Addressing Research Readiness Challenges in African Institutions: Development and Application of a Modular Assessment Tool

TL;DR

A modular assessment tool was developed and tested in African institutions to evaluate and improve research readiness, revealing significant correlations between specific modules and institutional performance.

Contribution

The development of a modular, context-specific assessment tool (RRAS) to evaluate and enhance research readiness in African institutions.

Findings

66.67% of institutions performed on average across all modules, with none showing strong overall performance.

Modules like laboratory infrastructure and grant management showed strong positive correlations with overall institutional performance.

Abstract

Historically, African research institutions have faced significant barriers to gaining recognition on a global stage due to limited infrastructure, underdeveloped governance frameworks, and low representation in high-impact publications. This underrepresentation reflects systemic barriers such as the lack of visibility of both researchers and institutions, limited funding, inadequate infrastructure, and fragmented institutional arrangements, which impede the continent’s ability to contribute robustly to the global knowledge economy. To address these barriers, the Research Readiness Assessment Survey (RRAS) was developed as a modular, context-specific tool to evaluate and enhance institutional research capacity across multiple dimensions, including research infrastructure, policy and policy engagement, governance, human resources, institutional arrangements, grant management, and research outputs.

The RRA was developed by integrating different global frameworks. This assessment adopted a cross-sectional design. Piloting was performed in nine institutions distributed across Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria. The questionnaire used for data collection was uploaded to RedCap in English, French, and Portuguese. The tool underwent validity and reliability testing. Validity testing included piloting of nine institutions. Data from the pilot test were categorized and analyzed using STATA version 17.0. Analyses were performed at both the univariate and bivariate levels.

The proportion of institutions that performed, on average, in all modules, was 66.67% (n=6). None of the institutions had a strong overall institutional performance based on our scoring. The proportion of institutions that had developed overall institutional performance was 22.22% (n=2), whereas 11.11% (n=1) had limited overall institutional performance. There was a statistically significant and strong positive correlation between the following module scores and overall institutional performance: laboratory infrastructure, institutional arrangement, grant management, policy and policy engagement, project management, and human resources; [r=0.666; p-value<0.05],[r=0.916; p-value<0.001], [r=0.799; p-value<0.01], [r=0.660; p-value<0.05], [r=0.738; p-value<0.05], and [r=0.648; p <0.05], respectively.