Articulating the ultimate objectives of research capacity strengthening programmes: Why this is important and how we might achieve it.

Introduction

There is a long history of governments, development partners and philanthropic organisations financing research capacity strengthening (RCS) initiatives in the global South. Common examples, among many others, include scholarship schemes, infrastructure grants and collaborative research awards. The cumulative investment in RCS support within the global South has not been calculated but would certainly exceed several billion GBP and counting. As an example, the UK government and Wellcome spent £873 million between 2016-2021 on dedicated RCS initiatives in the global South with a further £1.2 billion expended on research activities with a capacity strengthening component.¹ Benefits of RCS investment have been widely reported in the literature^2–4 and gains in Southern research capacity are apparent in measures such as scientific publication output.⁵ Nevertheless, much of this investment is based on very little evidence of the effectiveness or impact on long term outcomes. Southern research capacity remains well behind Northern standards on most metrics^6,7 and there is still much to be learnt about the value for money of these investments and about the pathways by which impact in the global South is achieved.⁴

Limited understanding of RCS impact reflects, in part, a lack of sound evaluation.^8,9 RCS is a long-term, multi-faceted and complex undertaking and the tools to support robust, standardised evaluation are only beginning to emerge.^10–12 A further factor confounding evaluation efforts is a pervasive ambiguity in the use of the term ‘research capacity strengthening’ itself. RCS is not a construct in its own right; rather, RCS is an umbrella term that can be used to describe a wide variety of activities conducted in support of diverse objectives premised upon distinct, potentially opposing, views (see further below for examples). Despite this, the RCS term is often used with a false assumption of neutrality¹³ and without a clear definition being provided.⁸ Those definitions that are presented are highly diverse and typically process oriented, yet it is not at all apparent whether different definitions of RCS represent distinct conceptualisations of RCS as an undertaking or whether (as is more likely) they are being used with a broadly consistent (yet often ambiguously stated) meaning (see Box 1). Even the term ‘research capacity strengthening’ is often used interchangeably with the terms ‘research capacity building’ and ‘research capacity development’⁸ despite attempts to differentiate their meaning.^9,14 Without absolute transparency about the agreed explicit, ultimate objective of an RCS initiative, and the assumptions upon which it is based, then our ability to advance understanding of what works well and why in RCS practice through applied research, evaluation and shared learning is compromised. By ‘ultimate’ objective we are referring to the overarching (often long-term) goal an individual RCS initiative is intended to contribute towards (e.g. better population health) as opposed to the more immediate ‘proximate’ (often short-term) objectives of any such activity (e.g. improved capacity to undertake infectious disease research). Proximate objectives remain important; they are just not the focus of this paper.

The aim of this paper is to justify and promote the need for transparency in RCS practice in making the ultimate RCS objective(s) explicit and to provide some recommendations as to how this might be achieved. Not only will this support more effective learning and evaluation, greater clarity of purpose for any RCS activity will also help inform the design and implementation processes to ensure that they are compatible with, and contribute towards achieving, the stated objectives. To substantiate our argument, we outline three different ultimate objectives for RCS activities. We also highlight the considerable scope for distinct and potentially divergent pathways through which RCS activities might support these objectives, even when the ultimate objective is agreed, well-defined and shared. In so doing, we are not endorsing any one approach over another, we are merely demonstrating that the common term ‘research capacity strengthening’ can be used to describe a wide range of potentially divergent activities. The examples we provide should not be considered exhaustive. Further examples, with differing implications, are almost certainly possible and we would encourage others to articulate these in the public domain and to challenge and refine those presented here. We will begin with a description of what appears to be the most common ultimate objective for RCS investment in the global South: (inter) national development.

RCS activities outside of an international development context

Knowledge has long been regarded as a form of common or public good²⁹ as have public Universities.³⁰ The extent to which (all) scientific knowledge may be considered a common good or the extent to which public universities are genuinely in the public good are open to debate.^30,31 However, within the parameters of these ongoing debates, it remains plausible to frame RCS investment (or at least some forms of RCS investment) as a contribution to the common good. This may overlap with an international development approach to some degree, as scientific knowledge that supports international development may also be considered a common good²⁹; yet it also encompasses scientific disciplines and research fields such as Philosophy, Theology or History that are less likely to attract funding within an international development context. The ultimate objective of any such RCS investment would not be the outcome of knowledge application (e.g. such as a development goal), but a measurable increase in the quantity, quality, diversity and/or access to (scientific) knowledge itself.

RCS investments could also potentially be framed within a decolonisation context. It is widely recognised that a consequence of the European colonial era was the disruption, degradation or destruction of traditional customs and bodies of knowledge among colonised people.³² Colonisation also instituted the imposition of the coloniser’s ideals, practices and standards which ended up suppressing indigenous knowledge practices.³³ It would therefore be reasonable to consider strengthening capacity for research that supports the restitution of traditional knowledge bodies and/or strengthening local systems of research as conceptualised by the formerly colonised peoples or their descendants. The ultimate objective of any RCS activity in such instances would be greater recognition of indigenous knowledge systems and promotion of self-determination at local/national/regional levels regarding capacity goals, needs and the pathways towards achieving specified goals. As with the international development example, the RCS activities conducted in support of either a common good or decolonisation objective, along with the proposed pathways to impact and associated assumptions, would also be open to considerable variation.

These examples demonstrate that activities described as ‘research capacity strengthening’ can be implemented in support of diverse ultimate objectives and premised upon a multitude of legitimate, yet potentially very different, pathways to achieving their respective objective. Distinct scientific disciplines or research fields may be more or less likely to receive capacity strengthening support depending upon what the ultimate objective is and, in some cases, these prioritisation decisions could be diametrically opposed. Hence the call for greater transparency re the ultimate objectives when describing or reporting on future, current or past RCS activities. In practice, RCS programmes may have multiple or over-lapping objectives. For example, Mormina and Istratii recently argued a case for a decolonisation approach to RCS in support of international development objectives¹³ and, as noted above, science conducted as a common good may also support development objectives in some instances. This is in no way problematic if the primary or overlapping ultimate objectives are clearly articulated. When such transparency is lacking, as argued above, it becomes difficult to evaluate the outcomes of a RCS intervention or even to design and implement an intervention in a manner optimally conducive to achieving the objective. This is analogous to any other ‘experiment’ i.e. if the ultimate objective is not clearly stated from the outset, alongside any associated assumptions as to how best to achieve that objective, then how can an optimal intervention be designed in the first instance?

Achieving transparency in practice

To aid the appropriate interpretation of RCS activities as well as subsequent learning and evaluation, we propose that those funding, designing and implementing RCS initiatives make clear statements as to the ultimate objective that they foresee their respective initiative contributing towards. They should also describe the proposed pathway and associated assumptions that underlie their approach. Key principles that are expected to be, or were, prioritised in RCS design and implementation such as ‘excellence’, ‘equity’ or ‘collaboration’ may also be emphasised. These statements do not need to be overly complex or lengthy. To illustrate, some fictitious examples of transparent statements about the ultimate RCS objectives from both a funder and implementor perspective are presented below, along with a note on how they support transparent RCS reporting and would inform subsequent evaluation (Box 2).

These examples illustrate what should be considered a minimum acceptable level of transparency. Understanding of any RCS activity would be further enhanced by fuller descriptions of proposed impact pathways and there are widely used methods and tools for doing so, including the use of programme Theories of Change,³⁴ logic models³⁵ and even specialist frameworks intended to support better, more transparent RCS practice and evaluation.¹² Even basic descriptions such as those presented above would represent a considerable improvement in transparent reporting of RCS activities if they were applied in practice. Such transparency should be routine within the scope of funding calls for RCS activities (even when such activities are only a minor component of the call), subsequent applications to those calls and any description of an applied RCS activity/ies and/or the associated outcomes thereof. The process of determining one’s ultimate objective will further cause funders and actors to think through their respective initiatives more thoroughly and make informed choices and better designed RCS projects. Doing so would reduce any ambiguity associated with the use of the term ‘research capacity strengthening’ and would provide a stronger foundation for robust programme evaluation. From such a foundation, and with appropriate investment to support routine evaluation, the research community will be in a strong position to greatly accelerate our ability to understand what works well, and not so well, in our collective RCS endeavours.