Innovation and Implementation Reports
Strengthening Research Governance for Sustainable Research: Experiences From Three Zimbabwean Universities Thokozile Mashaah, MSc, James Hakim, MD, Midion Chidzonga, FFDRCSI, Rugare A. Kangwende, MD, Yogeshkumar Naik, PhD, Nancy Federspiel, PhD, Suzanne Fiorillo, MSc, Jim Scott, MD, and Exnevia Gomo, PhD
Abstract A robust research system requires a robust governance framework. As part of the Medical Education Partnership Initiative, three Zimbabwean universities partnered with two U.S. universities in a project to strengthen research governance in the Zimbabwean universities. The project aimed at (1) developing research policies, (2) strengthening central research management offices, (3) developing a research administration curriculum,
U
niversities are strategic national and international institutions that assist in social and economic development through the generation of new know ledge. University rankings depend heavily on research output and quality, and their transformation into research-intensive institutions is a mark of development. Universities therefore strive to sustainably develop research capacity, which enables them to compete for shrinking research funding and be among the institutions generating cutting-edge knowledge and innovation. Research capacity can be viewed on three levels: individual, institutional, and macro-environmental.1,2 Most researchintensive universities in developed countries have highly qualified individual researchers, robust institutional structures and systems to guide and support the researchers, and strong national research policies and funding. In contrast, most universities in low-income Please see the end of this article for information about the authors. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Gomo, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Research Support Center, PO Box A178 Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe; telephone: (+263) 4-708020; e-mail: [email protected]. Acad Med. 2014;89:S69–S72. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000348
and (4) enhancing awareness about the role and relevance of research administration in other universities and research institutions in Zimbabwe. Through the efforts of the partners, a generic research policy was developed and successfully adapted by the institutions. A curriculum was drafted, and module development experts are helping to finalize the curriculum to meet university requirements for accreditation of training research administrators. The
Association of Research Managers of Zimbabwe was established to promote information sharing and professionalize research administration. The consortium approach enabled rapid and smooth development and adoption of research policies in the institutions. It also helped researchers and managers accept research administration as an essential structure and function. The experiences and lessons learned are reported here to benefit other institutions and consortia.
countries are beleaguered by limited research capacity despite a long history of capacity-building efforts supported by developed countries. This has been attributed to a number of factors inclu ding the models of research capacity building that have focused primarily on developing individual skills without the necessary institutional and national structures and systems to support the trained individuals.1–3
and financial standards for research; transparent decision making, coordination, and clear allocation of responsibilities; and effective monitoring of research. Lack of research governance has been cited as an important reason for the limited research outputs from lowincome countries.2–5 The lack of research policies has also denied institutions the vision and strategies to build sustainable research capacity programs, to mobilize resources, and to effectively contribute to national research priorities.
Recently, discussion has begun to emphasize the role of institutional research structures and systems in research capacity enhancement.3 This discussion has become more urgent because research has become more com plex and highly competitive, requiring robust institutional mechanisms for oversight and management. This is often referred to as the research governance framework of a research institution. The UK National Health Service defines research governance as “the broad range of regulations, principles, and standards of good practice that exist to achieve, and continuously improve, research quality across all aspects of health care in the UK and worldwide.”1 Institutional research governance provides the internal policy and operational environment that guide and facilitate high scientific, ethical,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
The research governance framework is expected, among other things, to define the structure and mandate of the research support service. A robust research support center (RSC) would provide support for grant applications, award negotiation, financial management, and compliance. In low-income country institutions with limited research capacity, the RSC would also need to address issues of research skills building, stimulating research, and strengthening research governance and compliance. Indicators of effectiveness include the number of grant applications and awards; the level of compliance with institutional, funding, and regulatory requirements; the amount of funding secured; the number of publications arising from the awards; and the number of researchers supported and quality of services provided. This
S69
Innovation and Implementation Reports
framework requires the support of a strong monitoring and evaluation system. With input from Medical Education Partnership Initiative’s (MEPI’s) RSC technical working group (TWG), MEPI schools have been able to set up and/or strengthen their RSCs. In addition, five MEPI schools received additional support from the National Institutes of Health to develop and enhance their research infrastructure through Initiative on Research and Innovation Management (iRIM) grants. This article describes the experiences of one RSC TWG member, the University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences (UZ-CHS), in strengthening research governance in a collaborative project with two other local universities. Having been directly involved in the process, we describe our approach, strategies, processes, outputs, and outcomes and offer a brief discussion of the challenges. We hope this will be useful in establishing good practices in strengthening research capacity in lowincome countries. Approach, Strategies, Processes
Most universities in Zimbabwe have limited capacity for research governance and management. This was emphasized at a meeting of research managers from eight public and private universities in Zimbabwe, held in Harare in 2012. It is with this background that UZ-CHS, Africa University (AU), and the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) partnered in 2012 with Stanford University and the University of Colorado Denver in a project to strengthen research governance and management at the three Zimbabwean universities. Development of research policies was identified as a priority to help define the roles and responsibilities of various institutional and external stakeholders and to guide the initiation, conduct, and oversight of research. The universities conduct health research at varying levels, with nascent research administration structures. The NUST research administration office manages university-wide research beyond health. The project was funded through the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the MEPI program and iRIM. With technical support provided by the
S70
U.S. universities, the overall goal was to strengthen research governance and management through (1) development of research policies, (2) provision of equipment and tools to centralized research management offices (RMOs), and (3) development of research admini stration skills in the three Zimbabwean institutions. The project was called the Zimbabwe initiative on Research and Innovation Management (ZiRIM). Developing a generic research policy We sought to develop a generic research policy that could be adapted by the three institutions, recognizing that each has a unique research environment. This was achieved through a phased approach that involved the review of current research governance status at the three institutions, establishment of a TWG to draft generic policy, and institutionallevel consultations to adapt the policy. Developing curriculum for training in research administration This involved engaging all partners in developing a curriculum suited to the three institutions but cognizant of national and regional needs. To engender a common understanding of the concepts, principles, and capacity-building needs for research administration, research administrators from the three Zimbabwean universities visited and studied the RMOs of the U.S. partners. Providing resources for the RMOs One of the major challenges limiting research in the Zimbabwean universities, and other African institutions, is the availability of adequate resources to sustain the structures and systems for governance and management. Most universities are instruction oriented and have minimal financial, let alone policy, support for research. One of ZiRIM’s strategies was to support the centralization and resourcing of the RMOs at the Zimbabwean universities by providing equipment and other essential materials. Outreach to other institutions To contribute to the national discussion about the value of research governance and administration, one of ZiRIM’s objectives was to raise the awareness that research-intensive institutions can make a significant contribution to the national and international research
and development agenda. The ZiRIM consortium embarked on an aggressive awareness campaign by engaging other local universities and regional research management agencies in the country. Outputs and Outcomes
Establishing a TWG We adopted a phased approach to developing a generic research policy. The first phase was to establish a TWG composed of representatives from the three Zimbabwean universities. The TWG obtained information on and reviewed the research policies at regional and international institutions by accessing the institutions’ networks as well as through the Internet. Each of the three universities also conducted a needs assessment of its own research requirements. Results were shared at a two-day workshop in January 2013. UZ-CHS had no research policy, while AU and NUST were in the early stages of developing their policies. We developed a generic template outline of a research policy based primarily on the Malawi College of Medicine’s research policy—an established research governance and management structure and system.6 The college established an RSC in 2007 to provide pre- and postaward support services as well as clinical trials support. Over the next four years the RSC developed a research governance framework that included an overarching research policy and grants management system and procedures. The ZiRIM TWG transformed the Malawi template into a generic draft policy document that could be further adapted by each Zimbabwean university. Institutional Consultative Workshops After adapting the generic policy to fit their specific requirements, TWG members held consultative workshops to adopt the policies. The institutional experiences in this second phase are briefly outlined below. University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences. A consultative meeting was held in October 2013 with the UZ-CHS College Board, the chief decision-making body in the College of Health Sciences. After the dean formally presented the policy document, the board thoroughly reviewed each section and adopted it pending editorial corrections. A team was then assigned the task of editing the document prior
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
Innovation and Implementation Reports
to presentation to the University of Zimbabwe Senate.
module and eventually lead to the awarding of diplomas and master’s degrees.
Table 1
Africa University. AU went through a more rigorous consultative process that required four meetings. The first meeting, in April 2013, included reviewing the research policy development framework and generating inputs for formulation of research policy. The meeting was attended by the AU management as well as academic and research leadership. A second consultative meeting involving university management, research com mittee members, and other university stakeholders was held in October 2013 to review the draft policy. Two additional meetings were held to incorporate changes and to review the full document. Finally, the research policy document was presented to the University Senate followed by the AU Board of Directors in December 2013. The approved policy is now the official research governance document at AU.
Resources for RMOs
Contents of a Proposed Research Education Module for Health Research Administrators
National University of Science and Technology. The NUST held its first consultative workshop in May 2013. This two-day workshop included university management, deans of faculty, researchers, librarians, and faculty members. NUST TWG members led the discussions using the generic research policy. The participants gave valuable input, which the TWG members incorporated into a draft policy. A second workshop was expected to be conducted before the presentation of the policy to the University Senate in April 2014. Development of Research Administration Training Curriculum A draft curriculum for research administration was developed through several consortium meetings covering key areas of pre- and postaward administration. Research administration training programs used by U.S. partner institutions informed the draft curriculum. To ensure a professional and academic approach, the consortium engaged a team of education and module development experts in Zimbabwe to assist in the development of the module, which was expected to be completed by May 2014. Table 1 shows an outline of the contents of the module. This is a work in progress that is expected to help develop universityaccredited certificates in the various components of the research administration
The MEPI grant allocated each Zimbabwean university a budget for equipment and materials for their RMOs, including furniture, computers, and supplies. In addition, each RMO was allocated funding to facilitate consultative meetings to develop the research policy and research administration curriculum. These resources helped enable the RMOs to fully participate in the consortium activities and to improve their local operations. Outreach One of the major successes of the ZiRIM project has been the campaign to raise awareness and generate interest and discussion about research governance and administration in Zimbabwe. This was achieved through funding and facilitation of meetings of research managers from public and private universities, research institutions, and regulatory agencies. The meetings led to the formation of the Association of Research Managers of Zimbabwe (ARMZ) in July 2012. ARMZ’s goals are to promote the sharing of information and experiences in research governance and management among Zimbabwean research administrators; to professionalize research administration; and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of research support. This effort is supported by the Southern Africa Research Management Association, a regional membership organization that promotes research and innovation management career development. ARMZ was to be officially launched in April 2014. Discussion
The ZiRIM project provides evidence for what collaborations between local and international partners can achieve to help strengthen research capacity in developing countries. The open consultation process we used enables the sharing of expertise and experiences, instills a sense of ownership in the development of research polices, and helps strengthen the research management structure. Involvement of the institution’s management helps to ensure complete participation and lead to full official acceptance of the research policy. Adoption of the research policy also signals a clear mandate for the RMOs, which will help ensure their
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
Module chapter 1 2
Proposed topic Overview of health research administration Health research: Preaward and award processes
3
Communication and dissemination of research output for health research administrators and principal investigators
4
Financial management in health research administration
5
Project implementation and management
6
Ethics, intellectual property, and regulatory issues
7
Monitoring and evaluation for health research administration
smooth operation. Allowing a core interinstitutional team to develop the initial generic policy saves time and helps focus the discussion during consultation meetings. A Landmark Development Developing a curriculum for local training in research administration provides a way of building capacity for sustainable research support in developing-country institutions. Indeed, we have not been able to determine with certainty whether any institution in Africa currently offers standardized and accredited training in research administration at the certificate, diploma, or degree levels. The ZiRIM initiative may well be a first and provide much-needed training in the discipline of research governance and management as well as contribute to the professionalization of this discipline. As noted by Sawyerr2 and Kirkland and Ajai-Ajagbe,3 an established research management profession can act as a catalyst for the more efficient use of resources, expansion of the resource pool, and enhancement of donors’ confidence in the ability of African universities to deliver. However, doing all of this requires robust research policies and procedures that clearly spell out the responsibilities and functions of the RMO and good research practice standards at each institution. Clearly, university policies and procedures
S71
Innovation and Implementation Reports
must monitor national and international developments and be able to quickly adapt to new regulatory and scientific requirements. The establishment of ARMZ is a landmark in the evolution of research governance and administration in Zimbabwe. The meetings leading to the establishment of the association provided, for the first time, a platform for sharing information and experience in research management in the country. Challenges Developing and implementing a robust research governance framework has its own challenges. For example, research governance is perceived to and may indeed impede research because of extensive or bureaucratic approval processes; lack of knowledge of governance requirements, especially ethical requirements, by investigators; and inconsistent policies.7–10 Despite this, there is consensus on the benefits of establishing a research governance framework.2,3,5,6 We experienced a number of our own challenges. Among them were delays in holding the consultative meetings because of the busy schedules of university leadership and management. Another challenge involved obtaining buy-in from university management and faculty whose main emphasis was on teaching and who generally feared increased bureaucracy. Management was also wary of the financial implications of the research governance initiative because the requirement for establishing research management structures, including funding, was embedded in the policy. Although we will need to evaluate ZiRIM’s impact as time goes on, the project has already made tremendous progress in developing research policies and charting the way for research administration to develop into a profession in Zimbabwe. We hope this
S72
will translate into increased donor confidence in the university research oversight and management systems, improved research output and quality, and increased knowledge translation to provide the public with improved services. The model we used can inform and benefit other institutions. Funding/Support: Funding and support for this work came from the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the collaboration of University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences and partner institutions, Africa University, National University of Science and Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Colorado Denver. Other disclosures: None reported. Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable. Disclaimers: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of OGAC, NIH, HRSA, or any other agency or organization. Ms. Mashaah is coordinator, Research Support Center, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Hakim is MEPI Zimbabwe principal investigator, Department of Medicine, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Chidzonga is dean, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Kangwende is director, Africa University Clinical Research Center, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Naik is director, Research and Innovation Management Office, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Dr. Federspiel is academic research and program officer, Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection Operations, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Ms. Fiorillo is research administrator, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado. Dr. Scott is professor of emergency medicine and health policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Dr. Gomo is director, Research Support Center, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
References 1 UK Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London, UK: UK Department of Health; 2005. https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/researchgovernance-framework-for-health-andsocial-care-second-edition. Accessed April 17, 2014. 2 Sawyerr A. African universities and the challenge of research capacity development. J Higher Educ Africa. 2004;2:213–242. 3 Kirkland J, Ajai-Ajagbe P. Research Management in African Universities: From Awareness Raising to Developing Structures. London, UK: Association of Commonwealth Universities; January 2013. http://carnegie. org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/ ACU_-_Research_Management_in_African_ Universities_Report_-_2013.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2014. 4 Rani M, Bekedam H, Buckley BS; World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Improving health research governance and management in the Western Pacific: A WHO expert consultation. J Evid Based Med. 2011;4:204–213. 5 Yasamy MT, Maulik PK, Tomlinson M, Lund C, Van Ommeren M, Saxena S. Responsible governance for mental health research in low resource countries. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001126. 6 Gomo E, Kalilani L, Mwapasa V, et al. Towards sustainable research capacity development and research ownership for academic institutes in developing countries, The Malawian Research Support Centre model. J Res Admin. 2011;42:38–44. 7 Jones AM, Bamford B. The other face of research governance. BMJ. 2004;329:280–281. 8 Cook M, Cook G, Hodgson P, Reed J, Clarke C, Inglis P. The impact of research governance in the United Kingdom on research involving a national survey. J Health Organ Manag. 2007;21:59–67. 9 Shaw SE, Petchey RP, Chapman J, Abott S. A double edged sword? Health research governance in UK primary care. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:912–918. 10 Bloom GS, Frew D. Regulation of research through research governance: Within and beyond NSW Health. N S W Public Health Bull. 2008;19:199–202.
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
Strengthening Research Governance for Sustainable Research: Experiences From Three Zimbabwean Universities Thokozile Mashaah, MSc, James Hakim, MD, Midion Chidzonga, FFDRCSI, Rugare A. Kangwende, MD, Yogeshkumar Naik, PhD, Nancy Federspiel, PhD, Suzanne Fiorillo, MSc, Jim Scott, MD, and Exnevia Gomo, PhD
Abstract A robust research system requires a robust governance framework. As part of the Medical Education Partnership Initiative, three Zimbabwean universities partnered with two U.S. universities in a project to strengthen research governance in the Zimbabwean universities. The project aimed at (1) developing research policies, (2) strengthening central research management offices, (3) developing a research administration curriculum,
U
niversities are strategic national and international institutions that assist in social and economic development through the generation of new know ledge. University rankings depend heavily on research output and quality, and their transformation into research-intensive institutions is a mark of development. Universities therefore strive to sustainably develop research capacity, which enables them to compete for shrinking research funding and be among the institutions generating cutting-edge knowledge and innovation. Research capacity can be viewed on three levels: individual, institutional, and macro-environmental.1,2 Most researchintensive universities in developed countries have highly qualified individual researchers, robust institutional structures and systems to guide and support the researchers, and strong national research policies and funding. In contrast, most universities in low-income Please see the end of this article for information about the authors. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Gomo, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Research Support Center, PO Box A178 Avondale, Harare, Zimbabwe; telephone: (+263) 4-708020; e-mail: [email protected]. Acad Med. 2014;89:S69–S72. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000348
and (4) enhancing awareness about the role and relevance of research administration in other universities and research institutions in Zimbabwe. Through the efforts of the partners, a generic research policy was developed and successfully adapted by the institutions. A curriculum was drafted, and module development experts are helping to finalize the curriculum to meet university requirements for accreditation of training research administrators. The
Association of Research Managers of Zimbabwe was established to promote information sharing and professionalize research administration. The consortium approach enabled rapid and smooth development and adoption of research policies in the institutions. It also helped researchers and managers accept research administration as an essential structure and function. The experiences and lessons learned are reported here to benefit other institutions and consortia.
countries are beleaguered by limited research capacity despite a long history of capacity-building efforts supported by developed countries. This has been attributed to a number of factors inclu ding the models of research capacity building that have focused primarily on developing individual skills without the necessary institutional and national structures and systems to support the trained individuals.1–3
and financial standards for research; transparent decision making, coordination, and clear allocation of responsibilities; and effective monitoring of research. Lack of research governance has been cited as an important reason for the limited research outputs from lowincome countries.2–5 The lack of research policies has also denied institutions the vision and strategies to build sustainable research capacity programs, to mobilize resources, and to effectively contribute to national research priorities.
Recently, discussion has begun to emphasize the role of institutional research structures and systems in research capacity enhancement.3 This discussion has become more urgent because research has become more com plex and highly competitive, requiring robust institutional mechanisms for oversight and management. This is often referred to as the research governance framework of a research institution. The UK National Health Service defines research governance as “the broad range of regulations, principles, and standards of good practice that exist to achieve, and continuously improve, research quality across all aspects of health care in the UK and worldwide.”1 Institutional research governance provides the internal policy and operational environment that guide and facilitate high scientific, ethical,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
The research governance framework is expected, among other things, to define the structure and mandate of the research support service. A robust research support center (RSC) would provide support for grant applications, award negotiation, financial management, and compliance. In low-income country institutions with limited research capacity, the RSC would also need to address issues of research skills building, stimulating research, and strengthening research governance and compliance. Indicators of effectiveness include the number of grant applications and awards; the level of compliance with institutional, funding, and regulatory requirements; the amount of funding secured; the number of publications arising from the awards; and the number of researchers supported and quality of services provided. This
S69
Innovation and Implementation Reports
framework requires the support of a strong monitoring and evaluation system. With input from Medical Education Partnership Initiative’s (MEPI’s) RSC technical working group (TWG), MEPI schools have been able to set up and/or strengthen their RSCs. In addition, five MEPI schools received additional support from the National Institutes of Health to develop and enhance their research infrastructure through Initiative on Research and Innovation Management (iRIM) grants. This article describes the experiences of one RSC TWG member, the University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences (UZ-CHS), in strengthening research governance in a collaborative project with two other local universities. Having been directly involved in the process, we describe our approach, strategies, processes, outputs, and outcomes and offer a brief discussion of the challenges. We hope this will be useful in establishing good practices in strengthening research capacity in lowincome countries. Approach, Strategies, Processes
Most universities in Zimbabwe have limited capacity for research governance and management. This was emphasized at a meeting of research managers from eight public and private universities in Zimbabwe, held in Harare in 2012. It is with this background that UZ-CHS, Africa University (AU), and the National University of Science and Technology (NUST) partnered in 2012 with Stanford University and the University of Colorado Denver in a project to strengthen research governance and management at the three Zimbabwean universities. Development of research policies was identified as a priority to help define the roles and responsibilities of various institutional and external stakeholders and to guide the initiation, conduct, and oversight of research. The universities conduct health research at varying levels, with nascent research administration structures. The NUST research administration office manages university-wide research beyond health. The project was funded through the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the MEPI program and iRIM. With technical support provided by the
S70
U.S. universities, the overall goal was to strengthen research governance and management through (1) development of research policies, (2) provision of equipment and tools to centralized research management offices (RMOs), and (3) development of research admini stration skills in the three Zimbabwean institutions. The project was called the Zimbabwe initiative on Research and Innovation Management (ZiRIM). Developing a generic research policy We sought to develop a generic research policy that could be adapted by the three institutions, recognizing that each has a unique research environment. This was achieved through a phased approach that involved the review of current research governance status at the three institutions, establishment of a TWG to draft generic policy, and institutionallevel consultations to adapt the policy. Developing curriculum for training in research administration This involved engaging all partners in developing a curriculum suited to the three institutions but cognizant of national and regional needs. To engender a common understanding of the concepts, principles, and capacity-building needs for research administration, research administrators from the three Zimbabwean universities visited and studied the RMOs of the U.S. partners. Providing resources for the RMOs One of the major challenges limiting research in the Zimbabwean universities, and other African institutions, is the availability of adequate resources to sustain the structures and systems for governance and management. Most universities are instruction oriented and have minimal financial, let alone policy, support for research. One of ZiRIM’s strategies was to support the centralization and resourcing of the RMOs at the Zimbabwean universities by providing equipment and other essential materials. Outreach to other institutions To contribute to the national discussion about the value of research governance and administration, one of ZiRIM’s objectives was to raise the awareness that research-intensive institutions can make a significant contribution to the national and international research
and development agenda. The ZiRIM consortium embarked on an aggressive awareness campaign by engaging other local universities and regional research management agencies in the country. Outputs and Outcomes
Establishing a TWG We adopted a phased approach to developing a generic research policy. The first phase was to establish a TWG composed of representatives from the three Zimbabwean universities. The TWG obtained information on and reviewed the research policies at regional and international institutions by accessing the institutions’ networks as well as through the Internet. Each of the three universities also conducted a needs assessment of its own research requirements. Results were shared at a two-day workshop in January 2013. UZ-CHS had no research policy, while AU and NUST were in the early stages of developing their policies. We developed a generic template outline of a research policy based primarily on the Malawi College of Medicine’s research policy—an established research governance and management structure and system.6 The college established an RSC in 2007 to provide pre- and postaward support services as well as clinical trials support. Over the next four years the RSC developed a research governance framework that included an overarching research policy and grants management system and procedures. The ZiRIM TWG transformed the Malawi template into a generic draft policy document that could be further adapted by each Zimbabwean university. Institutional Consultative Workshops After adapting the generic policy to fit their specific requirements, TWG members held consultative workshops to adopt the policies. The institutional experiences in this second phase are briefly outlined below. University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences. A consultative meeting was held in October 2013 with the UZ-CHS College Board, the chief decision-making body in the College of Health Sciences. After the dean formally presented the policy document, the board thoroughly reviewed each section and adopted it pending editorial corrections. A team was then assigned the task of editing the document prior
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
Innovation and Implementation Reports
to presentation to the University of Zimbabwe Senate.
module and eventually lead to the awarding of diplomas and master’s degrees.
Table 1
Africa University. AU went through a more rigorous consultative process that required four meetings. The first meeting, in April 2013, included reviewing the research policy development framework and generating inputs for formulation of research policy. The meeting was attended by the AU management as well as academic and research leadership. A second consultative meeting involving university management, research com mittee members, and other university stakeholders was held in October 2013 to review the draft policy. Two additional meetings were held to incorporate changes and to review the full document. Finally, the research policy document was presented to the University Senate followed by the AU Board of Directors in December 2013. The approved policy is now the official research governance document at AU.
Resources for RMOs
Contents of a Proposed Research Education Module for Health Research Administrators
National University of Science and Technology. The NUST held its first consultative workshop in May 2013. This two-day workshop included university management, deans of faculty, researchers, librarians, and faculty members. NUST TWG members led the discussions using the generic research policy. The participants gave valuable input, which the TWG members incorporated into a draft policy. A second workshop was expected to be conducted before the presentation of the policy to the University Senate in April 2014. Development of Research Administration Training Curriculum A draft curriculum for research administration was developed through several consortium meetings covering key areas of pre- and postaward administration. Research administration training programs used by U.S. partner institutions informed the draft curriculum. To ensure a professional and academic approach, the consortium engaged a team of education and module development experts in Zimbabwe to assist in the development of the module, which was expected to be completed by May 2014. Table 1 shows an outline of the contents of the module. This is a work in progress that is expected to help develop universityaccredited certificates in the various components of the research administration
The MEPI grant allocated each Zimbabwean university a budget for equipment and materials for their RMOs, including furniture, computers, and supplies. In addition, each RMO was allocated funding to facilitate consultative meetings to develop the research policy and research administration curriculum. These resources helped enable the RMOs to fully participate in the consortium activities and to improve their local operations. Outreach One of the major successes of the ZiRIM project has been the campaign to raise awareness and generate interest and discussion about research governance and administration in Zimbabwe. This was achieved through funding and facilitation of meetings of research managers from public and private universities, research institutions, and regulatory agencies. The meetings led to the formation of the Association of Research Managers of Zimbabwe (ARMZ) in July 2012. ARMZ’s goals are to promote the sharing of information and experiences in research governance and management among Zimbabwean research administrators; to professionalize research administration; and to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of research support. This effort is supported by the Southern Africa Research Management Association, a regional membership organization that promotes research and innovation management career development. ARMZ was to be officially launched in April 2014. Discussion
The ZiRIM project provides evidence for what collaborations between local and international partners can achieve to help strengthen research capacity in developing countries. The open consultation process we used enables the sharing of expertise and experiences, instills a sense of ownership in the development of research polices, and helps strengthen the research management structure. Involvement of the institution’s management helps to ensure complete participation and lead to full official acceptance of the research policy. Adoption of the research policy also signals a clear mandate for the RMOs, which will help ensure their
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
Module chapter 1 2
Proposed topic Overview of health research administration Health research: Preaward and award processes
3
Communication and dissemination of research output for health research administrators and principal investigators
4
Financial management in health research administration
5
Project implementation and management
6
Ethics, intellectual property, and regulatory issues
7
Monitoring and evaluation for health research administration
smooth operation. Allowing a core interinstitutional team to develop the initial generic policy saves time and helps focus the discussion during consultation meetings. A Landmark Development Developing a curriculum for local training in research administration provides a way of building capacity for sustainable research support in developing-country institutions. Indeed, we have not been able to determine with certainty whether any institution in Africa currently offers standardized and accredited training in research administration at the certificate, diploma, or degree levels. The ZiRIM initiative may well be a first and provide much-needed training in the discipline of research governance and management as well as contribute to the professionalization of this discipline. As noted by Sawyerr2 and Kirkland and Ajai-Ajagbe,3 an established research management profession can act as a catalyst for the more efficient use of resources, expansion of the resource pool, and enhancement of donors’ confidence in the ability of African universities to deliver. However, doing all of this requires robust research policies and procedures that clearly spell out the responsibilities and functions of the RMO and good research practice standards at each institution. Clearly, university policies and procedures
S71
Innovation and Implementation Reports
must monitor national and international developments and be able to quickly adapt to new regulatory and scientific requirements. The establishment of ARMZ is a landmark in the evolution of research governance and administration in Zimbabwe. The meetings leading to the establishment of the association provided, for the first time, a platform for sharing information and experience in research management in the country. Challenges Developing and implementing a robust research governance framework has its own challenges. For example, research governance is perceived to and may indeed impede research because of extensive or bureaucratic approval processes; lack of knowledge of governance requirements, especially ethical requirements, by investigators; and inconsistent policies.7–10 Despite this, there is consensus on the benefits of establishing a research governance framework.2,3,5,6 We experienced a number of our own challenges. Among them were delays in holding the consultative meetings because of the busy schedules of university leadership and management. Another challenge involved obtaining buy-in from university management and faculty whose main emphasis was on teaching and who generally feared increased bureaucracy. Management was also wary of the financial implications of the research governance initiative because the requirement for establishing research management structures, including funding, was embedded in the policy. Although we will need to evaluate ZiRIM’s impact as time goes on, the project has already made tremendous progress in developing research policies and charting the way for research administration to develop into a profession in Zimbabwe. We hope this
S72
will translate into increased donor confidence in the university research oversight and management systems, improved research output and quality, and increased knowledge translation to provide the public with improved services. The model we used can inform and benefit other institutions. Funding/Support: Funding and support for this work came from the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and the collaboration of University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences and partner institutions, Africa University, National University of Science and Technology, Stanford University, and the University of Colorado Denver. Other disclosures: None reported. Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable. Disclaimers: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of OGAC, NIH, HRSA, or any other agency or organization. Ms. Mashaah is coordinator, Research Support Center, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Hakim is MEPI Zimbabwe principal investigator, Department of Medicine, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Chidzonga is dean, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Kangwende is director, Africa University Clinical Research Center, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe. Dr. Naik is director, Research and Innovation Management Office, National University of Science and Technology, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Dr. Federspiel is academic research and program officer, Institute for Immunity, Transplantation, and Infection Operations, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Ms. Fiorillo is research administrator, Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado. Dr. Scott is professor of emergency medicine and health policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Dr. Gomo is director, Research Support Center, University of Zimbabwe College of Health Sciences, Harare, Zimbabwe.
References 1 UK Department of Health. Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. 2nd ed. London, UK: UK Department of Health; 2005. https://www. gov.uk/government/publications/researchgovernance-framework-for-health-andsocial-care-second-edition. Accessed April 17, 2014. 2 Sawyerr A. African universities and the challenge of research capacity development. J Higher Educ Africa. 2004;2:213–242. 3 Kirkland J, Ajai-Ajagbe P. Research Management in African Universities: From Awareness Raising to Developing Structures. London, UK: Association of Commonwealth Universities; January 2013. http://carnegie. org/fileadmin/Media/Publications/PDF/ ACU_-_Research_Management_in_African_ Universities_Report_-_2013.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2014. 4 Rani M, Bekedam H, Buckley BS; World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Improving health research governance and management in the Western Pacific: A WHO expert consultation. J Evid Based Med. 2011;4:204–213. 5 Yasamy MT, Maulik PK, Tomlinson M, Lund C, Van Ommeren M, Saxena S. Responsible governance for mental health research in low resource countries. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001126. 6 Gomo E, Kalilani L, Mwapasa V, et al. Towards sustainable research capacity development and research ownership for academic institutes in developing countries, The Malawian Research Support Centre model. J Res Admin. 2011;42:38–44. 7 Jones AM, Bamford B. The other face of research governance. BMJ. 2004;329:280–281. 8 Cook M, Cook G, Hodgson P, Reed J, Clarke C, Inglis P. The impact of research governance in the United Kingdom on research involving a national survey. J Health Organ Manag. 2007;21:59–67. 9 Shaw SE, Petchey RP, Chapman J, Abott S. A double edged sword? Health research governance in UK primary care. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:912–918. 10 Bloom GS, Frew D. Regulation of research through research governance: Within and beyond NSW Health. N S W Public Health Bull. 2008;19:199–202.
Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 8 / August Supplement 2014
