays, for example, while waiting for health and safety training, or academic or technical supervision.

Frequent power outages which delayed their research were reported by some students.

Although the ACBI programme provided for the purchase of research equipment and consumables to support PhD students’ research, a third of the students interviewed had encountered significant delays with procurement or sub-standard quality items.

Access to literature

Students often struggled to access journal articles and other e-resources through their institutional libraries so many found alternative sources. These included free, open access journals and platforms such as Sci-Hub and Google Scholar; requesting articles directly from authors; requesting articles through colleagues in institutions outside the country (including UK Principal Investigators); and by being granted library access through affiliation to a UK institution. Suggestions for improving access to literature included: provision of tutorials and support to students on how to retrieve literature and access resources (e.g., how to use search engines and literature databases); enhancing institutions’ subscription to scientific journals and databases; extending library opening times; improving access to computers, electricity and internet; and establishing collaborations with institutions with better access to literature.

Questionnaire results

The questionnaire findings from the 33 PhD students largely corroborated those from the interviews with the 35 PhD students from the same cohort. More than 80% of the students whose research was laboratory-based stated that new laboratory equipment purchased through ACBI was useful for the progress of their research work. More than half the students were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with meeting rooms (66.6%), study area (60.6%), office space (54.5%) and teaching rooms/lecture halls (57.7%). Over half were also “very satisfied” with the power supply (60.6%), internet and IT/computer facilities (54.5%), library facilities (63.6%), and access to journals in their research field (54.5%). Barriers to accessing literature resources at students’ in-country institutions included lack of access to relevant databases/literature (64%), poor Wi-Fi/internet connection (45%), limited resources in general and in the repository (42%), and outdated resources in the library (36%). However, less than half (48%) were “satisfied/very satisfied” with their personal study space, access to relevant databases (45.4%), laboratory facilities (42%), and research software packages (39%). Lack of software packages caused particular frustration and delays for students doing computational research especially when combined with insufficient IT hardware, poor internet and interrupted power supply.

PhD processes, supervision and progress monitoring

Processes and supervision

Students indicated that having a doctoral school (or equivalent) that had effective processes for admission, induction, progress monitoring and examinations, and which offered careers and financial advice, hardship funds and counselling and well-being services contributed to a positive experience. However, the students themselves had little or no involvement in framing policies and regulations at their institution relating to doctoral training programmes and student experiences.

The supervision experiences of the PhD students varied widely across the consortia; experiences that were supportive and encouraging were described as “motivating”.

Students perceived good quality PhD supervision to be characterised by a having a supervisor with appropriate research expertise, and who was able to provide relevant technical and professional support. They also recognised that high-quality supervision also meant the supervisor provided timely responses and feedback to queries, was available for regular follow-up meetings, and provided clear and transparent communications and guidance. Four students mentioned that their lead supervisor lacked experience or knowledge in their research field. In a few cases, this led to the student having to repeat their work due to unreliable results leading to demotivation and lost time and resources.

Two students also reported inadequate support and unavailability of their main supervisor.

Student-supervisor relationships

During the interviews students indicated that the relationship dynamics between students and supervisors are complex and hierarchical. Students perceived that they were very reliant on their supervisors for successful progression on the doctoral programme. This was because it was the supervisors who had to review their thesis, and provide feedback and technical advice, and who also facilitated the students’ future research, work opportunities, and professional and scientific networks. These dynamics were mentioned in almost all interviews regardless of the students’ satisfaction level with their supervisors and their overall supervision experience.

Some students acknowledged and accepted that “respect” for the supervisor’s position, knowledge, expertise and even age, was the basis of a “professional relationship”. A few students felt frustrated and anxious with the imbalance in student-supervisor power relations and expressed challenges in managing differences of opinion with their main supervisor, to the extent that most of the dissatisfied students were only willing to provide “off-the-record” information.

Joint supervision

Under the ACBI scheme, the Royal Society strongly encouraged implementing a shared supervision between the UK and African institutions. In the vast majority of cases, this proved to be a successful approach that PhD students found valuable and constructive as it gave them access to diverse expertise, knowledge, resources and discussions and enriched the scientific input to their research work. However, for a few students this resulted in an overwhelming number of supervisors. For instance, four students reported having between four and six supervisors because their own institution allocated two to three local supervisors and they were also assigned external supervisors from their ACBI consortium. Whilst students acknowledged the value of having various supervisors with different areas of expertise to add richness to their research, they also stated that managing timely feedback and discrepancies in opinions and reaching a consensus on ways to move forward could be challenging and delay progress.

Monitoring PhD progress

All students interviewed had formal or informal progress monitoring by their own institution (i.e., by their supervisor, department or graduate/doctoral school) or by their ACBI consortium. These included filling out progress forms (each semester or annually) which had to be signed by their supervisor and submitted to the graduate school at the university. A couple of students thought these processes not effective. Other mechanisms included meetings (weekly, monthly, ad hoc) with their primary supervisor or presentations at departmental and consortium meetings.

Students found presentations to groups to be useful because they stimulated debates and discussions which were learning opportunities not only for the student but also for other researchers and fellow students.

Some students were required by their institutions to provide regular written reports in order to obtain their stipend, or to present their progress to formal supervision panels convened by their institution or their ACBI consortium.

For two students their consortium tracked their progress by monitoring their data inputs into a database:

The majority of students were confident that any delays in progress would first be discussed with their supervisor(s), then with the UK consortium lead before any further action was taken at a higher level (either by their institution or the ACBI programme).

Questionnaire results

Although 58% of students reported being “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with communication by their graduate school, the majority reported that they did not receive any financial hardship (88%) or career advice (61%), or any counselling or well-being services (55%). Only 12% of students reported “ever participating in developing/updating post-graduate related policy and strategies at their department/institution”.

The vast majority of students (94%) had had “good” or “satisfactory” quality of PhD supervision and 82% described their relationship with their main supervisor as “good” or “very good”. Most students (79%) considered their lead supervisor to be an expert in their subject area and 67% “always” received enough support from their main supervisor(s). 64% “always” received timely feedback from their supervisor(s) with a turnaround time of two days to one week. Over half the students (52%) met with their supervisors at least once a month and 33% met with them at least once a week. 67% of the students were aware of the PhD progress monitoring processes/guidelines at their institution but only a few (21%) were aware of the institutional procedures and actions taken if progress was unsatisfactory.

Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to identify actions that were then used to improve the ACBI programme within its lifetime. More broadly we also aimed to explore how institutions and consortia-based programmes can help to create a constructive environment that supports PhD students’ progress and wellbeing. From data focused on the perspective of 35 African PhD students we have formulated recommendations that will be useful for institutions to improve their own doctoral programmes and for designing other large, multi-national, consortia-based research programmes. Our complementary findings about PhD programmes from the institutional perceptive have been published previously (El Hajj et al., 2020).

Creating a supportive research environment and a sense of belonging to a department is an important part of strengthening research capacity including for the progress, interest, empowerment and retention of PhD students (Langhaug et al., 2020; Pyhältö et al., 2009; Stubb et al., 2011; van Rooij et al., 2021). A supportive research environment is one which is inclusive and values everyone’s contributions to research; it encompasses the behaviours, values, expectations, attitudes and norms of research systems (Moran et al., 2020; Royal-Society, 2021; UK Government; Department for Business, 2021).

Our findings about the students’ perspectives fell into three categories: factors affecting the infrastructure and systems of institutions hosting the students; the PhD processes and student supervision; and students’ professional development, though – since our participants were PhD students – most of the findings concerned the last two categories.

Previous studies of institutional research capacity (Pulford et al., 2020) and PhD programmes in low- and middle-income countries have shown that access to adequate research facilities and appropriate infrastructure is a major enabler for sustainable research capacity (Ogundahunsi et al., 2015; Pilowsky et al., 2016) and for timely completion of PhD programmes (Pitchforth et al., 2012). Similar to our study findings, a large Africa-based programme that provide strategic support for PhD student cohorts was effective for creating opportunities for networking and research collaboration as well as enhancing research knowledge and skills (Adedokun et al., 2014). This programme’s curriculum was intentionally designed to facilitate critical reflection and as a result the students reported shifts in their sense of self, worldviews, and the definition, construction and evaluation of knowledge (Ruhweza Katahoire et al., 2023).

Consortia were able to circumvent several weaknesses in institutions’ infrastructure and systems thereby reducing hindrances to students’ progress. For example, they were able to arrange timely procurement of good quality equipment and consumables. Although ACBI did not fund building or infrastructure costs, the programme was able to advocate for improvements in internet access and power supplies for students, and for their need to have a quiet space in which to study and write.

ACBI’s focus on natural science research meant that accessing up-to-date research equipment (laboratory or computational) was commonly mentioned as essential to their successful progress. Through their consortium, many students were able to use world-class equipment for their research either because this was purchased for their own institutions or because they had funds to travel to other institutions within their consortium where such equipment – and training on its use – was available. Despite the support from ACBI, students still faced difficulties with their institutions’ slow procurement processes and unavailable or sub-standard consumables and equipment, and even when the equipment was procured internationally, there were often delays at customs. Issues with procurement delays and poor-quality equipment and consumables, despite funding from external programmes, have been found in previous studies (Pulford et al., 2020) suggesting that this is a widespread and intractable problem that is a substantial barrier to effective research, that would be a good target for a focused joint effort by institutions and their collaborators.

An innovative aspect of the ACBI programme was the formalisation of arrangements to transfer ownership of the equipment to the African partner institutions along with an agreed maintenance and sustainability plan. Access to scientific literature and up-to-date resources is essential for PhD students to learn about the latest discoveries, innovations, problems and methods in their research field (Colenbrander et al., 2015; Davis & Walters, 2011). Through their consortium, PhD students were able to have much better access to scientific journals than many of their own institutions were able to provide. Some students were even given access to the libraries of their UK partner institutions. For others, members of institutions within the consortium partnership were able to provide students with the articles they needed.

Previous studies have indicated that supervision quality, good communication and the relationship between the student and supervisor are vital for students’ motivation and progress (Ali et al., 2017; Cotterall, 2013; Ives & Rowley, 2005; Khozaei et al., 2015; Lee, 2008; Leijen et al., 2016; van Rooij et al., 2021; Welde & Laursen, 2008; Young et al., 2019). Positive supervision experiences motivate students, increase their self-confidence and create a constructive drive for their work progress. A negative supervision experience can lead to frustration, delays and demotivation. The PhD students in the ACBI programme benefited by having supervisors from within their own institution and from their consortium. This gave them access to a broad range of expertise in their subject area and more personal support than would have been possible for students who were not part of a large programme. The vast majority of students were satisfied with their PhD supervision and their relationship with their supervisors.

A few students were dissatisfied with the quality of their supervision and attributed this to their supervisor having insufficient knowledge of the research topic, being unavailable or unable to provide clear guidance or timely feedback, and tensions in the supervisor-student relationship. Reasons for poor quality PhD supervision highlighted in previous studies (Lee, 2008; Leijen et al., 2016; Young et al., 2019) include supervisors’ overwhelming teaching and administrative workloads (Lee, 2008; Pulford et al., 2020), their styles and approaches to supervision (Lee, 2008), and lack of accountability and oversight of PhD supervision (Colenbrander et al., 2015). Students’ own characteristics, such as their research skills (Ali et al., 2017; Khozaei et al., 2015), knowledge and experience, communication and management skills, and their ability to write academically (Khozaei et al., 2015) and to critically reflect, also contribute to PhD supervision quality and progress (Lee, 2008).

Despite the high levels of satisfaction with their supervision, the ACBI PhD students made several suggestions about how their supervision could be further improved. These included establishing clear roles and responsibilities for students and their supervisors, formalised tracking of progress, and training for supervisors in communication, leadership, management and supervisory skills. Such suggestions have been made previously along with clearly defined standards for programme admission and supervision of doctoral students, improving students’ critical thinking abilities, and enhancing supervisors’ skills so they can develop relationships in which students feel motivated, inspired and cared for (Ali et al., 2017; Duke & Denicolo, 2017; Lee, 2008).

Development of confidence and interpersonal skills is highly valued by doctoral students (Lindén et al., 2013) and is important preparation for their future whether it is within or outside academia (Duke & Denicolo, 2017; Lindén et al., 2013), but is often an overlooked component of PhD programmes (Lee, 2008). This was not the case in ACBI which provided multiple opportunities for students’ personal and professional development covering technical and soft skills such as academic writing and presentation skills. These opportunities included technical training, language skills (for French-speaking students), exchange visits, conference attendance and scientific discussions with world-class experts in their field.

Through ACBI, students had a large pool of colleagues and mentors they could turn to for academic and personal support during different aspects and stages of their programme. This support took various forms including reviews of data analyses and draft publications which improved their quality, discussions to help guide students’ careers, and personal and psychosocial support. Students recognised that their acquisition of new knowledge and skills, their expanded networks and collaborations, and all-round support provided by their consortium for their research and personal needs, had boosted their career prospects, self-confidence and motivation.

Conclusion

Our study has highlighted several ways in which research consortia can contribute to conducive environments for PhD students, and how they can make the students’ experiences positive and fulfilling. Unlike more senior researchers, PhD students’ experiences are critically linked to their relationship with, and quality of support from, supervisors and mentors, and this was reflected in their interviews and in our recommendations. Since they were natural science students, the quality and availability of equipment and consumables was also a common focus of their recommendations. The networking and collaboration opportunities provided by consortia were highly valued by the PhD students with many intangible benefits such as confidence-building and enhanced career prospects. Our study findings provide valuable insights into how consortia can complement and contribute to improvements in the PhD programmes and facilities of their member institutions and promote a conducive research environment in which the students can feel supported and flourish.