An intersectional gender analysis of familial and socio-cultural drivers of inequitable scientific career progression of researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa

Background Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) suffers from a dearth of concrete information on the causes of women’s under-representation in scientific research workforce particularly at higher levels compared with the wealth of information that exists in the global north. The goal of this study was to illuminate familial and socio-cultural drivers that contribute to intersectional gender inequities in scientific career progression in SSA to inform strategies that could promote career equity for African scientific researchers. Methods This study was nested within the context of ‘Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa’ (DELTAS Africa)—a health-based scientific research capacity strengthening initiative. It adopted an exploratory qualitative cross-sectional study design. In-depth interviews were conducted among 58 (32 Female and 26 Male) trainees/research fellows at various career stages, affiliated to three purposively selected African Research Consortia. The interviews were conducted between May and December 2018 in English. The data were analysed inductively based on emergent themes. Results The study participants were nationals of thirteen SSA countries. More female than male participants had young children. Four themes were identified. They illustrate women’s and men’s characterisation of the normative career pathway and progression requirements which calls for significant ‘time’ commitments (theme 1), and how social power relations of gender within the family and wider society shapes their participation in scientific research activities (theme 2). This culminates in researchers'' differential experiences of navigating between the ‘two different lives’—family and career, and the resultant implications for their career progression and personal well-being (theme 3). Women researchers made different and conscious trade-offs for navigating the ‘two different lives’ by utilising various metaphors such as the ‘biological clock and career clock’, the ‘glass ball and rubber ball’, and the concept of ‘sacrifice’ (theme 4). Conclusions This study is the first of its kind to demonstrate how intersectional gender analysis through use of qualitative research methods may provide novel insights into the hidden familial and socio-cultural drivers of gender inequitable scientific research career progression. It offers important policy and practice measures and approaches for fostering career equity for women and men scientists within research capacity strengthening initiatives in SSA.

Enablers of gender equitable scientific career progression in Sub-Saharan Africa: Insights from the DELTAS Africa Initiative

Background: This paper present findings on current strategies utilised within selected Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa’ (DELTAS Africa) consortia to promote gender equitable scientific career progression for researchers, as well as participants’ recommendations for change. Findings are drawn from a wider research study nested within this health-based scientific research capacity strengthening initiative that was aimed at gaining an in-depth understanding of the barriers and enablers of gender equitable scientific career progression for researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Methods: We adopted an exploratory qualitative cross-sectional study design. The main method of data collection was in-depth interviews (IDIs) with trainees/research fellows at various career stages affiliated to three purposively selected DELTAS Africa Research Consortia. In addition, key informant interviews (KIIs) with consortia research leaders/directors, co-investigators, and management team were also conducted to corroborate information gathered from the IDIs, and to provide additional insights on the enabling factors/actions and policy processes that were currently in place or proposed to enhance gender equitable career progression. In total, fifty-eight IDIs (32 female and 26 male) and twenty KIIs (4 female and 16 male) were conducted. Interviews were carried out between May and December 2018 in English. Data were analysed inductively based on emergent themes, and aligned to the developed integrated conceptual framework. Results: Three overarching themes were identified. First: micro level efforts - individual coping mechanisms and familial level support. Second: Meso level efforts -existing enabling mechanisms at the institutional level. Third: proposed solutions for positive change towards enhancing gender equitable career progression at micro, meso and macro levels. Conclusions: These findings have implications for future research capacity strengthening programming, including DELTAS Africa II initiative (2021-2025); they provide valuable insights on potential strategies and actions aiming to narrow gender inequities in scientific career progression in the context of sub-Saharan African research institutions.

Ripple effects of research capacity strengthening: a study of the effects of a project to support test facilities in three African countries towards Good Laboratory Practice certification

Background: Strengthening capacity for public health research is essential to the generation of high-quality, reliable scientific data. This study focuses on a research capacity strengthening project supporting seven test facilities in Africa conducting studies on mosquito vector control products towards Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) certification. It captures the primary effects of the project on each facility’s research capacity, the secondary effects at the individual and institutional level, and the ripple effects that extend beyond the research system. The relationships between effects at different levels are identified and compared to an existing framework for the evaluation of research capacity strengthening initiatives. Methods: To capture the views of individuals engaged in the project at all levels within each facility, a maximum-variation purposive sampling strategy was used. This allowed triangulation between different data sources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals in three facilities and a combination of email and remote video-call interviews were conducted with individuals at two further facilities. Results: We found that, despite a focus of the GLP certification project at the institutional level, the project had effects also at individual (including enhanced motivation, furtherment of careers) and national/international levels (including development of regional expertise). In addition, we detected ripple effects of the project which extended beyond the research system. Conclusion: This study shows that research capacity strengthening interventions that are focussed on institutional level goals require actions also at individual and national/international levels. The effects of engagement at all three levels can be amplified by collaborative actions at the national/international level. These findings show that research capacity strengthening projects must develop plans that address and evaluate impact at all three levels. Capturing the ripple effects of investment in research capacity strengthening should also be planned for from the beginning of projects to support further engagement of all stakeholders.

‘We always find things to learn from.’ Lessons from the implementation of the global maternal sepsis study on research capacity: a qualitative study

Background Research capacity strengthening could be an indirect outcome of implementing a research project. The objective of this study was to explore the ability of the global maternal sepsis study (GLOSS), implemented in 52 countries, to develop and strengthen sexual and reproductive health research capacity of local participants in low- and middle- income participating countries. Methods We carried out a qualitative study employing grounded theory in sixteen countries in Africa and Latin America. We used inductive and deductive methods through a focus group discussion and semi-structured interviews for the emergence of themes. Participants of the focus group discussion (n = 8) were GLOSS principal investigators (PIs) in Latin America. Interviewees (n = 63) were selected by the country GLOSS PIs in both Africa and Latin America, and included a diverse sample of participants involved in different aspects of study implementation. Eighty-two percent of the participants were health workers. We developed a conceptual framework that took into consideration data obtained from the focus group and refined it based on data from the interviews. Results Six themes emerged from the data analysis: recognized need for research capacity, unintended effects of participating in research, perceived ownership and linkage with the research study, being just data collectors, belonging to an institution that supports and fosters research, and presenting study results back to study implementers. Research capacity strengthening needs were consistently highlighted including involvement in protocol development, training and technical support, data analysis, and project management. The need for institutional support for researchers to conduct research was also emphasised. Conclusion This study suggests that research capacity strengthening of local researchers was an unintentional outcome of the large multi-country study on maternal sepsis. However, for sustainable research capacity to be built, study coordinators and funders need to deliberately plan for it, addressing needs at both the individual and institutional level.

Guidance and conceptual tools to inform the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening interventions

This practice note presents four conceptual tools intended to support the design, selection and evaluation of research capacity strengthening (RCS) programmes in low-income and middle-income country settings. The tools may be used by a wide range of RCS stakeholders, including funders, implementing parties and programme evaluators, to guide decision-making in lieu of largely as yet unavailable empirical evidence. The first conceptual tool guides decision-making regarding RCS intervention design, focusing specifically on the combination and integration of potential intervention activities. The second conceptual tool provides a framework for assessing the implementation challenges of potential RCS interventions in terms of: (1) the overall cost of implementing the proposed intervention in a given context; (2) the length of time required to complete full implementation of the proposed intervention in a given context and (3) the level of control the implementing partners would have over the proposed intervention in a given context. The third conceptual tool provides a means to consider the anticipated impact of potential RCS interventions in order to inform selection decisions (ie, which out of a number of potential RCS intervention options may be most impactful in a given setting given the intervention design and implementation challenges). The fourth and final tool is designed to support the evaluation of a collective RCS effort, whether that be multiple RCS interventions delivered within the context of a single or continuous programme or multiple RCS programmes delivered in a common setting.

Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

Ripple effects of research capacity strengthening: a study of the effects of a project to support test facilities in three African countries towards Good Laboratory Practice certification

Background: Strengthening capacity for public health research is essential to the generation of high-quality, reliable scientific data. This study focuses on a research capacity strengthening project supporting seven test facilities in Africa conducting studies on mosquito vector control products towards Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) certification. It captures the primary effects of the project on each facility’s research capacity, the secondary effects at the individual and institutional level, and the ripple effects that extend beyond the research system. The relationships between effects at different levels are identified and compared to an existing framework for the evaluation of research capacity strengthening initiatives. Methods: To capture the views of individuals engaged in the project at all levels within each facility, a maximum-variation purposive sampling strategy was used. This allowed triangulation between different data sources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individuals in three facilities and a combination of email and remote video-call interviews were conducted with individuals at two further facilities. Results: We found that, despite a focus of the GLP certification project at the institutional level, the project had effects also at individual (including enhanced motivation, furtherment of careers) and national/international levels (including development of regional expertise). In addition, we detected ripple effects of the project which extended beyond the research system. Conclusion: This study shows that research capacity strengthening interventions that are focussed on institutional level goals require actions also at individual and national/international levels. The effects of engagement at all three levels can be amplified by collaborative actions at the national/international level. These findings show that research capacity strengthening projects must develop plans that address and evaluate impact at all three levels. Capturing the ripple effects of investment in research capacity strengthening should also be planned for from the beginning of projects to support further engagement of all stakeholders.

Institutionalizing research capacity strengthening in LMICs: A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Background: Evidence on effective strategies to ensure sustainability of research capacity strengthening interventions in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions is lacking. This systematic review identified publications describing research capacity building programs and noted their effect, their contexts, and the mechanisms, processes and social actors employed in them. Methods: We searched online databases for the period 2011-2018. Inclusion criteria were that the publications 1) described the intervention; 2) were implemented in LMICs; 3) were based in, or relevant to, university staff or post docs; 4) aimed to improve research capacity; 5) aimed to effect change at the institutional level. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text in consecutive rounds, a third resolved disagreements. Two people extracted the data of each full text using a data extraction tool covering data relevant to our question. Results: In total 4052 citations were identified and 19 papers were included, which referred to 14 interventions. Only three interventions mentioned using a conceptual framework to develop their approach and none described using a theory of change to assess outcomes. The most frequent inputs described were some method of formal training, promotion of a research-conducive environment and establishment of research support systems. A range of outcomes were reported, most frequently an increased number of publications and proportion of staff with PhDs. When factors of success were discussed, this was attributed to a rigorous approach to implementation, adequate funding, and local buy-in. Those who mentioned sustainability linked it to availability of funds and local buy-in. The lack of a common lexicon and a framework against which to report outcomes made comparison between initiatives difficult. Conclusions: The reduced number of interventions that met the inclusion criteria suggests that programs should be well-described, evaluated systematically, and findings published so that the research capacity strengthening community can extract important lessons.

“It’s A Steeper Hill for Women to Climb!”: An Intersectional Gender Analysis of Familial and Socio-Cultural Drivers of Inequitable Scientific Career Progression of Researchers in the Context of the DELTAS Africa Initiative

Background: This study sought to illuminate familial and socio-cultural drivers that contribute to intersectional gender inequities in scientific career progression in Sub-saharan Africa (SSA) by drawing on lived experiences of women and men researchers. The findings are drawn from a wider research study that was aimed at gaining an in-depth understanding of the barriers and enablers of gender equitable scientific career progression for researchers in SSA. This was nested within the context of ‘Developing Excellence in Leadership, Training and Science in Africa’ (DELTAS Africa) – a health-based scientific research capacity strengthening initiative. Methods: The study adopted an exploratory qualitative cross-sectional study design. In-depth interviews were conducted with fifty-eight (32 Female and 26 Male) trainees/research fellows at various career stages, supported and/or affiliated to three purposively selected African Research Consortia. The interviews were conducted between May and December 2018 in English. The data was analysed inductively based on emergent themes.Results: Four themes were identified. First: characterisation of the normative career pathway and progression requirements. Second: social power relations of gender within the family and wider society. Third: researchers’ experiences of navigating between the ‘two different lives’, and the resultant implications for their career progression and personal well-being. Fourth, potential strategies utilised by women for navigating the ‘two different lives’ and their impacts. Conclusions: This study offers important policy and practice measures and approaches for fostering equitable scientific research career progression for women and men within research capacity strengthening initiatives in SSA. These includes the need for: reforms in institutional human resources policies and systems; a more fundamental re-think of the normative scientific career structure to create equitable opportunities, improving diversity and well-being of both female and male researchers; additional support and potential adjustments to expectations for language minorities in science; and embracing gender transformative approaches in science.