Browsing by Author "Bates, Imelda"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Articulating the ultimate objectives of research capacity strengthening programmes: Why this is important and how we might achieve it.
    (PubMed Central, 2024-08) Pulford, Justin; Mutua, Meshack Nzesei; Bates, Imelda; Tagoe, , Nadia; 0000-0002-3229-8353
    ‘Research capacity strengthening’ (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. Despite this, the ultimate objective of RCS activities is rarely made explicit which can be problematic when diverse objectives are possible. By ‘ultimate’ objective we are referring to the overarching (often long-term) goal an 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). We argue a need for those funding, designing and implementing RCSinitiatives to make clear statements as to the ultimate objective that they foresee their respective initiative contributing towards as well as the proposed pathway and associated assumptions that underlie their approach. Examples of distinct ultimate objectives for RCS initiatives are presented alongside fictitious examples of how they may be transparently reported from both a funder and implementor perspective. 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
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Assessing and Strengthening African Universities’ Capacity for Doctoral Programmes
    (PLoS Medicine, 2011-09) Bates, Imelda; Phillips, Richard Odame; Martin-Peprah, Ruby; Kibiki, Gibson; Gaye, Oumar; et.al
    Universities can make a major contribution to good policy-making by generating nationally relevant evidence, but little is known about how to strategically support universities in poorer countries to train and nurture sufficient internationally competitive researchers. N It is difficult for universities to develop a coherent strategy to identify and remedy deficiencies in their doctoral training programmes because there is currently no single process that can be used to evaluate all the components needed to make these programmes successful. N We have developed an evidence-based process for evaluating doctoral programmes from multiple perspectives that comprises an interview guide and a list of corroborating documents and facilities; we refined and validated this process by testing it in five diverse African universities. N The strategy and priority list that emerged from the evaluation process facilitated ‘‘buy-in’’ from internal and external agencies and enabled each university to lead the development, implementation, and monitoring of their own strategy for remedying doctoral programme deficiencies.