emb assy of sweden makerere university mak sida · 2020-03-09 · makerere university august , 2018...
TRANSCRIPT
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
RESEARCH COLLABORATION PROGRAM
2015-2020 MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT
EMBASSY OF SWEDEN
Mak – Sida
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
AUGUST, 2018
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Mak– SidaRESEARCH COLLABORATION PROGRAM 2015-2020
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT
i
RESEARCH COLLABORATION PROGRAM
2015-2020 MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT
EMBASSY OF SWEDEN
Mak – Sida
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
AUGUST, 2018
Submitted to:The Directorate of Research and Graduate Training Makerere University, Senate Building, Level 4, Room 410, P.O Box 7062 KAMPALA-UGANDA.
Submitted by:Professor Benon C Basheka, PhD, FCIPSFor and On Behalf of Radix Management Consulting (U) LTD,P.O. Box 72661Kampala, UGANDA Phone: +256 782459354E-mail: [email protected]: www.radixconsults.com
Date: AUGUST, 2018
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
COPYRIGHTS AND DISCLAIMERThis document is prepared for the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training (DRGT) Makerere University. All rights reserved ®. In-line with the Terms of Reference (TOR), DRGT and her affiliates are free to reproduce, store in a retrieval system, or transmit in any form, or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior explicit written consent of the authors.
PURPOSE AND INTENDED AUDIENCEThis document presents the key findings and recommendations of the mid-term evaluation of the Mak -Sida Research Collaboration Program 2015-2020 (Mak - Sida Programme). The evaluation report describes how the evaluation was conducted, the models and frameworks used, the emerging findings, key lessons and best practices and recommendations. The document is intended for DRGT Makerere University and all associate programme stakeholders to guide decisions making and implementation of the programme activities in the remaining programme period and to reignite debate on sustainability measures beyond the funding period.
CONFIDENTIALITY CLASSIFICATIONConfidentiality Description Circulation Limit
IN-CONFIDENCE Unauthorized release might possibly cause harm to an organization or individual, or give unfair advantage to any entity or violate somebody’s right to privacy
Restricted access within DRGT Makerere University and authorized partners only
UNCLASSIFIED No special classification is assigned No special restrictions other than legislative or administrative requirements
PUBLIC No harm could be caused to an organization or individual, and no unfair advantage could be given to any entity and no violation would occur to somebody’s right to privacy
Unrestricted access
Name Title Signature Date
Prof. Mukadasi Buyinza Programme Coordinator and Director DRGT, Mak
AUTHORS
Prof. Benon C. Basheka is the CEO and Managing Director of Radix Management Consulting (U) Limited. He is Vice Chancellor and a Professor of Public Administration and Management at Uganda Technology and Management University (UTAMU) in Uganda. He has conducted high level evaluations for Government, Agencies, Multilateral partners and Civil Society. He has reasonable experience in research management and has supervised to successful completion a number of graduate students and has a reasonable experience and understanding of graduate research processes.
Prof. Jude T. Lubega is asenior associate consultant with Radix Management Consulting (U) Ltd. He is also Deputy Vice Chancellor and a Professor of Information Technology at Uganda Technology and Management University (UTAMU).
ii
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Dr. Drake Patrick Mirembe, Ph. D is a senior associate Consultant at Radix Management Consulting (U) Ltd. He has over 15 years of consulting in ICT integration, organizational development and leadership, research and evaluation, capacity assessment among others. Dr. Mirembe has worked with a number of local and international organizations, including Microsoft Inc., the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Makerere University, and Bankshire Technologies among others.On this assignment he served as a data scientists and institutional capacity assessment expert.
CONTRIBUTORS
Mr. Peter Rwabutomize is an associate consultant with Radix Management Consulting and he was the data analyst specialist. He has extensive experience in monitoring and evaluation of development interventions from different sectors.
iii
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
16
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
vii
xi
x
xiv
xv
1
3
10
3
3
4
1
6
9
9
10
17
10
19
25
11
28
11
28
30
16
LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................................................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................................................................................................
1. INTRODUCTION TO MID-TERM EVALUATION ...............................................................................................................
1.1. Mid-Term Evaluation Background and Context .......................................................................................................................
1.2. Mid-Term Evaluation Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................................
1.3. Scope and Key deliverables .....................................................................................................................................................................
1.4. Evaluation Approach and Methodology ........................................................................................................................................
1.4.1. Evaluation Guiding Questions .......................................................................................................................................
1.4.2. Evaluation Frameworks .........................................................................................................................................................
1.4.3. Evaluation Methodology description .........................................................................................................................
1.4.4. Evaluation Independence ....................................................................................................................................................
1.4.5. Quality Assurance and Ethics ..........................................................................................................................................
1.4.6. Respondents of the MTR Review (Stakeholder Map) .....................................................................................
1.5. Limitations ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
1.6. Structure of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report ..............................................................................................................................
2. PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................
2.2. Background Results of MTR ......................................................................................................................................................................
2.3. Programme Relevance ..................................................................................................................................................................................
2.3.1. Beneficiary (student assessment) ...................................................................................................................................
2.3.2. Partner Universities Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme ...........................
2.3.3. Mak-Sida Programme Compliance with needs of Public Universities ............................................
2.3.4. Mak-Sida Programme Relevance in addressing Capacity Issues in Uganda ...........................
2.4. Academic Quality .............................................................................................................................................................................................
2.4.1. Appropriateness of Curriculum used in the Mak-Sida Programme ..................................................
2.4.2. Staff Profile and Experience used in the Mak-Sida Programme ..........................................................
11
iv
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
8
33
76
74
31
72
69
36
78
58
38
80
62
45
81
62
56
55
47
83
64
57
52
83
83
83
66
58
55
68
60
.. 2.4.3. Support Resources and Infrastructure used in the Mak-Sida Programme .....................................
2.4.4. Pedagogical Approaches used in the Mak-Sida Programme ..................................................................
2.5. Programme Management Effectiveness and Efficiency ........................................................................................................
2.5.1. Programme Management and Coordination .......................................................................................................
2.5.2. Management of Local PhD Training .............................................................................................................................
2.5.3. Financial Management ............................................................................................................................................................
2.5.4. Student and Supervisor Support Services .................................................................................................................
2.6. Gender Integration ............................................................................................................................................................................................
2.6.1. Gender equality .............................................................................................................................................................................
2.6.2. Gender equity .................................................................................................................................................................................
2.6.3. Gender mainstreaming ...........................................................................................................................................................
2.7. Sida Programme Ownership and Sustainability ........................................................................................................................
2.7.1. Emerging Systems and Structures ...................................................................................................................................
2.7.2. Emerging Staff Retention Strategies ..............................................................................................................................
3. PROGRESS TOWARDS PLANNED OUTPUTS, OUTCOMES AND IMPACT ...........................................
3.1. Individual Project Status ...................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.1. Project 317 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.2. Project 321 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.3. Project 344 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.4. Project 374 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.5. Project 377 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.6. Project 316 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.7. Project 313 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.8. Project 376 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.9. Project 362 ........................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.10. Project 382 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.11. Project 2891...................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.12. Project 372 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.13. Project 334 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.14. Project 313 .....................................................................................................................................................................................
3.1.15. TProject 331 ..................................................................................................................................................................................
...
62
v
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
8
97
84
97
84
98
92
86
98
92
99
93
88
87
101
105
105
107
111
94
89
88
97
97
90
3.2. Progress towards individual Objective ...............................................................................................................................................
3.2.1. Objective One: Improve the institutional and research infrastructure to support a
robust environment for research and innovations at Makerere University .................................
3.2.2. Objective Two: Strengthen local PhD training in public universities in Uganda ......................
3.2.3. Objective Three: Increase the generation and dissemination of research and research
outputs through multidisciplinary teams .................................................................................................................
3.2.4. Objective 4: Increase capacity for knowledge translation and innovations ...............................
3.2.5. Objective 5: Increase partnerships and regional synergies for knowledge generation
and sharing .....................................................................................................................................................................................
3.2.6. Objective 6: Improve the coordination and management of research and knowledge
uptake ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
3.2.7. Objective 7: Increase cooperation with and strengthen capacity of partner public
universities ........................................................................................................................................................................................
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................................
4.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
4.2. Lessons and Best Practices ....................................................................................................................................................................
4.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................
4.4. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................................................................
5. APPENDICES AND REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................................
5.1. Beneficiary Students Survey Tool .......................................................................................................................................................
5.2. Student Supervisors and PI Survey Tool .......................................................................................................................................
5.3. University Programme Coordination Interview Protocol ................................................................................................
5.4. Programme Steering Committee Interview Protocol .........................................................................................................
5.5. CMC (Swedish Embassy Staff) Interview Guide ...................................................................................................................
5.6. Project Progress Matrix ..............................................................................................................................................................................
5.7. Research Teams and thematic areas supported with Swedish funds ...................................................................
5.8. References ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
5.9. NAMES OF OFFICERS/RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED ..............................................................................................
5.10. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND WORKPLAN .............................................................................................................................
5.11. The following outputs shall be delivered by the Consulting Team: ......................................................................
92
vi
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
27
15
TABLES OF FIGURES
6
12
11
13
13
14
14
16
23
18
19
21
21
22
22
23
27
24
28
29
25
24
30
26
32
32
26
Figure 1: McKinsey 7-S Framework .................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 2: Description of student beneficiaries by gender and age groups .....................................................................
Figure 3: Description of beneficiaries by programme type and time spent ....................................................................
Figure 4: Table: Description of beneficiaries by host institution ...............................................................................................
Figure 5: Level of graduate training by programme .........................................................................................................................
Figure 6: Role of participant by Age ...............................................................................................................................................................
Figure 7: Participant Years at the Institution ..............................................................................................................................................
Figure 8: Participant Home University ...........................................................................................................................................................
Figure 9: Degree of Strategic Collaboration Approach of SIDA programme ..............................................................
Figure 10: Number of Respondent Supervisors .....................................................................................................................................
Figure 11: Extent of Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme ..............................................................
Figure 12: Projects Planned and Actual outputs ...................................................................................................................................
Figure 13: SIDA programme publications .................................................................................................................................................
Figure 14: Number of Bilateral Visits .............................................................................................................................................................
Figure 15: SIDA programme activities ..........................................................................................................................................................
Figure 16: Scientific publications with SIDA programme support ..........................................................................................
Figure 17: Number of non-scientific publications ...............................................................................................................................
Figure 18: Publications authored with Mak-Sida Programme support ..............................................................................
Figure 19: Publications co-authored with partner university researchers .........................................................................
Figure 20: Proportion of punctual research execution (%) ...........................................................................................................
Figure 21: Extent of the Mak-Sida Programme Alignment to Institution’s Strategic Plan ....................................
Figure 22: Mak-Sida Programme contribution to growth of home visibility and brand ......................................
Figure 23: Mak-Sida Programme impact on home faculty research agenda ..............................................................
Figure 24: Mak-Sida Programme partnership influence on collaboration with other researchers .............
Figure 25: Capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020 ..................................................
Figure 26: Extent to which curriculum is appropriate for students to achieve their career goals ................
Figure 27: Staff Years with the University ....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 28: Support to student with decent office space .................................................................................................................
Figure 29: Accessibility to specialized laboratories ............................................................................................................................
vii
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
49
38
33
35
34
35
36
37
37
39
43
40
41
41
42
42
43
44
49
44
50
46
45
50
46
51
51
53
54
48
Figure 30: Availability of research facilities at host institutions ................................................................................................
Figure 31: Appropriateness of teaching and learning at host institutions .......................................................................
Figure 32: Response on how often Supervisors meet Students ................................................................................................
Figure 33: Students Response on Appropriateness of Style of Engagement .................................................................
Figure 34: Extent to which beneficiaries were oriented ...................................................................................................................
Figure 35: Rating on accessibility of research guidelines .............................................................................................................
Figure 36: Accessibility to research guidelines on Quality of research and training .............................................
Figure 37: Rating on availability of reporting templates ................................................................................................................
Figure 38: Programme Coordination and Management ..............................................................................................................
Figure 39: Effectiveness of current Mak-Sida Programme coordination process ......................................................
Figure 40: Sufficiency of the research stipend of Mak-Sida Programme .........................................................................
Figure 41: MAK structural support of Mak-Sida Programme .....................................................................................................
Figure 42: Mak-Sida Programme provision of progress tracking tools .............................................................................
Figure 43: Project team have Communication and Visibility Strategy ................................................................................
Figure 44: Extent of implementation of Communication & Visibility Strategy ..............................................................
Figure 45: ICT use in research work ..............................................................................................................................................................
Figure 46: Use of social media ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 47: Use of Non-ICT tools for Communication and Visibility ....................................................................................
Figure 48: Satisfaction level of Current Research work Visibility .............................................................................................
Figure 49: Impact of Supervisor twining ......................................................................................................................................................
Figure 50: Supervisor Supervision Load ......................................................................................................................................................
Figure 51: Budget Allocation 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions) .......................................................................................................
Figure 52: Makerere-Sweden bilateral research programme budget performance 2015/16 ......................
Figure 53: Makerere Swedish Bilateral Research Program Budget performance 2016/17 .............................
Figure 54: Makerere Swedish bilateral research programme budget perform1ance 2017/18 (Dec
31st 2017) ................................................................................................................................................................................................
Figure 55: Consolidated Budget performance 2015/16-2017(Dec) % ..........................................................................
Figure 56: Budget performance projection for period 2017/18 ...........................................................................................
Figure 57: Consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions) ..........................................
Figure 58: Frequency of meetings between students and supervisors ................................................................................
Figure 59: Level of engagement between students and supervisors ....................................................................................
viii
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
63
54
56
55
57
58
60
59
65
82
67
68
70
73
75
77
84
Figure 60: Appropriateness engagement style of participants with supervisors .........................................................
Figure 61: Supervisors’ knowledge in area of research .................................................................................................................
Figure 62: Student Perception on Gender Integration .....................................................................................................................
Figure 63: Supervisor and Student Respondents Gender classification ............................................................................
Figure 64: Opinions on level of gender integration in programme activities ..............................................................
Figure 65: Response on Institution's Capacity to continue with Sida Programme Activities after 2020
Figure 66: Response on how Institutional budget is dedicated to research and graduate training ...........
Figure 67: Project 317 Student progress ....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 68: Project 321 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 69: Project 344 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 70: Project 374 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 71: Project 377 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 72: Project 316 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 73: Project 313 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 74: Project 362 student progress .....................................................................................................................................................
Figure 75: Project 2891 student progress .................................................................................................................................................
Figure 76: Summary of Capacity Building within the Programme .........................................................................................
ix
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
LIST OF TABLES
9
12
10
20
52
52
Table 1: Step by Step Approach used ............................................................................................................................................................
Table 2: Description of Key Stakeholders ...................................................................................................................................................
Table 3: Description Key Stakeholders ..........................................................................................................................................................
Table 4: Projects planned outputs and achievements at mid-term level ...........................................................................
Table 6: Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures ...................................................................
Table 7: Overall Expenditure by Item .............................................................................................................................................................
x
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
TERM Definition and Description
AP Annual Plan
AR Annual ReviewAPM Annual Planning MeetingARM Annual Review MeetingBU Busitema UniversityCMC Consultative Management CommitteeDICT Directorate of Information Communication TechnologyDRGT Directorate of Research and Graduate TrainingGAAP Generally Accepted Accounting PrinciplesGoU Government of UgandaGRN Goods Received NoteICT Information, Communication and TechnologyIFRS International Financial Reporting StandardsISP International Science Programme at Uppsala UniversityLPO Local Purchase OrderMA Master of ArtsMak Makerere UniversityMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMSc Master of ScienceMTR Mid Term ReviewNGO Non-Government OrganisationNSSF National Social Security FundPAYE Pay As You EarnPDU Procurement and Disposal UnitPhD Doctor of PhilosophyPI Principal InvestigatorPIC Program Implementation CommitteePPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets AuthorityPPUs Public Partner UniversitiesRBMs Results Based Management Log FramesQAD Quality Assurance DirectorateSC Steering CommitteeSida Swedish International Development Cooperation AgencySoP Standard Operating ProceduresUNCHE Uganda National Council for Higher EducationVAT Value Added TaxVC Vice ChancellorWHT Withholding Tax
xi
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
GU Gulu University MUST Mbarara University of Science and Technology KYU Kyambogo University Radix Radix Management Consulting (U) LtdDCM Data Collection MethodsDRGT Directorate of Research and Graduate TrainingPIs Principal InvestigatorsPSC Programme Steering CommitteePSC Programme Steering Committee
xii
Terms Description
Academic Quality Academic quality (Fitness to purpose) is how well the institutional; processes, structures, systems and resources support learners (students) in achieving their anticipated learning outcomes
Academic Quality Assurance
Academic Quality Assurance is process of checking that institutional; processes, structures, systems and resources that deliver services which meet the expected standards and agreed expectations.
Mak-Sida Programme
Makerere Sida Research Collaboration Programme
Relevancy Relevance is the extent to which the objectives and design of the program are consistent with (a) current global/regional challenges and concerns and (b) the needs and priorities of beneficiary groups.
Effectiveness Program effectiveness relates to the level by which the activities of a program produce the desired effect
Efficiency Program Efficiency relates to the cost of producing products or services relative to other programs or to some ideal process.
Impact Program impact is the extent to which long-term and sustained changes occur in a target population
Sustainability According to the American Heritage Dictionary, "to sustain" means to keep in existence, to supply with necessities, to support from below, to encourage, and to maintain competently.
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
xiii
Complementarity Complementarity, in its most basic sense means a mutual complementation of deliberately undertaken activities, achieved through the directing of a support stream toward their implementation in order to solve a given problem more effectively or attain an objective.
Input Primary resources which once acted upon by a systematic process translates into outputs
Process A series of actions (Activities) or steps taken in order to achieve a particular output
Output A tangible deliverable resulting from one or more activities of a given project. (i.e., a methodology, a policy recommendation, a research publication, new data , etc)
Outcome Refer to changes in knowledge, attitudes, skills, infrastructure, institutional value and most importantly practices
Activity It’s a measurable amount of work to convert inputs into outputs
Impact Pathway The plausible pathways of how project actions results into outputs and later contribute to development outcomes as envisioned by the Mak -Sida Research Collaboration Programme.
Milestones A significant event in the progress of the Project as outlined in project work plans
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
ACKNOWLEGDEMENT
On behalf of Radix Management Consulting team, we would like to extend our deepest appreciation to a number of individuals and organizations who contributed immensely to the success of this assignment. First, the DRGT team led by Prof. Mukadasi Buyinza, the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme Coordination Office staff, Project Principal Investigators (PI’s), Partner Public Universities (PPU) programme coordinators, student supervisors, programme beneficiary students, and the Swedish Embassy staff who are directly involved in the programme implementation among others.
We in a special way extend appreciation to a team of Swedish partners who gracefully accepted to participate in the evaluation during the annual planning meetings. Their inputs were insightful and provided an appropriate context for better understanding of the assignment.
We wish to specifically extend our appreciation to Mr. Nestor Mugabe for the tirelessly efforts in coordinating this assignment and regular effective communication with the consultancy teamand the various stakeholders across all the participating institutions that made the interactions more friendly. The Staff, and Management of each PPU who found time from their busy schedules to provide an input into the process are equally highly appreciated.
We would also like to thank the team of specialists and researchers, research assistants, and back office staff at Radix who ensured the whole process went on uninterrupted and delivered this quality product.
Prof. Benon C. Basheka, PhD,FCIPSLEAD CONSULTANT AND CEO RADDIX MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
xiv
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The main objective of the bilateral research collaboration programme between Uganda and Sweden was to enhance capacity of public higher education institutions to conduct and sustain strategic and high quality research that will contribute to the development needs of Uganda and beyond through building a critical mass of independent researchers. The research programme involved five universities namely, Makerere University (MaK), Kyambogo University (KYU), Busitema University (BU), Gulu University (GU) and Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST). The support to those universities is being channeled through Makerere University. This document presents the Mid-Term Review (MTR) findings of the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme 2015-2020. The results relate to the nature and contribution of the programme in building institutional capacity among the five partner public universities in Uganda.
The mid-term review largely focused on the appropriateness of the programming mechanisms that were intended to achieve planned outputs, and the institutional systems capabilities. The MTR assessed the academic quality, management of local PhD training, management of cross-cutting courses; and the program partnership with Ugandan public universities. The MTR also assessed the programme progress towards desired outcomes with focus on changes in research capacity and the enabling environment during the period November 2015 –February 2018 in line with programmes Results Based Monitoring (RBM) framework. In addition the appropriateness of programme coordination structures and systems, in terms of overall effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy and sustainability of the research cooperation among the participating public universities in Uganda was assessed.
The over-arching objectives of the assignment were to: I. Assess academic quality (in terms of; appropriateness of curriculum, staff profile and experience,
support resources and infrastructure, pedagogical approaches used) and management of local PhD training, management of cross-cutting courses; and the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities (in terms of appropriateness of coordination structures, effectiveness and efficiency of management systems).
II. Assess results at the outcome level with focus on changes in research capacity and the enabling environment during the period November 2015 –April 2018 (In terms of institution capacity improvement, policy environment and corporate culture )
III. Make an overall analysis of the research cooperation in relation to its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability.
IV. Make an assessment of the level of institutional preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human and physical), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme beyond 2020 (Sustainability strategy).
1. INTRODUCTION
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
xv
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3. METHODOLOGY
The following steps were logically followed to undertake the mid-term review:
Activity/step Description of what is involved in each stage
1. Entry meeting. Upon the receipt of the contract award from the client, the consulting team held an entry meeting with the client. The meeting was used to seek clarification on unclear issues pertaining to the assignment and also enabled the consultants have a face to face interface with the client team.
2. Preliminary literature review
A review of the project documents was undertaken. The project indicators were reviewed and key attention was put to understanding the standard operating procedures documents.
3. Inception Report
The inception report was then prepared as an outcome of the entry meeting activities and the review of documents. The inception report as the first deliverable formed a service level understanding between the consultant and the client upon which this report is being submitted. The structure of the evaluation report was agreed upon during the inception report discussion.
4. Secondary Data The evaluation relied on both primary and secondary data. The secondary data was obtained from relevant documents from MUK and partner universities.
5. Development of a Framework for the evaluation
The consultant synchronized the DAC framework with the objectives and intentions of this evaluation to develop a framework for conducting the assignment. The assessment questions were developed at input level, the processes/delivery mechanisms level, outputs level in terms of planned targets, the merging outcomes and then likely impact and potential features of sustainability.
6. Stakeholder Analysis and mapping
A mid-term review needed to seek opinions from various stakeholders. To undertake this, a stakeholder analysis and mapping exercise had to be undertaken. Data collection instruments for each stakeholders were developed after examining the contextual likely understanding of each of the stakeholders.
7. Finalization of data collection instruments
To logically provide and draw linkages between programme priorities, the consulting after a serious review of existing documents and theory of change designed final exhaustive and easy to understand instruments to generate primary qualitative and quantitative findings. The survey instruments were converted to ICT-enabled format and were administered to the programme stakeholders. Interview guides were also used to seek the views of other stakeholders
8. Field work Survey and Management
The survey was conducted among the partnering public universities (PPU). The field work was managed by parallel teams for Busitema, Gulu and Mbarara. The core team members jointly handled Kyambogo and Makerere university as well as other stakeholders.
xvi
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
9. Data analysis The information obtained from the different sources was subjected to detailed analysis based on the needs and objectives of the evaluation. Financial resource analysis was conducted to determine the trends and performance of the different projects. Survey results were analyzed using graphs, pie-charts and frequency tables and analysis was done for each of the projects. The qualitative data was analyzed using a matrix.
10. Best Practices and lessons mapping
Based on the emerging findings from the various stakeholders using diverse methods of data collection, the evaluation team mapped the emerging best practices and lessons across different project level indicators. This was intended to guide further detailed structuring of the evaluation report. This step was also intended to inform the interview with the key coordination team.
11. Interviews with DRGT, Embassy, and Senior Management team of MUK
After examining the outstanding lessons and best practices and the emerging findings from different stakeholders, the evaluation team interacted with the Director and overall coordinator of the programme,the embassy coordinators and the University senior management (Deputy Vice Chancellor-Finance and Administration). The justification for this approach was to appraise these oversight teams on the emerging findings and seek clarification and their input.
12. Draft Evaluation Report
After verification and clarity of issues in the preceding stage, a draft report as the second deliverable to the assignment was developed and submitted to the client. The report Covered the background context, the objectives and scope of the evaluation, the approach and methodology used, the emerging findings, conclusions and recommendations. This was then submitted to the client for their comments and further validation.
13. Final Evaluation report
After comments from the client on the draft report, the evaluation team developed the final evaluation report with short, medium and long-term recommendations. The final report was subjected to editing and appropriate professional formatting standards before it was submitted to the client.
14. Exit meeting The consultant had an exit meeting with the client team. This meeting was used to assess the lessons learnt from the evaluation exercise and agree on how future similar assignments could be managed
4. KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS
Relevance.
1. The research cooperation programme is well in line with the Swedish research support policy and supports also Ugandan overall development plans and the most recent research policy emphasizing the increasing role of research in the socio-economic development of the country.
2. The five partner public universities agree that the programme is relevant and is in line with their strategic plans which are focused on strengthening; teaching and learning, research and innovation, knowledge transfer & partnerships. The analysis of Mak-Sida Programme activities clearly indicate they are aligned to the 3 thematic areas of all partner universities.
xvii
1
2
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3. Over 90% of the student beneficiaries strongly support the relevance of the strategic collaboration approach which is regarded beneficial to them.
4. The majority of the supervisors who responded indicated that the programme design involved a consultative and participatory process to a great extent.
5. It was evident from the analysis of the national development frameworks, that the programme is aligned to the government of Uganda national development plan of transforming Uganda into a middle income knowledge based economy
6. The programme addresses the critical needs of the higher education sector in Uganda, as the country has a greater need for PhD holders to support the rapidly expanding higher education sector.
7. The Swedish support has clearly been relevant and useful for MaK for a long period of time, but less so for the other four public universities. The current capacity building initiatives will with time lead to institutionalized, improved academic curricula, research and graduate training systems at the PPU.
8. Programme investments in library, GIS and Muchap/DSS coupled with acquisition of equipment in college based laboratories following implementation of research projects has improved the environment that support research. Limitations still exist with respect to adequacy of laboratory equipment and updating of software at the GIS laboratory.
Academic quality.
1. The evaluation of staff profile as one of the measures of academic quality revealed that all the projects within the Mak-Sida Programme are led by experienced PhD holders. The PIs are all experienced and senior researchers and academics in their fields of specialization. The assessment also revealed the majority of the PIs have reasonable experience in managing donor-funded programmes.
2. A good number of PIs have published widely within their research disciplines and some have an exceedingly high google-scholar citation indices as a measure of the quality of scholarship and publication excellence.
3. While 84% of the students indicated that their supervisors were knowledgeable in their areas of research as a measure of academic quality, the evaluation noted majority of the partner universities lacked full number of PhD holders to steer research and graduate training as per their current human resource establishments. This however implies the programme was dully complying with the needs of making sure there are more PhD and master holders within these institutions.
4. An assessment of other key staff profile on the Mak-Sida programme such as coordinators, administrators and accountants also indicated a high caliber staff. The accountant is a locally and internationally certified practicing professional and possess adequate qualification for the job. The same applied to the rest of the programmes staff who had the experience to perform their duties.
5. The Mak-Sida programme coordination office at Makerere University is under-staffed and this affects the effective execution of programme activities most especially within areas of administration and accounting. Services such as student support, stakeholder engagement, procurement, PI administrative support are greatly affected.
6. The participating Ugandan institutions are running accredited curriculum by National Council for Higher Education (NCHE). In some of the Universities the Mak-Sida programme has so far provided support for curriculum review. A total of 13 programmes in all participating public universities have been reviewed with Mak-Sida Programme support. The review of the proposed new programmes found them to be well thought through, relevant and ear marked to addressing critical skill gaps in key sectors of the economy. It was noted that almost all the proposed programmes are complete and waiting accreditation from NCHE.
7. Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University through the Mak-Sida Programme has spearheaded the review and development of new PhD programmes. This is also in line with the
xviii
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
sustainability agenda after the closure of the current financing. A total of 8 new PhD programmes are being developed.
8. The PhD curriculum is run both by research only and by course and research but all students registered onto any of them had to undertake some mandatory courses. The curriculum for the taught PhDs include the following; BU – PhD in Materials engineering, MUST - PhD in Biomedical Engineering, GU – PhD in Applied Tropical Entomology and Parasitology, Mak – PhD in Maths, PhD in Information Systems, PhD in Management and PhD in Public Health. Development of taught PhD programmes is part of the quality assurance programme of improving PhD training within the country.
9. Concerning the quality of learning received by the students, the curriculum being followed in all the Universities is relatively good and contributes to the students’ skills enhancement for their jobs they were performing within the institutions.
10. There is concern with the research based PhD programmes where very low student completion rates are being registered. While DGRT attributes this to the one year spent on conceptualization of PhD study areas, other stakeholders blame this to student inadequate knowledge within the research areas, lack of working experience. The teaching of philosophy of research should be able to address this gap.
11. To ensure speedy completion for students, the agreement between MaK and Sida required that MaK ensures necessary study leaves for students involved, and 20% research time for staff members involved, as stipulated in MaK’s Research and Innovations Policy. However, due to the continued growth of student population and a constrained workforce, some PPUs delayed to follow through this commitment and hence students experienced a split commitment to their studies. Most students fear that they might delay to complete their studies because for the whole of their first year they were also still active teaching staff and therefore could not allocate enough study time among their teaching schedule.
12. 55% (48 PhD, 23 Masters) of the participants suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not adequate and available compared to 45% (34 PhD, 25 Masters) of the participants who indicated they are adequate and available. Mbarara University of Science and Technology was reported to have the most respondents indicate the research facilities at their host institution were not available and followed by Gulu and Kyambogo Universities respectively. Ministry of Education and Sports is however addressing this challenge through its infrastructure project currently in most public universities.
13. The evaluation reveals that 59% of the students surveyedbelieve the methods of teaching and learning used at their respective host institutions are appropriate to achieve their learner outcomes.
14. 68% of the students indicated that the level of engagement with their supervisors was effective in enabling them achieve the research goals. Probed further on the appropriateness of the style of engagement (channels of communication, schedule of appointments, location of meetings, forms of feedback) among others, majority of the students (60.3%) indicated the style was appropriate. However, the evaluation team noted lack of a clear and robust system for tracking postgraduate student supervision and timely completion. This is an area that will need attention in the remaining programme duration.
15. Results from the students indicate that supervisors meet them once a week (25%) and every two weeks (25%). This compares with responses from the supervisors which indicate 21% meet their students once a week and 19% that do so every two weeks. However, it was observed that a significant portion of supervisors indicated that they meet students every two months (24%).
16. 62% (52 PhD, 29 Master) of those surveyed indicated they had a right to use specialized laboratories and tools to conduct their research at the host institutions. However, 38% (30 PhD, 19 Master) of the students indicated that they didn’t have access to specialized laboratories and tools to execute their study.
xix
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Effectiveness
Efficiency
1. The design of structures for programme management and coordination followed sound principles of cooperate governance which provides a generic 3 layers of governance structure. Layer 1 is about policy and strategic direction which is provided by the steering committee of the programme. Layer 2 focuses on implementation of the strategic direction and is covered by the Mak-Sida consultative committee, the programme implementation committee and DRGT coordination office. Layer 3 focuses on the day today implementation of the programme activities is represented by the project PIs and graduate students and researchers. There is however need to review the efficacy of these structures with a view of making modifications based on what has worked and what has not worked.
2. The results indicate that all projects were doing well in terms of recruiting students to take on the planned slots of training. All projects had their slots filled apart from project 316 post docs are yet to fill 5 positions, project 317 are yet to fill 3 positions, project 377 are yet to fill 2 positions. Also on the PhD student recruitment it is project 377 that has not yet filled 2 positions.
3. The Programme Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) do provide explicit budget templates for various stakeholders and there are detailed budget guidelines on allowable costs and their ranges. The programme SOP also do provide the acceptable framework of accountability in very simplistic terms.
4. The Mak-Sida programme management structure did not explicitly provide a role of PPU coordinators and this has affected their overall ability to effectively contribute to the programme implementation as there are not facilitated neither appraised for their time invested in the programme activities. It was noted the unclear terms of engagement for PPU coordinators affects the quality of services students from PPUs receive from the programme coordination and management unit. As one graduate student from the PPU noted.
5. Some projects (321, 382, 317, 316, 374, 313and 344) had a total of 315 scientific publications planned and so far 78 have been achieved (representing 24.7% performance at mid-term level). Under ideal conditions, the publications should at least be at 40% at midterm level. However, it was noted that most students are at middle level of their studies largely doing data collection and laboratory work. The quality assurance support project was also performing well at mid-term level. It was also revealed that social science studies took longer period and the publication yield was affected subsequently. Student publication rate at mid-term level were generally poor. Overall, while the publication rate is still low, it’s normal for research projects to have the highest publications outputs in the last quarter.
6. The best projects so far are project 316 and 344 led by Prof. John Mango and Prof. James Tumwine, based on the highest record of publications and student excellent progress. This excellent performance could be attributed to the PIs methods of work as evidenced by their records in other projects. Project 316; the most impressive project at mid-term level has so far delivered 42 scientific publications and yet majority of the students are still at middle level. This means they will exceed their target of 150 papers by end of the project.
7. Financial resource absorption is still a challenge as most of the projects have less than 50% budget utilization. There are varied explanations from the different stakeholders on the exact reasons that lead to this low absorption.
1. While the financial frameworks exist, there are some concerns on implementation which were noted by various stakeholders. For example, there was an opinion where the students are asked to prepare annual budgets, and they never receive feedback on their approved budgets. This constrained their ability to manage the resources they were entitled to. There is also lack of a system for tracking students’ financial requests which affects timely notification on the status of their requests.
2. The bilateral programme was allocated UgX. 13.823Bn during the year 2015/16, and subsequently a budget of UgX. 12.536Bn accounting for a 9.3% reduction in budget allocation compared to the previous year. In the subsequent year (2017/18), the programme was allocated a budget of UgX. 14.722Bn (a 17.4% increase from the previous period 2016/17).
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
2
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3. The actual expenditure for the period 2015/16 was UgX. 5,883,299,323 with an additional UgX. 613,166,022. This period saw UgX. 7,286,538,455 balance carried forward hence a budget performance (percentage consumption) of only 47%.
4. The overall proportion of budget consumption has been increasing over the assessed years. The period 2015/16 had a 47% budget consumption which increased to 52% for the period 2016/17. By December 31st 2017, the percentage usage of the budget was 29%. Considering the period 2015/16 and 2016/17 budget consumption figures, it is estimated that the budget performance for the period 2017/18 will be around 57%. The first half of the period 2017/18 has already registered a 29% budget consumption which is about half of the estimated projection of 57%.
5. Overall, 80% of expenditure over the period 2015/16-2017/18 has been on field/Lab work (34%), Research consumables (16%), Research supporting component (13%), Student stipends (9%) and Research equipment (9%).
6. The study also revealed that a fifth of the overall expenditure has been on Student University fees (8%), Curriculum development (4%), Salaries (3%), Indirect costs (2%), Extra load (1%), Maintenance of equipment (1%), Audit (0.4%) Publications and Other costs were each at (0.1) respectively. Given the higher expenditure on field work, the evaluation team expected this result to be reflected in the number of publications, which unfortunately is not the case.
7. The evaluation team did not measure value for money as documents for accountability could not be availed to the evaluation team members. As seen from individual performance projects in the later sections, some PIs were even unable to provide any information on their individual projects which affected any holistic attempt to assessing programme level value for money analysis.
1. Research, Evaluation and Planning Agenda intended to develop and implement a rigorous agenda for research, evaluation and planning for the Sector provides an overall sustainability framework through which the benefits of the current programme will be sustainably discussed and implemented.
2. 74% of the student beneficiaries believe their home institution/university has the capacity to continue with Mak - Sida Programme activities after 2020 as opposed to 26% that that had a contrary opinion.
3. The evaluation team noted that Government; through the Education Sector strategic plan (2017) has committed to increasing the student loan scheme for supporting the higher education sector. Secondly, Government in the same plan has promised to formulate and implement a policy to rationalize levying of fees in both public and private schools/institutions. Once implemented, this is likely to contribute positively to sustainability.
4. Government has further committed to building Capacity of Universities to teach Science and Technology. This is to beenhanced through rehabilitation and expansion of Science Technology Innovation (STI) learning facilities in eight institutions: Makerere University, Kyambogo University, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Gulu University, Busitema University, Muni University, Uganda Management Institute, and Makerere University Business School. Such an initiative is a window for sustainability of infrastructure support extended through programme under review.
5. Research and Technology Incubation Facilities at Universities has been highlighted in the education sector strategic plan as a key agenda of government. Government intends tosupport universities to effectively collaborate with the private sector in research and development work aimed at creating new technological innovations and products. In this regard, universities will be supported to establish and maintain incubation facilities for PhD graduates with promising science and technological innovations. Successful innovations will be provided with seed capital in form of affordable loans and grants so as to establish private companies for commercialization of their inventions. For proper implementation of this program, universities will also be supported to specialize in particular disciplines.
6. Majority of supervisors indicated that the programme is sustainable citing a number of reasons. However, majority of these supervisors (88.1%) were from Makerere University which is a relatively mature postgraduate institution with some tested strong systems and experience that could guarantee sustainability.
xxi
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
5
6
7
Sustainability
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Impact
xxii
7. It emerged from the interviews with key PPU representatives that, one of the strategies being implemented for the sustainability of the programme beyond the funding period was the development of local PhD programmes with the support from Mak-Sida Programme.
8. Universities have now started to allocate or increase their research budgets from their internally generated resources. This is a commendable stand and it’s a good strategy which anchors the universities as research led institutions of higher learning.
9. The evaluation team was also informed that through the VC’s forum they are working with government to increase the research budget to public universities to about 30%. These observations correlate well with the results of the survey among supervisors which indicated that their institutions allocate less than 10% of their budget to research. There was no individual budget information to allow assessment of the research contribution.
10. Given the lower enumeration of academic staff in the country and the growing demand for skilled knowledge workers, the universities have to compete with the public and private sectors for talent. Therefore, training alone without addressing potential risks of staff turnover might not address the current human capital challenge in public universities. Accordingly, the participating public universities have identified staff retention as critical issue of maintaining the desired human capacity in service. Some of the outstanding strategies on staff retention are; streamlined promotion, improvement of working environment, salary increase among others.
11. There is currently no visible champion for the sustainability debate of the programme. While the embassy strongly believes the champion should be Mak, there is no apparent readiness on the part of Mak. The evaluation team did not find concrete steps being undertaken to lay strategies for sustainability. This is likely to lead to rushed discussions towards the end of the programme that will not allow robust scientific discussions on what is likely to work and what may not work. The evaluation team found the DVC (Finance and Administration) with three possible sustainability strategies and these needed to be discussed and agreed upon among different players. One was the establishment of a donor’s forum, the second was the establishment of a Research Development Innovations Fund (RDIF) and the third was sensitization of government on activities of different development partners.
12. There are mixed results with regards to sustainability of the established infrastructure. A lot will depend on access to sufficient operational funding for DICTS, the GIS lab and the DSS. The library will need more librarians to be trained. Academic librarians need M.Sc. for career progress and ability to offer the services. The GIS lab is one of the cross-cutting laboratories that will benefit from the infrastructure development support under the Higher Education Science and Technology project of the African Development Bank loan. It will get an entire floor on the building. However, operational funds, equipment, and software will present serious challenges. Currently there is no user fee for individuals from the public and other universities who use the lab, though those who come for short courses pay. Sustainability of the DSS will heavily depend on its transformation into a semi-autonomous entity able to directly mobilise and manage grants, as well as success in attracting and managing the grants.
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. The Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme is catalyzing changes in participating Ugandan universities as far as addressing training, research and collaboration issues are concerned. It has been noted and reported that twining of supervisors is accelerating the sharing of knowledge and practices among supervisors. Furthermore, the PPU are now embracing research as pillar elements of their work as opposed to teaching which has been the main practices.
2. The programme has influenced PPU to increase their internal budget allocations to research and staff training, which was note the case before. Furthermore, the project is influencing PPU to quickly transitions into center of excellent in graduate training by facilitating the training of high caliber staff, but also enabling the development of new PhD programme and the review of master curriculum.
3. The programme is influencing PPU to adopt robust quality assurance systems like those of Makerere University.
4. The Mak-Sida programme is influencing the development of gender main streaming in other PPU as means of building holist capacity of these institutions.
1
2
3
4
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
xxiii
5. Through the several workshops organized by the programme, capacity in curriculum development has been built for the participating Universities.
6. So far the Mak-Sida programme has provided support resulting into the development of 12 web applications in the directorate of quality assurance to facilities quality training. The programme is training over 50 staff of Makerere University who will form a new breed of scholars to anchor the university research agenda.
7. The Mak-Sida programme is supporting interventions aimed at institutional systems strengthening such as training of project accountants, project administrators among others which has impacted on skills transfer.
8. 66% of the students believe at mid-term level that the Mak - Sida Programme hascontributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand.
9. 57% of the participants believe that the Mak - Sida Programme has to a great extent impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda
10. 49% of the students believe that to a great extent the Mak - Sida Programme partnership nature has influenced their collaboration with other researchers. .
11. The programme has supported the review of curriculum and development of 7 new PhD programmes one at each PPU. The programme has a conducted a number of scholarly writing workshops of which over 500 staff in all participating universities have already benefited.
12. Mak-Sida Programme has enabled the nurturing of mutually benefiting collaborations between Ugandan public universities, Ugandan researchers and collaboration with Swedish institutions.
13. Although the Uganda public Universities are encouraging public private linkages, commercialization of research is still weak. Currently, DRGT has no staff to support this function. There is need to support commercialization of promising outputs of research and innovations in a sustainable manner. The Mak-Sida program could support the university to build and strengthen systems for incubation, and testing of the research outputs. The program should place emphasis on supporting the researchers to get patents so as to protect their Intellectual property rights.
14. Most of the research projects have a high score on social relevance and utility. There are increasing efforts to disseminate and follow up results from research projects. Several research projects have a potential direct utility and impact, but in most cases the effects are indirect and long-term therefore could not be qualified at the time of this MTR. Furthermore, many academic staff are used as experts/resource persons to the government, and hence strengthened linkages between the university and government, private sector and civil society.
15. Programme investments in ICT, library, GIS and DSS coupled with acquisition of equipment in college based laboratories following implementation of research projects has improved the environment that support research. Limitations still exist with respect to adequacy of laboratory equipment, malfunctioning software at the DSS and updating of software at the GIS laboratory. The programme set out to improve the environment for research through provision of quality library and ICT resources, laboratory infrastructure, and support to Iganga/Mayuge Demographic Surveillance Site (DSS). Findings reveal that the Sida support has made significant contributions to improvement of infrastructure that supports research. In addition to funding research through master and Ph.D. training as well as Post doc research efforts directly, marked investment went into the environment in support of research namely ICT infrastructure, library services, and the GIS laboratory.
16. With respect to ICT infrastructure, there has been increased capacity notably servers which have improved network services, increased storage space for email, and web pages. Users can now access the WIFI network anywhere on campus. The bandwidth was noted to have been a limitation, but the university has taken up the strategy of using the wireless connectivity system so as to improve connectivity and bandwidth. This is expected to reduce costs and the ICT service. The library acquired a modern document scanner and digitization of material and enrichment of information resources, and integration of ICT in library functions have made it possible for researchers to access the ‘Library without walls’ due to easier access of the net to quantity and quality materials and linking with collaborating institutions’ libraries, for example Ph.D. students’ access to Gothenburg Library.
17. The GIS laboratory has acquired minor GIS equipment including computers, printers, and scanner. The staff have also developed a cross cutting course on GIS. The Muchap acquired 30 note book computers with Sida support. The equipment has higher speed improving execution of data management. The support has enabled the site to access relatively fast and reliable internet connection. Sida support has enabled the Muchap to pay for rent, undertake routine demographic surveillance data collection and management. However they have had challenges with the data management software.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Cross-cutting issues.
xxiv
Management of Local PhD Training
18. The DSS has been used by research teams from the various colleges in Makerere, as well as students from Sweden. The DSS conducts two rounds of routine data collection in April and in August every year and findings shared with the District Local Governments as well as the public through radio talk shows and spot messages on health education. The DSS provides a population under surveillance for research studies. Many Ph.D. and Master Students have used the DSS for their research work. Undergraduate students come for field attachments/ internships.
19. Limitations still exist with regards to infrastructure notably laboratory equipment in the GIS lab as well as the laboratories in the colleges. The GIS can only accommodate 30 students/users at a time. Absence of some equipment was cited as a key factor for continuing with the sandwich program to enable the students’ access and use such specialised equipment which is not available locally. The DSS continues to experience software challenges and the database either has to be upgraded or replaced with a new one. License for software updates remain a key challenge. Bandwidth has limited ability to download some documents but this problem is expected to soon disappear after installation of the campus wide VoIP system, which will improve connectivity.
1. The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). A total of 105 PhD students are locally registered at Makerere University. It was noted that on both PhD tracks some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. The PhD scholars were selected following a merit criteria which was participatory developed by the Mak-Sida programme.
2. All PhD students are members of staff of the participating public universities. It was revealed that students were required to develop synopsis for their research projects which informed their selection into the programme and the attachment to different projects and supervisors.
3. The management of the PhD programme follows a laid down graduate training guidelines of Makerere University which require the student to make a six months progress report and submit it to graduate school.
4. Graduate seminars are used as a forum for students to present their research work to and get feedback from fellow students and lectures in the College or any other members of the university/public who may be in attendance.
1. In terms of delivery of cross cutting courses especially the philosophy of method, it was revealed from the students that the format and style of delivery often times fails to contextualize issues in various disciplines. Where general principles of research apply in all disciplines, some concepts and practices can significantly vary from discipline to discipline.
2. It emerged that the main supervisors of local PhD students are supposed to be based at Makerere University as per the programme design even in areas where PPUs had the capacity to provide main supervisors for students. This was seen as an unfair practice as it largely benefits supervisors at Makerere University at the expense of the PPUs.
3. In terms of gender equality, the programme by design defined principles of fairness in the selection of project beneficiaries and participants, emphasized the respect of human rights as enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights and the constitution of the republic of Uganda.
4. The programme operating practices and principles discourages any form of discrimination against an individual based on their social defined identity like tribe, race, and religion among others. It was noted that Mak as a leading implementer of the project has a non-discriminatory policy on religion and describes itself as a circular community which respects the beliefs and values of the diversity of membership.
5. In terms of gender equity, the programme from conceptualization through implementation has embedded frameworks of addressing historical imbalances between women and men in terms of access to graduate training. It is noted that majority of PhD holders in both sciences and humanities are men.
6. The review of the students’ profile revealed that of the 323 programme beneficiaries 128 are females representing a 40% of the beneficiaries. This is acceptable and above the target of 30%.
7. There has also been institutional support to the library and Directorate of quality assurance which has enhanced systems for accessing information and for monitoring the university progress.
18
19
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The following lessons and best practices are reported from the findings.
1. Programme Relevance. There is convincing evidence from the various stakeholders and literature about the significance and relevance of the research collaborative programme on building capacity of the participating partners. The Swedish Government is commended for its long support to the Ugandan government since 2000. The programme is well aligned with Uganda’s national development agenda and address key capacity issues within Uganda’s higher education sector. The Mak and PPUs have made deliberate efforts to select and prioritize research projects with high relevance and potential development impact.
2. Academic Quality. The academic quality offered on the study programmes on which Mak – Sida programme beneficiaries are enrolled meet both national and international standards as the programmes are accredited by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) and are design based on international based practices in each discipline. The PIs have good experience and academic caliber to ensure quality of programme implementation.
3. Management of Local PhD training. There are appropriate steps and quality assurance procedures for the management of the local PhD training. Themove towards establishment of taught PhDs is a commendable development that is aligned to current thinking on doctoral types favored in universities. However, partner universities other than Mak do not have many senior academic staff that will ensure adequate supervision on the taught PhDs on their own without partnering with well-established universities.
4. Cross-cutting PhD Courses: The courses were well planned and pedagogically sound, and they offer integrative knowledge that all stakeholders especially the PhD students perceived as valuable and productive. Some of the courses had a transformational effect on students’ research thinking, and would serve well the supervisors and academic staff members and could be scale-out to all the partner Universities.
4. Cross-cutting issues: The programme at mid-term level has integrated cross-cutting issues in appropriate proportions. Cross-cutting issues particularly gender have been adequately integrated into the programme implementation processes and all stakeholders have a high appreciation for this integration. Also ICT is well integrated into the Mak – Sida Programme activities.
5. Supervisor Management Processes. The twining of supervisors both at local level and with Sweden partners has a positive impact and is a key pillar for the success of the programme. The twining arrangement has allowed the sharing of experience and practices resulting into improve capacity of graduate supervision in the collaborating universities. Furthermore, the quality of supervision as evidenced by the frequency of supervision engagement and supervisor load meet both local and international quality standards.
6. Research management: The programme has contributed to improved research management at the collaborating universities. At Mak, clear structures for research management are in place. Programme coordination has incorporated lessons and experiences from previous phases. However, coordination of the Mak-Sida program places significant demands on time and effort of DRGT staff as well as the PIs. There is need to deepen expedite the staff recruitment plan as per the approved establishment. The position of Deputy Director, Research, Innovations Development and Partnership and other research administrators should be recruited.
7. Master’s completion rate. There are variations in the completion rates of Master’s students from the partnering universities. There is for example high completion rates for masters students at Mbarara University of Science and Technology than is in other partner universities. There is thus a need to emphasize sharing of best practices on effective mechanisms of ensuring timely completion of students.
8. Reporting systems The use of well-defined templates for planning and reporting has ensured that correct information is supplied by those responsible to supply it. However, the evaluation team did not find fully compiled monitoring reports.
KEY LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
xxv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
9. Co-funding mechanisms. The requirement of PPU’ and Makerere University to co-funding the programme activities is a well-intentioned strategy to ensure ownership and later sustainability.
12. Quality assurance systems. The developed of QA tools by the Directorate of QA Makerere university, has not only impacted on the improvement of academic quality on programme in Makerere but also to PPU. It has further led to the improved appreciated of evidence based decision making in educational institutional management especially among the partner public universities.
13. Research and Publications. There is a good progress on publication by few of the projects as reported in the findings. Some of these few projects have exceedingly performed impressively well at mid-term level and this offers important lessons for other projects. Student publication record is still low and majority of students at different levels are yet to appreciate the benefits of expanded interest in publication as supported by the project.
14. Internal systems Management. There is a weak internal procurement system and this affects programme effectiveness. There is a lot that can be done in the remaining programme period to improve the performance of the procurement systems.
15. Sustainability. A major achievement of the Swedish support is a significant enhancement of the academic sustainability at the collaborating Ugandan public Universities. More staff are undertaking their Ph.D.´s, Post-doc, Master degree training and have been provided with the corporate research opportunities, relevant and promising research has been conducted and infrastructure for research has been strengthened. Funding of research training and research remains the most critical issue for the Ugandan public universities. Sweden and other external donors have been and still are the primary source of funding for graduate training and research. At the national level, there is still no separate budget provision for graduate research and training.
The following recommendations are suggested based on the emerging findings from the MTR: -
1. Programme Governance. . The governance structures as had been planned in the agreements and SOPs need to be reactivated to ensure each organ performs its assigned roles. There may be a need to revisit the mandates of the existing governance structures for programme implementation taking into account the agreement between GOU and the embassy, the agreement between the embassy and Mak, and the MOUs between Mak and PIs as well as PPUs. There exists a system of programme governance and decision making whereby the different PPUs manage the student selection process at their universities and PPU Coordinators are members of the Programme Management Committee. Ownership. The research programme is fully owned by Ugandan partner Public Universities. It was noted that Sweden embraced the shift to allow Ugandan universities decide on their priority areas. The support addresses areas already determined as priorities in the strategic plan of the different University. The multidisciplinary approach was applauded for having provided opportunity for the Colleges to form research groups and teams to respond to real problems affecting society.
3. Sustainability strategies. The programme coordination office should develop a road map for a stakeholder consultative forum to discuss the sustainability of the programme. DGRT needs to organize a workshop/meeting devoted to discussing sustainability of the programme. The forum should involve all partnering institutions, the Government represented by the Ministries of Education, Finance, Science and Technology as well as NCHE among others. Development partners will need to be involved especially if establishment of a donor’s forum is to be endorsed as one sustainability strategy. A sustainability champion needs to be identified and a multi-disciplinary sustainability committee needs to be established. A comprehensive sustainability plan should be prepared and approved by April 2019.
4. Stakeholder Engagement. In the remaining period, the programme steering committee and DGRT coordination office needs to improve on stakeholder engagement strategies especially to ensure conducive environment for robust discussion of the sustainability strategies. The embassy will need to play a key leadership role in creating this environment as well. The PIs will be central in ensuring workable sustainable strategies are brought on table. Stakeholders in each of the participating institutions need to feel this ownership through their own involvement. Ultimately, there will be need for respect for processes, personalities and best practices to ensure this is achieved. The centrality of PIs in the success of the programme needs to be underscored.
xxvi
10
11
12
13
14
1
2
3
4
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
6. Academic Quality. The Mak-Sida Programme Coordination office (DRGT) needs to ensure systems which have been designed for ensuring quality are sustained through individualized institutional strategies at both Makerere University and PPU. DRGT should continue with regular interactions with PIs and coordinators regarding academic quality issues as recommended quarterly in the remaining period of the programme. DRGT should also implement processes and systems of analyzing data from student progress report and use it to inform decisions. Currently this data is not analyzed.
7. Communication system improvement. The Mak-Sida Programme management should establish a student and supervisor support task. But also improve the communication function between supervisors, students and Swedish Embassy.
9. Establish Service Level Agreements (SLA) for Services offered Coordination Function. The Mak-Sida programme coordination office should establish a customer or client centered service level agreement which is enforceable by programme regulations and institutional frameworks at Makerere University.
10. Budget Absorption. The Programme Steering Committee needs to conduct a delivery chain analysis of programme implementation with a view to investigate factors constraining budget absorption at different levels and provide for remedial actions. There is a need by the different programme implementation structures to ascertain and agree on strategies of how to re-utilize the funds which are never spent within a year and which may not be accessed by the student anymore.
11. More Emphasis on PPUs Gradate Capacity Building. The current balance between what goes to the PPUs in terms of building their capacity to take on graduate training after 2020 is not sufficient to cause a systematic change given their level of institutional development. The programme steering committee needs to review terms of engagement with PPUs with a view of empowering PPU to coordinate Mak-Sida Programme activities at their institutions and actively participate in the management of their staff on the programme.
12. Student completion. The Mak-Sida Programme management structures especially PIC and DRGT should improve the monitoring of student progress to ensure that issues constraining their timely completion are addressed on time. The majority of PhD students on the programme are mid-way of their studies and significant number are still at the beginner level. The student progress should not only based measured by 6 monthly reports which are often times not analyzed by with also a progress interviewed at the end of the year by their doctoral committee to find out what their status is and what they have left to complete. This will help with the student completion rates. Senate may need to revisit the one year duration which PhD students spend conceptualizing their studies as it is too much time. DRGT should provide an evidence-based analysis of the progress and effectiveness of students who have to spend this duration.
13. Research and publications. In order to improve publications within the programme since they are part of the key outputs, some students’ funds should be tagged onto having published. Also, it should be a requirement for students to publish at least one paper every year in order to make sure that the targets set are met. Also, research paper writing workshops should be held at the different PPUs so that both staff and students benefit from workshops.
14. Empowering PPU Coordinators. Mak-Sida Programme PPU coordinators should be mandated to monitor and evaluate the progress of Mak-Sida Programme student based at their institutional and staff of their institution participating in the programme. For example PPU coordinators should have a role on management of student budgets and procurement of their requirement since they have a local context understanding, especially for students on project 377. There is need to encourage networking among the PPUs which can enhance sharing of best practices.
15. Strengthening of programme administrative support. There is too much responsibility that is held at the Centre in Makerere University at the Programme Coordination Office (DRGT). Yet the office is under staffed to effectively deliver the mandate on the programme. The University on the recommendation of the programme steering committee needs to expand the number of programme support staff at DRGT to add at least two people, one dedicated to supervisor and student support and another to support the procurement and finance function. Furthermore, some components of programme management could be decentralized to the relevant PPUs and colleges. Also PI’s could be supported with project assistants to help them effectively manage the project.
xxvii
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Clarify of roles and mandate in the Programme Coordination and Management Structure. In the current state of affairs within the programme, there seems to be a problem of some structures (committees) overlapping their mandate. This may cause friction amongst the different stakeholders. There is need for revisiting the mandates of the various governance organs based on the experienced if the implementation period at mid-term level.
17. Distinctive programme responsibilities for Institutions. The Mak-Sida programme should be clearer on responsibilities for the institutions in for them to better prepare themselves on what is required from them. It was noted that institutions were not really fulfilling their mandates in the MOUs they signed. These included among others supporting coordinators, supplementing students’ funds where possible, making sure students are studying hence monitoring and evaluating them regularly. By taking on such responsibilities, institutions will be nurturing their ability to sustain similar capacity building for graduate students in the future.
18. Institutionalizing a research culture. In the remaining activities of the programme, more emphasis should be put on building a research culture within the PPUs. Vice Chancellors at their committee level should commit on availing funds for further research undertaking every year. Publication for staff and students per year should be put as part of their assessable indicators. Institutional conferences, workshops and journals should be established and encouraged to run every year to allow young researchers appreciate publications. Enabling environment such as research groups should be encouraged across all institutions.
19. ICT Integration in Programme Management and Coordination. It was noted that several coordination processes were being undertaken without the support from an ICT system that can support information consolidation, storage, management and manipulation fro decision making. For such a programme, different stakeholders need to be able to access information when needed, submit information ubiquitously and also use information for decision making when needed. In the current state information is being held by different stakeholders which makes it hard to monitor and evaluate the programme. A need to have ICT enables coordination and management services for the programme.
20. Supervisor’s mentorship. There is need to strengthen a capacity of supervisors on the programme through creation of forums for experience and knowledge sharing. It was note that some of the projects within the programme are progressing very well and fast but others are not. Mentorship from other colleagues would be a good idea to improve on how supervision is undertaken within the programme. For example, excellent performers like Prof. Mango and Prof. Bainomugisha should be able to mentor and share experience with other members of PIC.Quality research Control at PPUs. There is need to build capacity for quality control in the graduate programmes within the PPUs. At the moment Makerere University has established a very effective quality assurance directorate which needs to support the PPUs by building capacity of their QA directorates or departments. This will help to make sure there is sustained quality assurance in graduate training and research within the PPUs. For the remaining period of the programme, Makerere University QA directorate should be allowed to undertake peer to peer mentorship for all PPUs QA directors/officers.
20. Programme reporting. There will be need to strengthen programme reporting on each of the agreed upon deliverables and outputs by the 16 projects. The evaluation noted a laxity in actual reporting by the various actors. To facilitate subsequent evaluations, a clear quarterly reporting template for each project needs to be designed and enforced.
21. Infrastructure and institutional support. There is need to scale up the institutional support for partnering universities whose infrastructure is well below that of Makerere University.
22. Sustainability strategies. The programme coordination office should request each of the participating universities to initiate sustainability strategies and a complete document on the country sustainability strategies should be produced and discussed by April 2019.Some of the areas for attention should be strengthening of College Grant Units, and encouraging multidisciplinary research teams.
23. Addressing internal management weaknesses. There are a number of internal weaknesses like procurement management, granting of leave to participating universities and the whole processes of requisition management that need to be resolved. The programme steering committee should ensure there is a report from each of the partner universities suggesting the steps for management of these issues.
xxviii
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
1 INTRODUCTION TO MID-TERM EVALUATION
This chapter presents the background to the mid-term review in section 1.1, states the MTR evaluation objectives in section 1.2 and discusses the evaluation scope and deliverables in section 1.3. Section 1.4 details the methodology and approached which were used to conduct the mid-term review and section 1.5 describes the overall, report structure.
Generally, evaluation of ongoing development activities have a primary purpose to generate information to improve the quality of the intervention and such evaluations typically focus on implementation issues and operational activities, but may also take a wider perspective and consider effects and contexts of the implementation of the project. However, this assignment was a mid-term review and therefore focuses on the progress of the interventions at mid-way. A mid-term evaluation is conducted for an ongoing program and normally serves two immediate purposes: decision-making and taking stock of initial lessons from experience during the implementation of the activities of the program. It provides a program or project management with a basis for identifying appropriate actions to: (a) address particular issues or problems in the design, implementation and management of the program, and (b) reinforce initiatives that demonstrate the potential for success. A capacity development research programme which aims to develop the abilities of individuals and institutions, individually and collectively, to carry out development tasks has four interrelated dimensions: individual learning, organization learning, organizational interrelationships and enabling environment. These were assessed during the mid-term evaluation.
In an effort to improve the scale, productivity and quality of research at graduate level and more specifically for doctoral programs, a number of educational systems are promoting the approach of collaborative graduate training as a means of sharing capacity and experiences. Accordingly, a number of leading higher educational institutions globally are increasingly promoting and encouraging the creation of collaborative doctoral programs in a number of fields. In the instant case, Swedish Universities, through the Swedish Embassy in Uganda partnered with five public universities in Uganda to collaborate on a research program. The collaboration builds on the successful completion of other collaborations between Makerere University and Swedish Universities since 2000 when such initiatives were first conceived and implemented. The previous Swedish research collaboration was built on international research collaboration, the main component being PhD training with principally Swedish universities in a ‘sandwich mode’ which allowed Ugandan students to stay for 3-5 months annually in Sweden for course and laboratory work.
Since the initial Swedish research cooperation with Makerere University there has been three consecutive agreement periods. In the current agreement (2015-2020), focus was shifted to local PhD training, with limited sandwich training in critically selected areas. The current agreement entails support to staff from 5 Ugandan Public universities to train 125 PhD students (of which 20 in sandwich mode), 147 master’s students and 65 Post-Doc researchers distributed over 17 projects. The Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme has a disbursement of 525 million SEK, approximately USD 70 million since its inception in 2000. The new agreement of 2015-2020 entails 275 million SEK, approximately USD 31million.
The main objective of the bilateral research collaboration programme between Uganda and Sweden has been to enhance capacity of public higher education institutions to conduct and sustain strategic and high quality research that will contribute to the development needs of Uganda and beyond through building a critical mass of independent researchers. To contribute to the establishment of a coherent agenda for research and researcher training in Uganda, the support used to be mainly focused at Makerere University, the largest public university in the country. The research Program aimed to support Makerere University towards its goal of becoming a vibrant, internationally competitive research led university. During the research agreement 2010-2015 four other public universities entered the cooperation, i.e.; Kyambogo University (KYU), Busitema
1.1 Mid-Term Evaluation Background and Context
1
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
University (BU), Gulu University (GU) and Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST). The support to those universities is being channeled through Makerere University.
The research areas were chosen by Ugandan institutions and covered natural and social sciences, humanities, and medicine, research projects being designed to be multi-disciplinary. Institutional support goes towards building long-term research environments and sustainable academic institutions through support to libraries, laboratories, ICT, scientific equipment, quality assurance of scientific results, gender policy, innovation, as well as research and administrative reform processes. The latter has been focused on improved strategic planning and resource management, enhanced pedagogy, and graduate training evaluation.
Pursuant to article 12 (Section 12.3) of the specific Agreement on Research Collaboration between Sweden and Makerere University during the period 3rdNovember 2015 –30thJune 2020 between the Ugandan state owned Makerere University (“Mak”) and Sida, represented in Uganda by the Embassy of Sweden in Kampala, Makerere University is undertaking an internal Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the program in the last quarter of 2017 (postponed to April 2018). The MTR focuses on; an assessment of academic quality and management of local PhD training, (2) management of cross-cutting courses; (3) the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities based on the guidelines developed (Article 11.5); and (4) an ‘Exit Strategy’ foreseeing the phasing out of Swedish funding to research collaboration. The review assesses plans by the Ugandan Public Universities to sustain what has been achieved and evaluate their strategies of ensuring enhanced Government funding as well as methods to continue successful partnerships beyond Sida funding in 2020.
The purpose of the review was to assess programme implementation progress and make realistic recommendations, regarding outputs (e.g. Trained PhD’s etc.), outcomes, (e.g. use of research results etc) and other internal management control systems. The review provides information regarding the effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and efficiency of the research cooperation and the associate coordination and management structures and systems.
The overall objective of the assignment was to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the programme implementation in order to establish the level of progress towards the planned outcomes and identify any emerging lessons. Specifically, the over-arching objectives of the assignment were to:I. Assess academic quality (in terms of; appropriateness of curriculum, staff profile and experience,
support resources and infrastructure, pedagogical approaches used) and management of local PhD training, management of cross-cutting courses; and the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities (in terms of appropriateness of coordination structures, effectiveness and efficiency of management systems).
II. Assess results at the outcome level with focus on changes in research capacity and the enabling environment during the period November 2015 –April 2018 (In terms of institution capacity improvement, policy environment and corporate culture )
III. Make an overall analysis of the research cooperation in relation to its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability.
IV. Make an assessment of the level of institutional preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human and physical), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme beyond 2020 (Sustainability strategy).
1.2 Mid-Term Evaluation Objectives
2
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The MTR covered the period of November 2015 to April 2018. The review provides an independent view on the bilateral research support to the five Ugandan public universities. The key deliverables from the assignment were; I. An Inception ReportII. A Draft Mid-Term Review ReportIII. A Final Evaluation Report
In order to evaluate the current progress of the Mak - Sida Research Collaboration Programme guiding questions were considered under the items of interest. These are;
I. Relevance a. To what extent does the Mak - Sida Research Collaboration Programme intervention meet the needs of Public Universities? b. To what extent are the objective and outcomes of Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme relevant to the priority of addressing Capacity building issues in Uganda? c. To what extent were the participating higher institutions of learning involved in the design of the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme? II. Effectiveness a. To what extent are the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme coordination structures and systems effective in delivering programme goals? b. How responsive are the programme coordination structures and systems to stakeholder inputs and changes in programme operating context? c. How effective are the programme management structures been in executing their mandate? d. How effective are the quality assurance systems at the participating Uganda public universities in guaranteeing the desired student outcomes?III. Efficiency a. How cost-effective are the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme implementation systems and structures in terms of value for money? b. To what extent has the use of a centralized procurement and finance management systems at GRGT resulted into optimization of financial resources?IV. Sustainability a. What are the emerging systems and structures at the participating public universities aimed at continued implementation of research capacity building activities? b. What are the emerging staff retention strategies at the participating public universities? c. What are the emerging strategies to sustain the established collaboration among partner universities? d. What are the emerging resource mobilization strategies to promoting research culture and output in the collaborating universities? V. Impact a. In what way is the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme catalyzing changes in which participating Ugandan universities are addressing training, research and collaboration issues? b. To what extent has the Sida Research Collaboration Programme intervention forged new or strengthened partnerships among different stakeholders? c. To what extent has the Sida Research Collaboration Programme implementation has delivered the expected outputs?
1.3 Scope and Key deliverables
1.4 Evaluation Approach and Methodology
1.4.1 Evaluation Guiding Questions
3
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
1.4.2 Evaluation Frameworks
While a number of frameworks exist to guide the processes and approaches of programme/project monitoring and evaluation on development interventions, the evaluation of the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme was guided by two major frameworks namely: -
I. Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Framework
When evaluating programmes and projects it is useful to consider a sound criteria to facilitate objective evaluation. The criteria were first laid out in the DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance and later defined in the Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management. The following further explains the criteria and provides some sample questions to illustrate how it was used in practice:
A: RelevanceThe extent to which the Mak-Sida Programme is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group (Ugandan public universities), students and supervisors, and Sida priorities. In evaluating the relevance of a programme or a project according to DAC framework, it is useful to consider the following questions: 1. To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid? 2. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives? 3. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects?
B: EffectivenessA measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. In evaluating the effectiveness of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions: 1. To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved? 2. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
C: EfficiencyEfficiency measures the outputs -- qualitative and quantitative -- in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.When evaluating the efficiency of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions: 1. Were activities cost-efficient? 2. Were objectives achieved on time? 3. Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
D: ImpactThe positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial conditions.When evaluating the impact of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions: 1. What has happened as a result of the programme or project? 2. What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries? 3. How many people have been affected?
1.4.2 Evaluation Frameworks
4
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
E: SustainabilitySustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable. When evaluating the sustainability of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions: 1. To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased? 2. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the programme or project?
The DAC criteria provided well defined structure of understanding the Mak-Sida programme impact path ways. This enable the evaluators to relate the programme impact to outcome, outputs and inputs. While the review comprehensively assessed the activities of the project (inputs) and whether or not the targets were being achieved (outputs); and determined whether the intermediate outcomes and ultimate goals (impact) were expected to be on track; through the impact they had on the objectives and goal of the initiative.
First, the relevance of the programme was understood to mean an assessment of the existing academic quality and management of local PhD training as well as the management of cross-cutting courses. This assessed the validity of assumption made in the project design in relation to achieving planned outputs and outcomes. Second, effectiveness was measured in terms of assessing the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities based on the guidelines developed to further understand the production of the expected outputs. If outputs were found to have a broader consequence, this was taken to be a constituting impact. The main flow of elements within the theory of change therefore corresponded to the two DAC criteria of effectiveness and impact. The remaining three criteria were built into the theory of change diagram at different levels as assumptions. The first was relevance to the research uptake. The second was that partner universities produced outputs efficiently that represent value for money. The third was that they should produce lasting or sustainable benefits.
In addition, the framework envisaged two additional categories of questions which were not included explicitly covered by the DAC framework. These included Value for money and Coordination. Given the importance of value for money to Swedish funding just like other development partners and the fact that this is usually thought of as broader than mere effectiveness alone, the researchers treated this as a separate category within the overall framework. Coordination was also added as a separate category largely because of the multi-organizational nature of the partnering universities. Coordination has proved to be a useful evaluation criterion in research collaborative contexts.
The consultant noted that the participating universities were by the design of the research collaboration project each expected to produce three outputs that include (1) creating new knowledge and understanding, (2) build partner research capacity and (3) facilitating research uptake. These outputs were then expected to have broader effects mediated through better decisions, effective governance and leadership, policies and professional practices.
II. McKinsey 7-S frameworkIn order to evaluate the relevancy, effectiveness and efficiency of Mak-Sida programme coordination and management structures and systems, the McKinsey 7-S framework was adapted. The McKinsey 7-S framework involves seven interdependent factors categorized as either "hard" or "soft" elements. The consultants assessed the programmes management by analyzing; strategies, structures, systems, staffing levels, leadership and management styles, skills diversity, and corporate shared values across the various level of programme implementation. The analysis enabled the identification of challenges and best practices emerging from the programme implementation. The elements of the McKinsey 7-S framework are summarized in Figure 2 below.
5
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Page |
7
Figure 1: McKinsey 7-S Framework
The seven elements are briefly described below;
1. Strategy: refers to the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage in the implementation of the programme. This shall relate to the design of the programme from inception to date. This focused on evaluating the programme perceived theory of change
2. Structure: refers to the way the different stakeholders within the programme are arranged to deliver on the goals of the programme. This largely focused on analyzing of stakeholders as defined in the SoP.
3. Systems: refers to the daily and routine processes, activities and procedures that stakeholders are in engaged in to get the programme goals achieved. This focused on optimality and effectives of various business processes like procurement and supervision
4. Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" refers to the core values of the partner institutions that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic. Since this is a collaborative programme, it was important to establish the extent to which partners has a share sense of ownership and values about the programme outcomes.
5. Style: refers to the style of leadership, coordination and management practiced within the programme implementation structures.
6. Staff: refers to the characteristics of the human and its general capabilities who are participating within the programme.
7. Skills: This refers to the actual competencies of the human resource that are participating within the programme. This focused on academic supervisor profiles and programme coordinators profile at DRGT.
In principle, the McKinsey 7-S framework was used to formulate guiding questions to analyze the existing environment within the Mak-Sida programme in relation to the already developed questions. 1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology description In terms of the detailed process description on how the evaluation was conducted, the table below gives a summary.
Figure 1: McKinsey 7-S Framework
The seven elements are briefly described below; 1. Strategy: refers to the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage in the implementation of the programme. This shall relate to the design of the programme from inception to date. This focused on evaluating the programme perceived theory of change2. Structure: refers to the way the different stakeholders within the programme are arranged to deliver on the goals of the programme. This largely focused on analyzing of stakeholders as defined in the SoP.3. Systems: refers to the daily and routine processes, activities and procedures that stakeholders are in engaged in to get the programme goals achieved. This focused on optimality and effectives of various business processes like procurement and supervision 4. Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" refers to the core values of the partner institutions that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic. Since this is a collaborative programme, it was important to establish the extent to which partners has a share sense of ownership and values about the programme outcomes. 5. Style: refers to the style of leadership, coordination and management practiced within the programme implementation structures.6. Staff: refers to the characteristics of the human and its general capabilities who are participating within the programme. 7. Skills: This refers to the actual competencies of the human resource that are participating within the programme. This focused on academic supervisor profiles and programme coordinators profile at DRGT.
In principle, the McKinsey 7-S framework was used to formulate guiding questions to analyze the existing environment within the Mak-Sida programme in relation to the already developed questions.
1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology description
In terms of the detailed process description on how the evaluation was conducted, the table below gives a summary.
1.4.3 Evaluation Methodology description
6
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Activity/step Description of what is involved in each stage
1. Entry meeting. Upon the receipt of the contract award from the client, the consultant held an entry meeting with the client at the client’s offices. The meeting was intended to be used as an initiation undertaking and to be used to seek further clarification on unclear issues pertaining to the assignment and also enable the consultants have a one to face interaction with the client team. The meeting provided useful input to the inception report writing stage. An entry meeting with Swedish coordination team was also undertaken with the consultant
2. Preliminary literature review
An assignment of this nature required initial understanding of the context and background to the evaluation assignment. This task can be meticulously accomplished through delving into specific document review undertakings. A review of the project document and the essential founding documents like proposal which led to the project was done. The project indicators were critical hence a need to review the monitoring and evaluation matrix for the project. The standard operating procedure documents as well as the coordination mechanisms for the project provided the background context needed. Other specific project reports from 2015 to the time of period scope for the evaluation as well as any other pertinent university based key policies, the work plan, and any existing reports regarding the project were reviewed for this context understanding.
3. Inception Report The inception report was prepared as an outcome of the entry activities and review of documents phases described above. The inception report was submitted and accepted, this formed a service level understanding between the consultant and the client upon which this report is being submitted.
4. Secondary Data As part of the secondary sources of information gathering, this assignment needed to continuously review reports where additional data beyond what would be generated from the preliminary review was undertaken. All relevant documents from MUK and partner universities which were made available to the consultant were reviewed.
5. Framework analysis
The consultant synthesized the DAC framework with the theory of change for the programme. The key assumptions held at the start of the programme were critical and the review delved into important assessment questions at input level, the processes/delivery mechanisms level, outputs so far delivered against planned indicators, the merging outcomes and the impact as well as potential features of sustainability. This information was obtained from the programme log frame and work plans as well as the monitoring and evaluation framework.
6. Stakeholder Analysis and mapping
A number of stakeholders were expected to be involved in the programme and their views were thought. To effectively get their views, a stakeholder map was developed. Data collection instruments for each stakeholders was developed and delivered to them. The stakeholders to whose view were key to the MTR, were determined during the inception phase.
7
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
7. Finalization of data collection instruments
To logically provide and draw linkages between programme priorities, the consultant after a serious review of existing documents and theory of change designed final exhaustive and easy to understand instruments to have qualitative and quantitative findings. The survey instruments specifically used an ICT-enabled survey questionnaire that was administered to the programme stakeholders. Meanwhile, Interview guides were also used to seek the views of university officials, programme management staff, and members of the steering committee and as well as some programme collaborators from Sweden
8. Field work Survey The survey was conducted among the partnering public universities (PPU). The field work was managed by parallel teams especially for Busitema, Gulu and Mbarara. But the core team members jointly handled Kyambogo and Makerere university as well as other stakeholders like from the embassy. In particular, the students, the implementation partners, the researcher and, university management and key project staff were requested to provide information. The data was collected using Key Informant Interview (KII) and Survey Questionnaire (SQ).
9. Data analysis The information obtained from the different sources was subjected to cleaning and detailed analysis based on the needs and objectives to be answered. Financial resource utilization were analyzed to determine the trends, compared to the report outputs. These were used to measure several things such as efficiency of the project at mid-term level. Survey results were also analyzed using graphs, pie-charts and frequency tables. The qualitative data was analyzed using a matrix to represent the views of different stakeholders on the project. Scenarios and case studied depicting the views of some stakeholders especially the beneficiaries (students) were also undertaken.
10. Best Practices and lessons mapping
Based on the emerging findings from the various methods of data collection and the emerging statistical analyses, the consultant developed a matrix of the successes, the lessons, and the best practices. This was done at two levels. The first level was for each of the partner universities and the second was for the overall program.
11. Interviews with DRGT, Embassy, and Senior Management team of MUK
After examining the outstanding lessons and best practices across a set of variables as measured in the assessment, the team interacted with the Director and overall coordinator of the Mak-Sida programme, the Deputy Vice Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the coordinator at the embassy level. The rational for this approach was to appraise these oversight teams on the emerging findings and seek clarification and their input before making final conclusions on emerging issues.
12. Draft Evaluation Report
The consultant developed a draft report. The report addressed each of the specific objectives for the assignment and provided answers to each of the specific tasks contained in the terms of reference. The structure of the report was as agreed in the inception and only minor modifications in reporting findings were included where necessary.
8
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
1.4.4 Evaluation Independence.
The evaluation was conducted by Radix Management Consulting which is organizationally independent of; Swedish Embassy, Makerere University (MUK) and all Participating universities, including lead and partner organizations. The evaluation was undertaken by an experienced team of consultants in higher education, project management, organizational development, international development, human resource management, information communication technology, monitoring and evaluation. Within the parameters of the terms of reference, the consultants endeavored to seek and receive all the information required to conduct the independent evaluation within a high degree of standard, coupled with behavioral independence and the produced reports or deliverables will attempt to be fair-minded, candid, uncompromising and authoritative. Moreover, the diverse data collection methods that were used ensured consistency and cross validation of findings to enhance the independent observations.
1.4.5 Quality Assurance and Ethics.
Evaluation was undertaken with the highest degree of integrity and honesty. The consultant evaluation experts respected human rights and differences in culture, customs, religious beliefs and practices of all stakeholders during the processes. The consultant evaluators were always reminded about gender roles, ability, age, language and other differences when designing and carrying out the MTR. Quality control was carried out through an internal and/or external mechanism, for example peer review, advisory panel, or reference group. All participants and actors in the evaluation were treated with respect and dignity, the consultant ensured that there was informed consent before any survey or interview and demanded from the field teams to declare conflict of interest. A team member for example was not allowed to collect data in a place where he or she comes from in case the project had presence and neither would he or she be allowed to interview a relative. The consultant had distinct teams with three members each covering thematic technical expertise (TE); knowledge, research and gender (KRG) and organizational issues (OI) constituted.
13. Final report A final report with short, medium and long-term recommendations with clear responsibility centers will be produced and submitted to the client. The recommendations are clustered around the key evaluation questions. The final report will be subjected to editing appropriate professional formatting standards before it was submitted to the client.
14. Exit meeting The consultant will hold an exit meeting with the client team. This meeting will be used to assess the lessons learnt from the evaluation exercise and how future similar assignments could be managed based on the lessons. The meeting was also used to highlight key areas that need attention in the remaining stages of the project.
Table 1: Step by Step Approach used
1.4.4 Evaluation Independence.
1.4.5 Quality Assurance and Ethics.
9
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The table below summaries the respondents of the MTR.
1.4.6 Respondents of the MTR Review (Stakeholder Map).
Category No. Target Response Data Collection Method
Project Principal Investigator (PI)/PIC 16 16 16 KII and Progress Matrix
Project steering committee 13 5 5 KIIConsultative Management Committee (CMC), Project Coordination/Managers (DRGT), Swedish Coordinator
10 6 6 KII
Student supervisors 252 100 42 SQ
Doctoral Students 126 64 76 SQMasters students 147 70 48 SQPost-doctoral researchers 65 30 12 SQVice Chancellors 5 5 3 KII
Table 2: Description of Key Stakeholders
1.5 Limitations
The Terms of Reference required the evaluation team to assess the progress of the programme implemented at outcome level. However, we noted that the programme lacked an explicit theory of change. Therefore, the evaluation infers the likely tenants of the theory of change from programme design and interviews with key stakeholders. It should also be noted that all participating public university are going through a transition phase with increasing government commitment to increasing funding to public universities, therefore in order to explicitly attribute changes in the institutional capacity to Mak-Sida Programme, there is need to develop a concise and systematic impact path ways, which currently is not provided in the programme design. However, we noted that Mak-Sida Programme as designed is currently the largest human capacity develop programme in Uganda at post graduate level and we have no doubt it will have substantial impact not only on the participating public universities but also on Uganda’s higher education sector as a whole.
Another limitation of the evaluation was the lower response rate from student supervisors, its noted that the programme has over 225 students supervisors at masters, PhD and post doc, however only 42 did response to the study, of which majority (nearly 90%) were from Makerere university. This implies, the supervisors opinions capturing during this evaluation might not fully represent the opinions of supervisors in PPUs. Although the evaluation team tried to mitigate this through challenge through conducting interview among selected few supervisors in the PPU.
Also, the evaluation team faced the challenge of slow and late submission of data by the some PI’s, in addition some PI’s did not submit the required information, thus the progress of those individual projects is not captured and might marginally alter the actual progress reflected in this report. Also, the evaluation team was unable to capture of opinions from key informants some members of steering committee especially from the research organization, private sectors and ministry of finance.
1.6 Structure of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report
The rest of the report is structured as follows. Section 2 discusses the evaluation findings, highlighting the programme relevancy, academic quality, Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme Management effectiveness and efficiency. Section 3 presents the analysis of the programme progress towards planned outputs and outcomes, programme ownership and sustainability. Section 4 presents a discussion on the emerging lessons, best practices, conclusions and recommendations. In Section 5, various appendices and references are presented.
1.5 Limitations
1.6 Structure of the Mid-Term Evaluation Report
10
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
2 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY
This chapter presents the evaluation findings broadly on implementation of the research programme and the potential for sustainability. The findings at mid-term level were derived from the different stakeholder using a variety of data collection tools. For example, a survey tool was used to obtain information of the primary beneficiaries of the research programme who included students at various levels-Post-doctoral level, Doctoral level and Masters Level. The second category of stakeholders from whom the findings were obtained were the PIs and supervisors, the project implementation team, and members of the project oversight committees. Specific data on programme output performance were obtained through a matrix which all PIs were expected to fill and return to the evaluation teams. Additional data was obtained from secondary documents and this included mainly budget performance figures as well as output performance measures.
Before the main findings are presented, the background characteristics of respondents from beneficiaries and supervisors is presented to provide an appropriate context for the interpretation of the evaluation findings. Student responses were categorized by gender and age. Analysis confirmed of those who responded to the survey instrument and whose views are considered in the evaluation report, 62% were male and 38% females. This also indirectly reflects the gender disparities of programme beneficiaries with more males as compared to females. The majority at 48% of the students were in the age bracket 31-40 years followed by 35% in the age bracket 40 and above and lastly 18% are in the age bracket of 18-30 years. The Figure below illustrates the summary of these findings.
Figure 2: Description of student beneficiaries by gender and age groups
The research collaboration supports students at different levels. The analysis of student responses confirmed that 63% (51 male, 31 female) were PhD students while 37% (30 male, 18 female) were Master students. There were few post-doctoral students who responded to the survey instrument. In terms of the lengths of term spent on the programme so far at mid-term level, 63% (54 male, 28 female) of the respondents had spent (<2 years) on Mak - Sida Programme, followed by 22% (16 male, 13 female) participants who had spent (<4 years), 14% (10 male, 8 female) of who had spent (<1 years) on the programme and finally 1% (1 male only) participants who had spent (>4 years) on the Mak - Sida Programme. This means, the students have the capacity to provide fair opinions about the programme as majority has spent more than a year on the programme.
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Background Results of MTR
Page |
13
2 PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION AND SUSTAINABILITY 2.1 Introduction This chapter presents the evaluation findings broadly on implementation of the research programme and the potential for sustainability. The findings at mid-term level were derived from the different stakeholder using a variety of data collection tools. For example, a survey tool was used to obtain information of the primary beneficiaries of the research programme who included students at various levels-Post-doctoral level, Doctoral level and Masters Level. The second category of stakeholders from whom the findings were obtained were the PIs and supervisors, the project implementation team, and members of the project oversight committees. Specific data on programme output performance were obtained through a matrix which all PIs were expected to fill and return to the evaluation teams. Additional data was obtained from secondary documents and this included mainly budget performance figures as well as output performance measures. 2.2 Background Results of MTR Before the main findings are presented, the background characteristics of respondents from beneficiaries and supervisors is presented to provide an appropriate context for the interpretation of the evaluation findings. Student responses were categorized by gender and age. Analysis confirmed of those who responded to the survey instrument and whose views are considered in the evaluation report, 62% were male and 38% females. This also indirectly reflects the gender disparities of programme beneficiaries with more males as compared to females. The majority at 48% of the students were in the age bracket 31-40 years followed by 35% in the age bracket 40 and above and lastly 18% are in the age bracket of 18-30 years. The Figure below illustrates the summary of these findings.
Figure 2: Description of student beneficiaries by gender and age groups
The research collaboration supports students at different levels. The analysis of student responses confirmed that 63% (51 male, 31 female) were PhD students while 37% (30 male, 18 female) were Master students. There were few post-doctoral students who responded to the survey
11
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Page |
14
instrument. In terms of the lengths of term spent on the programme so far at mid-term level, 63% (54 male, 28 female) of the respondents had spent (<2 years) on SIDA programme, followed by 22% (16 male, 13 female) participants who had spent (<4 years), 14% (10 male, 8 female) of who had spent (<1 years) on the programme and finally 1% (1 male only) participants who had spent (>4 years) on the SIDA programme. This means, the students have the capacity to provide fair opinions about the programme as majority has spent more than a year on the programme.
Figure 3: Description of beneficiaries by programme type and time spent
The mid-term evaluation also assessed how the student beneficiaries who responded to the survey were distributed across the various supervisors and research projects whereupon, the emerging findings indicated Prof Mukadasi Buyinza had the highest number (62) Research project PI followed by Prof. John Mango with (17) research project PI and Prof. Consolata Kabonesa with (11) research project PI. This implies the opinions of the students respondents are fairly representative of the beneficiary students and hence, their opinions could be relied on to make sound conclusions. The summary of the emerging findings is indicated in the table below:- Name Research Project PI
Master PhD Total 1. Prof Mukadasi Buyinza 30 32 62 2. Prof. John Mango 0 17 17 3. Prof. Consolata Kabonesa 8 3 11 4. Assoc. Prof. Maiga Gilbert 2 5 7 5. Assoc. Prof Engineer Bainomugisha 0 5 5 6. Assoc. Prof. Herbert Talwana 3 3 5 7. Assoc. Prof. Andrew Ellias State 0 4 4 8. Prof James Tumwine 2 3 4 9. Prof. Celestino Obua 0 3 3 10. Assoc. Prof. Guwatudde David 0 3 3 11. Associate Prof. Yazdihi Bamutaze 0 2 2
Figure 3: Description of beneficiaries by programme type and time spent
The mid-term evaluation also assessed how the student beneficiaries who responded to the survey were distributed across the various supervisors and research projects whereupon, the emerging findings indicated Prof Mukadasi Buyinza had the highest number (62) Research project PI followed by Prof. John Mango with (17) research project PI and Prof. Consolata Kabonesa with (11) research project PI. This implies the opinions of the students respondents are fairly representative of the beneficiary students and hence, their opinions could be relied on to make sound conclusions. The summary of the emerging findings is indicated in the table below:-
Name Research Project PI
Master PhD Total
1. Prof Mukadasi Buyinza 30 32 62
2. Prof. John Mango 0 17 173. Prof. Consolata Kabonesa 8 3 11
4. Assoc. Prof. Maiga Gilbert 2 5 75. Assoc. Prof Engineer Bainomugisha 0 5 56. Assoc. Prof. Herbert Talwana 3 3 57. Assoc. Prof. Andrew Ellias State 0 4 48. Prof James Tumwine 2 3 49. Prof. Celestino Obua 0 3 310. Assoc. Prof. Guwatudde David 0 3 311. Associate Prof. Yazdihi Bamutaze 0 2 212. Dr. Helen Byamugisha 0 2 213. Dr. Elizabeth Kaase-Bwanga Post Doc 0 1 1
48 82 130
Table 3: Description Key Stakeholders
12
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
In terms of institutional distribution of the student beneficiaries who responded to the study among the partnering institutions, Makerere University had the majority of participants supported by the programme at (27%) accounting for 35 beneficiaries (25 PhD, 10 Master), followed by Gulu University at (26%) accounting for 34 beneficiaries (21 PhD, 13 Master), Mbarara University of Science and Technology followed at (17%) accounting for 22 beneficiaries (12PhD, 10 Master), Kyambogo University had (15%) accounting for 20 beneficiaries (15 PhD, 5 Master), Busitema University had (14%) participants accounting for 18 beneficiaries (9 PhD, 9Master) and LU had (1%) of participants accounting for one Master beneficiary as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 4: Table: Description of beneficiaries by host institution
In terms of background analysis of the beneficiary students, the evaluation interested itself in understanding the level at which each of the students had reached by their self-assessment in the postgraduate level training since this was a midterm level evaluation and majority should have been either completing (at Masters level) or in their final stages of doctoral work (Doctoral level; assuming a three-year doctoral programme). The emerging findings revealed that the majority (61%) of the participants were only in Mid-level of their graduate training, 24% were at near completion and 15% of the participants were at the Beginner level as illustrated below.
Figure 5: Level of graduate training by programme Page |
15
13. Dr. Helen Byamugisha 0 2 2 14. Dr. Elizabeth Kaase-Bwanga Post Doc 0 1 1 48 82 130
Table 3: Description Key Stakeholders In terms of institutional distribution of the student beneficiaries who responded to the study among the partnering institutions, Makerere University had the majority of participants supported by the programme at (27%) accounting for 35 beneficiaries (25 PhD, 10 Master), followed by Gulu University at (26%) accounting for 34 beneficiaries (21 PhD, 13 Master), Mbarara University of Science and Technology followed at (17%) accounting for 22 beneficiaries (12 PhD, 10 Master), Kyambogo University had (15%) accounting for 20 beneficiaries (15 PhD, 5 Master), Busitema University had (14%) participants accounting for 18 beneficiaries (9 PhD, 9Master) and LU had (1%) of participants accounting for one Master beneficiary as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 4: Table: Description of beneficiaries by host institution
In terms of background analysis of the beneficiary students, the evaluation interested itself in understanding the level at which each of the students had reached by their self-assessment in the postgraduate level training since this was a midterm level evaluation and majority should have been either completing (at Masters level) or in their final stages of doctoral work (Doctoral level; assuming a three-year doctoral programme). The emerging findings revealed that the majority (61%) of the participants were only in Mid-level of their graduate training, 24% were at near completion and 15% of the participants were at the Beginner level as illustrated below.
Page |
16
Figure 5: Level of graduate training by programme
In terms of beneficiary supervisors, the study examined their background, 74% male and 26% female of which the majority 83% (9 female, 26 male) of the participants who participated in the study were in the (36-55 years) age-group, followed by 12% (1 female, 4 male) of the participants who were in the (Above 55 years) age-group and lastly 5% (1 female, 1 male) of the participants were from the (18-35 years) age-group. In terms of their specific roles, the findings are summarized in figure below.
Figure 6: Role of participant by Age
From the figure above, the majority 40% of the participants were PhD student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 30%, Above 55 years: 8%, 18-35 years: 2%); this was followed by 29% of the participants who were Project Coordinators comprising of (35-55 years: 25%, Above 55 years: 4%); at 25% of the participants were Post Doc researcher comprising of (35-55 years: 23%, 18-35 years: 2%); and lastly 6% of the participants were Master Student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 6%). The study further investigated the period the participants had been at their institutions. Below is an illustration of the findings.
13
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
In terms of beneficiary supervisors, the study examined their background, 74% male and 26% female of which the majority 83% (9 female, 26 male) of the participants who participated in the study were in the (36-55 years) age-group, followed by 12% (1 female, 4 male) of the participants who were in the (Above 55 years) age-group and lastly 5% (1 female, 1 male) of the participants were from the (18-35 years) age-group. In terms of their specific roles, the findings are summarized in figure below.
Figure 6: Role of participant by Age
From the figure above, the majority 40% of the participants were PhD student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 30%, Above 55 years: 8%, 18-35 years: 2%); this was followed by 29% of the participants who were Project Coordinators comprising of (35-55 years: 25%, Above 55 years: 4%); at 25% of the participants were Post Doc researcher comprising of (35-55 years: 23%, 18-35 years: 2%); and lastly 6% of the participants were Master Student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 6%). The study further investigated the period the participants had been at their institutions. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 7: Participant Years at the Institution
Page |
16
Figure 5: Level of graduate training by programme
In terms of beneficiary supervisors, the study examined their background, 74% male and 26% female of which the majority 83% (9 female, 26 male) of the participants who participated in the study were in the (36-55 years) age-group, followed by 12% (1 female, 4 male) of the participants who were in the (Above 55 years) age-group and lastly 5% (1 female, 1 male) of the participants were from the (18-35 years) age-group. In terms of their specific roles, the findings are summarized in figure below.
Figure 6: Role of participant by Age
From the figure above, the majority 40% of the participants were PhD student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 30%, Above 55 years: 8%, 18-35 years: 2%); this was followed by 29% of the participants who were Project Coordinators comprising of (35-55 years: 25%, Above 55 years: 4%); at 25% of the participants were Post Doc researcher comprising of (35-55 years: 23%, 18-35 years: 2%); and lastly 6% of the participants were Master Student supervisor comprising of (35-55 years: 6%). The study further investigated the period the participants had been at their institutions. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Page |
17
Figure 7: Participant Years at the Institution
From the figure above, the majority 65% of the participants had been at their institutions for (>10 years); this was followed by 27% of the participants who had been at their institutions for (<10 years); and lastly 8% of the participants had been at their institutions for (<5 years). Overall, 90% of the participants had been at their institutions for over 5 years. This implies that project Coordinators and supervisors had a wealth of experience to execute their roles in the SIDA programme. The supervisor’s home institution as per their responses was as indicated below.
Figure 8: Participant Home University
From the figure above, three quarters (76%) of the participants were from Makerere University; this was followed by 10% of the participants from Kyambogo University. The rest of the 14% of participants comprised of Gulu University at (5%), Karolinska Institute at (5%), Lira University at (2%) and finally University of Gothenburg at (2%). Finally, these supervisors were in terms of both nationals and foreigners. The study results showed that 93% of the participants were Ugandans and 7% were Swedish. The participants were drawn from an array Faculty or College. Below is a summary of the participants’ Faculty or College.
Department of Applied IT
14
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 8: Participant Home University
From the figure above, three quarters (76%) of the participants were from Makerere University; this was followed by 10% of the participants from Kyambogo University. The rest of the 14% of participants comprised of Gulu University at (5%), Karolinska Institute at (5%), Lira University at (2%) and finally University of Gothenburg at (2%). Finally, these supervisors were in terms of both nationals and foreigners. The study results showed that 93% of the participants were Ugandans and 7% were Swedish. The participants were drawn from an array Faculty or College. Below is a summary of the participants’ Faculty or College. • Department of Applied IT • College of Humanities and Social Sciences, • College of Natural Sciences • College of Computing and Information Sciences • Quality Assurance Directorate • College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources & Biosecurity • College of agricultural and environmental Sciences • College of Engineering Design Art and Technology (CEDAT) • Gender and Women Studies • Department of Administration • Business and Development Studies • DRGT • College of Natural Sciences • CHUSS • COVAB • CAES
The background characteristics of the respondents, means the opinions gathered were representatives of the students and supervisors participating on the Mak-Sida Programme, hence can be relied on to make logical conclusions about the programme implementation.
From the figure above, the majority 65% of the participants had been at their institutions for (>10 years); this was followed by 27% of the participants who had been at their institutions for (<10 years); and lastly 8% of the participants had been at their institutions for (<5 years). Overall, 90% of the participants had been at their institutions for over 5 years. This implies that project Coordinators and supervisors had a wealth of experience to execute their roles in the Mak - Sida Programme. The supervisor’s home institution as per their responses was as indicated below.
Page |
17
Figure 7: Participant Years at the Institution
From the figure above, the majority 65% of the participants had been at their institutions for (>10 years); this was followed by 27% of the participants who had been at their institutions for (<10 years); and lastly 8% of the participants had been at their institutions for (<5 years). Overall, 90% of the participants had been at their institutions for over 5 years. This implies that project Coordinators and supervisors had a wealth of experience to execute their roles in the SIDA programme. The supervisor’s home institution as per their responses was as indicated below.
Figure 8: Participant Home University
From the figure above, three quarters (76%) of the participants were from Makerere University; this was followed by 10% of the participants from Kyambogo University. The rest of the 14% of participants comprised of Gulu University at (5%), Karolinska Institute at (5%), Lira University at (2%) and finally University of Gothenburg at (2%). Finally, these supervisors were in terms of both nationals and foreigners. The study results showed that 93% of the participants were Ugandans and 7% were Swedish. The participants were drawn from an array Faculty or College. Below is a summary of the participants’ Faculty or College.
Department of Applied IT
15
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Beyond the above background results, the evaluation assessed programme implementation in terms of the elements of the DAC criteria covering relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The views were obtained from different stakeholders as well as a review of the existing documents. The next sections present the emerging findings on each of these themes.
2.3 Programme Relevance
Mak-Sida programme relevance was interpreted to mean; the stakeholder evaluation of the level of participation of PPUs in the programme design, programme alignment to PPUs strategic plans, programme alignment to the national development agenda. The details of each of these are further explained in the sections that follow.
2.3.1 Beneficiary (student assessment)
One of the primary parameters for the assessment of the relevance of the programme is the extent to which the beneficiaries are satisfied. The evaluation thus assessed degree to which the students regarded the strategic collaboration approach of the Mak-Sida programme to be beneficial to their learning experience between Ugandan and Swedish Institutions. It emerged that 75% (57 PhD, 40 Master) of the participants believed at mid-term level that the strategic collaboration approach was beneficial to them to a great extent compared to 22% (22 PhD, 7 Master) who suggested that this was only to some extent. Overall, therefore 97% of the students who responded to the survey instrument supported the relevance of this programme based on its benefits.
2.3 Programme Relevance
2.3.1 Beneficiary (student assessment)
Page |
19
Figure 9: Degree of Strategic Collaboration Approach of SIDA programme
The student beneficiaries had different reasons for their ratings regarding their strategic collaboration approach of the Mak-Sida programme. Below are some of the reasons for their opinions above. The programme is has enough exposer We have been able to get all our tuition on time, Scholastic materials have been provided as requested. We undertook further training at taught courses that expand our knowledge, Support through research greatly improves our understanding There were few staff with PhD qualifications and a significant number of them are
now enrolled for PhD programs. Communication to beneficiaries is good There is a good relationship between implementers and beneficiaries It has targeted public university workers which is good because of the multiplier
effect Beneficiaries are able to meet their academic costs Beneficiaries are able to complete their programme on time Beneficiaries are able to visit Swedish university and learn modern ways of delivering
knowledge. Exposure to modern equipment which open beneficiaries’ eyes to modern and
simplified medicine. It builds capacity of the collaborating institutions and thus strengthening the academic
quality Collaborations with the University of Gothenburg has enabled me to reach out to
professors and other researchers from other universities within Sweden through the school of management and it and other conferences.
The sharing of experiences and environmental changes open up the aura for innovation.
Students are encouraged to plan and adhere to personal work plans. Milestones are included in the work plan so that academic advancement can be
tracked by both the supervisors and student.
Figure 9: Degree of Strategic Collaboration Approach of SIDA programme
The student beneficiaries had different reasons for their ratings regarding their strategic collaboration approach of the Mak-Sida programme. Below are some of the reasons for their opinions above.
16
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
2.3.2 Partner Universities Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme
Involvement of key stakeholders in the design of programmes like the Mak-Sida programme is critical at ensuring that the programme addresses core needs of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The mid-term review assessed the level of involvement of key stakeholder especially PPUs, and students in the design of the programme. It was revealed through KIIs that the programme design was indeed a consultative process at some stage in which PPUs were invited to contribute to the concept of the programme which was already developed from Makerere University. One key informant from a PPU indicated that;
“…if we had a chance to contribute to the programme design, we would have included the running of our own PhD programme as a means of learning from practice.”
Another key informant noted;
“…if they had participated in the initial conceptualization of the programme management and coordination they would have advocated for PPUs to be directly responsible for their budget lines not only to effectively manage resources but also to build capacity in grant management.”
Besides the KIIs, the survey among supervisors on the programme, in terms of the nature of the programme conceptualization and design it was revealed by majority of the supervisors (21) out of 42 who responded indicated that the programme design was a consultative and participatory process to a great and greater extent. However, it should be noted that majority of the supervisors who responded to the survey 32 out of 42 were from Makerere university. Given the fact that 21 supervisors who responded indicated that the programme design was consultative and yet 32 of all respondents were from Makerere University, this implies that the stakeholders feel that the programme design process as much as it was consultative the impact of their contribution may not be reflected in the programme design and implementation.
The programme is has enough exposer We have been able to get all our tuition on time, Scholastic materials have been provided as requested. We undertook further training at taught courses that expand our knowledge, Support through research greatly improves our understanding There were few staff with PhD qualifications and a significant number of them are now enrolled for PhD programs. Communication to beneficiaries is good There is a good relationship between implementers and beneficiaries It has targeted public university workers which is good because of the multiplier effect Beneficiaries are able to meet their academic costs Beneficiaries are able to complete their programme on time Beneficiaries are able to visit Swedish university and learn modern ways of delivering knowledge. Exposure to modern equipment which open beneficiaries’ eyes to modern and simplified medicine. It builds capacity of the collaborating institutions and thus strengthening the academic quality Collaborations with the University of Gothenburg has enabled me to reach out to professors and other researchers from other universities within Sweden through the school of management and it and other conferences. The sharing of experiences and environmental changes open up the aura for innovation. Students are encouraged to plan and adhere to personal work plans. Milestones are included in the work plan so that academic advancement can be tracked by both the supervisors and student.
17
2.3.2 Partner Universities Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Page |
20
2.3.2 Partner Universities Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme Involvement of key stakeholders in the design of programmes like the Mak-Sida programme is critical at ensuring that the programme addresses core needs of the beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The mid-term review assessed the level of involvement of key stakeholder especially PPUs, and students in the design of the programme. It was revealed through KIIs that the programme design was indeed a consultative process at some stage in which PPUs were invited to contribute to the concept of the programme which was already developed from Makerere University. One key informant from a PPU indicated that;
“…if we had a chance to contribute to the programme design, we would have included the running of our own PhD programme as a means of learning from practice.”
Another key informant noted;
“…if they had participated in the initial conceptualization of the programme management and coordination they would have advocated for PPUs to be directly responsible for their budget lines not only to effectively manage resources but also to build capacity in grant management.”
Besides the KIIs, the survey among supervisors on the programme, in terms of the nature of the programme conceptualization and design it was revealed by majority of the supervisors (21) out of 42 who responded indicated that the programme design was a consultative and participatory process to a great and greater extent. However, it should be noted that majority of the supervisors who responded to the survey 32 out of 42 were from Makerere university. Given the fact that 21 supervisors who responded indicated that the programme design was consultative and yet 32 of all respondents were from Makerere University, this implies that the stakeholders feel that the programme design process as much as it was consultative the impact of their contribution may not be reflected in the programme design and implementation.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
N O T �A T �A L LT O �A �G R E A T �
E X T E N T T O �A �G R E A T E R �E X T E N T
T O �A �S M A L L �E X T E N T T O �S O M E �
E X T E N T
6
13
8
5
10
NUMBER�OF�SUPERVISOR�RESPONDENTS
Figure 10: Number of Respondent Supervisors
Figure 10: Number of Respondent Supervisors
This assessment focuses on how the partner universities were involved in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme. The assessment sought to find out at what level the partner universities joined the Mak-Sida Programme and their contributions towards the development of the programme. The respondents were mainly the coordinators at the specific partner universities and the Principal Investigators (PIs) for the specific projects within the programme.
It was revealed during the engagement, that Makerere University initiated the idea of the programme and developed the framework on how it would run. The partner universities were brought in at a later stage to fit into the already developed Mak-Sida Programme (Co-opted). It was further noted that the programme was supposed to comprise a variety of projects implemented by PIs and one of the projects was to be a main project that would support majority of the public universities in Uganda. A call was made for interested persons to write proposals and 1 projects were selected plus the core main project which would support all public universities. The core main project (377) was entirely conceived in Mak and other public universities were just brought on board. The project 377 was developed to build staff capacity for the public universities at Post Doc, PhD and masters levels. It was developed in such a way that all training for PhD and Post Doc was to be undertaken from Mak. However, for the master programmes the staff could undertake training within their specific institutions. The assumption that was taken during the development was that, other universities did not have enough capacity to run PhD and Post Doc programmes. However, from the assessment it was found that some partner universities had already capacity to run PhD programmes in some research areas and would have preferred to run the PhD training at their universities, as opposed to having their staff registered at Makerere University. Therefore the universities that did not have any PhD programme to run at their home institution preferred to have their staff trained in Mak as their preference. These results are further described in the figure 3 below;
18
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 11: Extent of Involvement in the design of the Mak-Sida Programme
From the results, it should be noted that there is quite a big group from the respondents who felt that involvement in the Mak-Sida programme was note adequately done and it is the reason why some of the implementation aspects seem not to be working out. Since the PIs designed their own programmes, they clearly understand how to the implement them but the main issues around non-involvement is felt within the project 377 that brings all public universities into the capacity building programme. For any collaborative programme to succeed, all partners initially have to consent on how the programme will be implemented. This does not seem to have been the case for project 377 and hence the voices being echoed. Several respondents on project 377 (staff and students) felt that the SOP lacked the localization element of implementing projects. There was a feeling that there is too much control of how capacity building should be done without due consideration of different circumstances within the different partner universities. The assumption taken during the design is that majority of activities to be implemented in line with what happens in Mak. It was also noted from the respondents that there was discrimination between staff and students at local and international levels. Staff performing the same role (local and international) supported differently despite of being within the same environment at a given time (field research visits). This is so demotivating to many staff and should be avoided if the programme is to succeed immensely.
The other projects running under the programme seem to have a better streamlined implementation environment and the students participating in those projects partially participated in the design. This is the reason why there is more coherence and progress within the other projects other than 377. It should also be noted that the project 377 was designed to be big enough to accommodate several public universities and therefore partial decentralization of activity coordination and management should have been left within the partner universities. The non-existence of such flexibility is causing a lot of delays within the programme activity implementation.
2.3.3 Mak-Sida Programme Compliance with needs of Public Universities
The success and eventual sustainability of a research programme depends on how its objectives are linked with the institutional needs. The evaluation findings at mid-term level revealed that all participating public universities had strategic plans which focused on strengthening; teaching and learning, research and innovation, knowledge transfer & partnerships (Mak Strategic plan, GU Strategic Plan, MUST strategic Plan, KYU strategic Plan and BU Strategic Plan). The analysis of Mak-SidaProgramme activities clearly indicate their alignment to the 3 sematic areas of all partner universities. The goal of Mak-Sida programme as stated in the programme
19
2.3.3 Mak-Sida Programme Compliance with needs of Public Universities
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
document is to increase capacity of public universities to generate knowledge and promote research uptake for national and regional development. For example, there is project 376 on quality assurance which focuses on building robust academic quality assurance systems at the participating public universities with a sole aim of addressing a strategic goal of improving teaching and learning. Project 377 which focuses on building staff capacity for PPUs is strategically aligned to strategic goal 2 which is to improve research and innovation output from public universities.
By and large the design of the Mak-Sida programme at various levels promotes knowledge transfer and partnerships which addresses strategic goal number 3. This is clearly witnessed within the various projects on the Mak-Sida programme that provide activities such as supervisor twining, sandwich programmes, research visits, support for conferences and workshops among others. The table below illustrates a sample of some projects planned outputs and so far, achieved to reflect their alignment to the strategic pillar of knowledge transfer partnership of the participating public universities. Table below highlight the individual projects planned and output at midterm level.
Page |
0
Output
321 Planned
321 Achieved
382 Planned
382 Achieved
317 Planned
317 Achieved
316 Planned
316 Achieved
374 Planned
374 Achieved
377 Planned
377 Achieved
344 Planned
344 Achieved
313 Planned
313 Achieved
362 Planned
362 Achieved
2891 Planned
2891 A
chieved
Scientific publications
20 7 0 1 30 13 150 42 0 0 100 12 15 3 0 0 12 0
Non-scientific publications
0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 5 4 3 0
Patents 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Number of students visits to Sweden
15 5 0 0 2 50 25 0 0 0 0 6 1 2 2 8 2
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
10 5 2 5 2 25 10 4 1 0 0 4 0 2 2 2 0
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
10 5 6 10 4 35 23 12 7 0 0 10 6 4 6 4 4
Number of conferences organized
1 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Number of workshops organized
10 4 2 5 15 15 8 28 16 24 6 6 2 6 3 2 0
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
10 5 3 8 22 13 50 15 28 13 50 5 12 0 6 4 4 0
Total number of Master student completed
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 100 15 6 3 12 0 4 0
Page |
1
Number of curriculum developed or improved
2 2 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0
Number of policy developed or contributed to
1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 5 0 5 0 1 0
Table 4: Projects planned outputs and achievements at mid-term level
Table 4: Projects planned outputs and achievements at mid-term level
20
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 12: Projects Planned and Actual outputs
The results indicate that all projects that submitted data for the evaluation were doing well in terms of recruiting students to take on the planned slots of training. All projects had their slots filled apart from project 316 post docs are yet to fill 5 positions, project 317 are yet to fill 3 positions, project 377 are yet to fill 2 positions. Also on the PhD student recruitment it is project 377 that has not yet filled 2 positions. Since the project is already 3 years gone, it is likely that the 2 students once recruited will never finish within the project time. It is therefore unlikely that these students will be recruited to take up the slot on time.
Figure 13: SIDA programme publications
Seven projects (321, 382, 317, 316, 374, 377 and 344) had a total of 315 scientific publications planned and so far, 78 have been achieved, which represent 24.7%. Under ideal conditions, the publications should at least be at 40% at midterm level. However, it was noted that most students are at middle level of their students largely doing data collection and labor work. While the publication rate is still lowers, it’s normal for research projects to have the highest publications outputs at in the last quarter. The best projects so far are project 316 and 344 led by Prof. John Mango and Prof. James Tumwine, as they has the highest publications and excellent student progress. This is not surprising as Prof. Mango and Prof. Tumwine are top scientists and researchers at Makerere University. This excellent performance conduct be attributed their methods of works as evidenced by their records in other projects.
Page |
0
Seven projects (321, 382, 317, 316, 374, 377 and 344) had a total of 315 scientific publications planned and so far, 78 have been achieved, which represent 24.7%. Under ideal conditions, the publications should at least be at 40% at midterm level. However, it was noted that most students are at middle level of their students largely doing data collection and labor work. While the publication rate is still lowers, it’s normal for research projects to have the highest publications outputs at in the last quarter. The best projects so far are project 316 and 344 led by Prof. John Mango and Prof. James Tumwine, as they has the highest publications and excellent student progress. This is not surprising as Prof. Mango and Prof. Tumwine are top scientists and researchers at Makerere University. This excellent performance conduct be attributed their methods of works as evidenced by their records in other projects.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Scientific�publications�
Non-scientific�publications
Patents Number�of�students�visits�to�Sweden
Number�of��Uganda�
supervisor�visits�to�Sweden
Number�of�Swedish�
supervisor�visits�to�Uganda
Number�of�conferences�organized
Number�of�workshops�organized
Total�number�of�international�conference�attended�by�both�students�and�supervisors�
with�SIDA�support
Total�number�of�Master�student�
completed
Number�of�curriculum�developed�or�improved
Number�of�policy�
developed�or�contributed�to
Activities�Planned�and�Achieved�so�far�in�the�Programme
321�Plan 321�Achi 382�Plan 382�Achi 317�Plan 317�Achi 316�Plan 316�Achi 374�Plan 374�Achi
377�Plan 377�Achi 344�Plan 344�Achi 313�Plan 313�Achi 362�Plan 362�Achi 2891�Plan 2891�Achi
Figure 12: Projects Planned and Actual outputs
The results indicate that all projects that submitted data for the evaluation were doing well in terms of recruiting students to take on the planned slots of training. All projects had their slots filled apart from project 316 post docs are yet to fill 5 positions, project 317 are yet to fill 3 positions, project 377 are yet to fill 2 positions. Also on the PhD student recruitment it is project 377 that has not yet filled 2 positions. Since the project is already 3 years gone, it is likely that the 2 students once recruited will never finish within the project time. It is therefore unlikely that these students will be recruited to take up the slot on time.
21
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Overall results that concern publication, conferences and workshop are significant in presenting the status of research within the projects. From the figure, we note that project 316 had the highest planned publications, conferences and workshops and is the same project that had the highest percentage of achievements at mid-term level. This project was followed by 317, 321, 344 and 377 respectively. It should be noted that in terms of publication apart from projects 316 and 317, the rest are lagging behind most especially project 377. Since 377 is a project that brings all PPUs together, the culture of publication in some of the public universities is very low and therefore something has to be done to encourage publication or else it may be hard to hit the planned target.
Page |
1
Figure 13: SIDA programme publications Overall results that concern publication, conferences and workshop are significant in presenting the status of research within the projects. From the figure, we note that project 316 had the highest planned publications, conferences and workshops and is the same project that had the highest percentage of achievements at mid-term level. This project was followed by 317, 321, 344 and 377 respectively. It should be noted that in terms of publication apart from projects 316 and 317, the rest are lagging behind most especially project 377. Since 377 is a project that brings all PPUs together, the culture of publication in some of the public universities is very low and therefore something has to be done to encourage publication or else it may be hard to hit the planned target.
Figure 14: Number of Bilateral Visits
Further assessment of the capacity building component, it was found that majority of the public universities still lack capacity at senior position levels (Associate professor to Professor Levels). The analysis of the human capacity at the PPUs indicated that most PPUs are operating below 50% of their required staff establishment. This challenge is compounded by the fact that the government of Uganda in the recent years had frozen staff recruitment in most public agencies citing constrained national budget.
Page |
1
Figure 13: SIDA programme publications Overall results that concern publication, conferences and workshop are significant in presenting the status of research within the projects. From the figure, we note that project 316 had the highest planned publications, conferences and workshops and is the same project that had the highest percentage of achievements at mid-term level. This project was followed by 317, 321, 344 and 377 respectively. It should be noted that in terms of publication apart from projects 316 and 317, the rest are lagging behind most especially project 377. Since 377 is a project that brings all PPUs together, the culture of publication in some of the public universities is very low and therefore something has to be done to encourage publication or else it may be hard to hit the planned target.
Figure 14: Number of Bilateral Visits
Further assessment of the capacity building component, it was found that majority of the public universities still lack capacity at senior position levels (Associate professor to Professor Levels). The analysis of the human capacity at the PPUs indicated that most PPUs are operating below 50% of their required staff establishment. This challenge is compounded by the fact that the government of Uganda in the recent years had frozen staff recruitment in most public agencies citing constrained national budget.
Figure 14: Number of Bilateral Visits
Further assessment of the capacity building component, it was found that majority of the public universities still lack capacity at senior position levels (Associate professor to Professor Levels). The analysis of the human capacity at the PPUs indicated that most PPUs are operating below 50% of their required staff establishment. This challenge is compounded by the fact that the government of Uganda in the recent years had frozen staff recruitment in most public agencies citing constrained national budget.
Figure 15: SIDA programme activities
22
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 16: Scientific publications with SIDA programme support
From the figure above, the majority 77% (56 PhD, 45 Master) had not produced any scientific publication as only a fifth of the participants suggested that they had produced some scientific publication. The results revealed that 19% (23 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants suggested they had produced (< 3) scientific publications, 2% (3 PhD) of the participants had produced (< 5) scientific publications and 1% (1 Master) of the participants had produced (10 >) scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The study also examined the number of non-scientific publications the student beneficiaries had produced with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The figure below illustrates the findings of the study.
Figure 17: Number of non-scientific publications
The strategy to improve human capital at all PPUs has been to promote support and encourage further training of staff largely through development partner support as the local budgets do not adequately support substantial staff development efforts. Therefore, it was revealed that the Mak-Sida programme was timely and strategically aligned to efforts of PPUs to build capacity of their staff especially at PhD levels.
Student beneficiaries were asked to indicate the extent to which as the programme beneficiaries whether there had been institutional capacity in terms of research. In this regard, the study examined the number of scientific publications the student beneficiaries had produced with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The figure below illustrates the findings of the study.
Page |
2
Figure 15: SIDA programme activities The strategy to improve human capital at all PPUs has been to promote support and encourage further training of staff largely through development partner support as the local budgets do not adequately support substantial staff development efforts. Therefore, it was revealed that the Mak-Sida programme was timely and strategically aligned to efforts of PPUs to build capacity of their staff especially at PhD levels. Student beneficiaries were asked to indicate the extent to which as the programme beneficiaries whether there had been institutional capacity in terms of research. In this regard, the study examined the number of scientific publications the student beneficiaries had produced with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The figure below illustrates the findings of the study.
Figure 16: Scientific publications with SIDA programme support
From the figure above, the majority 77% (56 PhD, 45 Master) had not produced any scientific publication as only a fifth of the participants suggested that they had produced some scientific publication. The results revealed that 19% (23 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants suggested they had produced (< 3) scientific publications, 2% (3 PhD) of the participants had produced (< 5) scientific publications and 1% (1 Master) of the participants had produced (10 >) scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The study also examined the number of non-scientific publications the student beneficiaries had produced with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The figure below illustrates the findings of the study.
Page |
3
Figure 17: Number of non-scientific publications
From the figure above, almost four fifth of the participants, about 79% (58 PhD, 45 Master) had not produced any non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme. On the other hand, 19% (22 PhD, 3 Master) of the participants had produced (<3) non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programmecompared to 2% (2 PhD) of the participants who had produced (<5) non-scientific publications. The study further examined the proportion of publications the participants had authored with Mak-Sida Programme support. The participants were asked to state the percentage of publications they had written with Mak-Sida Programme support and below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 18: Publications authored with Mak-Sida Programme support
The figure above shows that the majority 70% (48 PhD, 43 Master) of the participants had not written any publication with Mak-Sida Programme support. On the other hand, just over a quarter of the participants suggested they had authored some publication with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. Further examination of the data showed that 15% (17 PhD, 3 Master) had authored (<20%) publications with Mak-Sida Programme support, followed by 9% (10 PhD, 1 Master) of participants who had authored (60%>) publications, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants suggesting they authored (<60%) publications and lastly 2% (2 PhD) of the participants had authored about (<40%) publications with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the percentage of publications the participants had co-
23
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
From the figure above, almost four fifth of the participants, about 79% (58 PhD, 45 Master) had not produced any non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme. On the other hand, 19% (22 PhD, 3 Master) of the participants had produced (<3) non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme compared to 2% (2 PhD) of the participants who had produced (<5) non-scientific publications. The study further examined the proportion of publications the participants had authored with Mak-Sida Programme support. The participants were asked to state the percentage of publications they had written with Mak-Sida Programme support and below is an illustration of the findings.
Page |
3
Figure 17: Number of non-scientific publications
From the figure above, almost four fifth of the participants, about 79% (58 PhD, 45 Master) had not produced any non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programme. On the other hand, 19% (22 PhD, 3 Master) of the participants had produced (<3) non-scientific publications with support from Mak-Sida Programmecompared to 2% (2 PhD) of the participants who had produced (<5) non-scientific publications. The study further examined the proportion of publications the participants had authored with Mak-Sida Programme support. The participants were asked to state the percentage of publications they had written with Mak-Sida Programme support and below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 18: Publications authored with Mak-Sida Programme support
The figure above shows that the majority 70% (48 PhD, 43 Master) of the participants had not written any publication with Mak-Sida Programme support. On the other hand, just over a quarter of the participants suggested they had authored some publication with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. Further examination of the data showed that 15% (17 PhD, 3 Master) had authored (<20%) publications with Mak-Sida Programme support, followed by 9% (10 PhD, 1 Master) of participants who had authored (60%>) publications, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants suggesting they authored (<60%) publications and lastly 2% (2 PhD) of the participants had authored about (<40%) publications with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the percentage of publications the participants had co-
Page |
4
authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 19: Publications co-authored with partner university researchers
From the figure above the majority 78% (57 PhD, 45 Master) of participants suggested they had not co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. However, 12% (13 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants had co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants, followed by 3% (4 PhD) and lastly 2% (3 PhD) of the participants co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the proportion of the participants’ research activities that were executed punctually. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 20: Proportion of punctual research execution (%)
The figure above shows that the majority 26% (16 PhD, 18 Master) of the participants suggested that (<60%) their research was completed in time, followed by 21% (21 PhD, 6 Master) of the participants suggested that (<40%) their research was completed in time 17% (15 PhD, 7 Master) of the participants suggested that (<20%) their research was completed in time, followed by 18%
Figure 18: Publications authored with Mak-Sida Programme support
The figure above shows that the majority 70% (48 PhD, 43 Master) of the participants had not written any publication with Mak-Sida Programme support. On the other hand, just over a quarter of the participants suggested they had authored some publication with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. Further examination of the data showed that 15% (17 PhD, 3 Master) had authored (<20%) publications with Mak-Sida Programme support, followed by 9% (10 PhD, 1 Master) of participants who had authored (60%>) publications, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants suggesting they authored (<60%) publications and lastly 2% (2 PhD) of the participants had authored about (<40%) publications with the support of Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the percentage of publications the participants had co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 19: Publications co-authored with partner university researchers
24
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
From the figure above the majority 78% (57 PhD, 45 Master) of participants suggested they had not co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. However, 12% (13 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants had co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants, followed by 3% (4 PhD) and lastly 2% (3 PhD) of the participants co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the proportion of the participants’ research activities that were executed punctually. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Page |
4
authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 19: Publications co-authored with partner university researchers
From the figure above the majority 78% (57 PhD, 45 Master) of participants suggested they had not co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. However, 12% (13 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants had co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme, followed by 5% (5 PhD, 1 Master) of the participants, followed by 3% (4 PhD) and lastly 2% (3 PhD) of the participants co-authored with researchers from partner universities with support from Mak-Sida Programme. The study investigated the proportion of the participants’ research activities that were executed punctually. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 20: Proportion of punctual research execution (%)
The figure above shows that the majority 26% (16 PhD, 18 Master) of the participants suggested that (<60%) their research was completed in time, followed by 21% (21 PhD, 6 Master) of the participants suggested that (<40%) their research was completed in time 17% (15 PhD, 7 Master) of the participants suggested that (<20%) their research was completed in time, followed by 18%
Figure 20: Proportion of punctual research execution (%)
The figure above shows that the majority 26% (16 PhD, 18 Master) of the participants suggested that (<60%) their research was completed in time, followed by 21% (21 PhD, 6 Master) of the participants suggested that (<40%) their research was completed in time 17% (15 PhD, 7 Master) of the participants suggested that (<20%) their research was completed in time, followed by 18% (16 PhD, 8 Master) of the participants suggested that (60%>) their research was completed in time and lastly 18% (14 PhD, 9 Master) ) of the participants suggested that (0%) their research was completed in time.
2.3.4 Mak-Sida Programme Relevance in addressing Capacity Issues in Uganda
Uganda as a country has seen tremendous reforms in her educational sector which has led to high number of basic education graduates seeking higher education. Since 1997, Uganda introduced free universal primary education which was later followed free universal secondary education. Current statistics indicate nearly 300,000 students annually seek access to higher education in the country. Because of the growing demand for higher education, the country has witnessed a significant growth and establishment of universities.
Majority of the partner universities lack capacity of PhD holders to steer research and graduate training as per their current human resource establishments. Therefore, the programme was dully complying with the needs of making sure there are more PhD and master holders within the institutions. The figure 21 below describes how the respondents felt on how the programme was aligned to their strategic plans.
25
2.3.4 Mak-Sida Programme Relevance in addressing Capacity Issues in Uganda
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Page |
5
(16 PhD, 8 Master) of the participants suggested that (60%>) their research was completed in time and lastly 18% (14 PhD, 9 Master) ) of the participants suggested that (0%) their research was completed in time. 2.3.4 Mak-Sida Programme Relevance in addressing Capacity Issues in Uganda Uganda as a country has seen tremendous reforms in her educational sector which has led to high number of basic education graduates seeking higher education. Since 1997, Uganda introduced free universal primary education which was later followed free universal secondary education. Current statistics indicate nearly 300,000 students annually seek access to higher education in the country. Because of the growing demand for higher education, the country has witnessed a significant growth and establishment of universities. Majority of the partner universities lack capacity of PhD holders to steer research and graduate training as per their current human resource establishments. Therefore, the programme was dully complying with the needs of making sure there are more PhD and master holders within the institutions. The figure 21 below describes how the respondents felt on how the programme was aligned to their strategic plans.
Figure 21: Extent of the Mak-Sida Programme Alignment to Institution’s Strategic Plan
Further in this section, the study investigated the Mak-Sida Programme’s contribution to the growth of the participants’ home university visibility and brand. The figure below illustrates the study findings.
Figure 21: Extent of the Mak-Sida Programme Alignment to Institution’s Strategic Plan
Figure 22: Mak-Sida Programme contribution to growth of home visibility and brand
Further in this section, the study investigated the Mak-Sida Programme’s contribution to the growth of the participants’ home university visibility and brand. The figure below illustrates the study findings.
The figure above shows that the majority 66% (51 PhD, 35 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programme had to a great extent contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand, 33% (31 PhD, 12 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programme had to some extent contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand while 1% (1 PhD) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programme had Not at all contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand.
As of December 2017, Uganda had about 42 universities of which 11 are public universities. It is well noted that the rapid expansion for the higher education sector demands high caliber academic staff normally at PhD level to support the fast-growing sector. Statistics show that the country annually produces about 50 PhDs which is way below the desired numbers to sustain the growing higher educational sector but also other knowledge driven sectors within the country. It is noted that a knowledge based economy which Uganda as land locked country is aspiring to attain as a means to accelerate to middle income status, the country needs high skilled knowledge workers at the level of graduate training especially PhDs. Therefore, it is critical for the
Page |
6
Figure 22: Mak-Sida Programme contribution to growth of home visibility and brand
The figure above shows that the majority 66% (51 PhD, 35 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programmehad to a great extent contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand, 33% (31 PhD, 12 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programmehad to some extent contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand while 1% (1 PhD) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programme had Not at all contributed to the growth of their home university visibility and brand. As of December 2017, Uganda had about 42 universities of which 11 are public universities. It is well noted that the rapid expansion for the higher education sector demands high caliber academic staff normally at PhD level to support the fast-growing sector. Statistics show that the country annually produces about 50 PhDs which is way below the desired numbers to sustain the growing higher educational sector but also other knowledge driven sectors within the country. It is noted that a knowledge based economy which Uganda as land locked country is aspiring to attain as a means to accelerate to middle income status, the country needs high skilled knowledge workers at the level of graduate training especially PhDs. Therefore, it is critical for the country to develop systems and structures to continuously produce the desired skilled workers in a sustainable way. The study examined level the Mak-Sida Programme had impacted on the participants’ home Faculty/School research agenda. Below is an illustration of the findings
26
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
country to develop systems and structures to continuously produce the desired skilled workers in a sustainable way.
The study examined level the Mak-Sida Programme had impacted on the participants’ home Faculty/School research agenda. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Page |
7
Figure 23: Mak-Sida Programme impact on home faculty research agenda
From the figure above, the majority 57% (46 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programmehad to a great extent impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda, 42% (35 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. Only 1% (1 PhD) of the participants thought the Mak-Sida Programme had Not at all impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. The study investigated the degree to which the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The figure below illustrates the findings.
Figure 24: Mak-Sida Programme partnership influence on collaboration with other researchers The figure above shows that 49% (40PhD, 24 Master) of the participants suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers, 42% (39 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had influenced their collaboration with other researchers. Only 9% (3 PhD, 9 Master) of the participants thought that the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had Not at all influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The study also examined whether the participants’ home institution/university had
Page |
7
Figure 23: Mak-Sida Programme impact on home faculty research agenda
From the figure above, the majority 57% (46 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programmehad to a great extent impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda, 42% (35 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. Only 1% (1 PhD) of the participants thought the Mak-Sida Programme had Not at all impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. The study investigated the degree to which the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The figure below illustrates the findings.
Figure 24: Mak-Sida Programme partnership influence on collaboration with other researchers The figure above shows that 49% (40PhD, 24 Master) of the participants suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers, 42% (39 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had influenced their collaboration with other researchers. Only 9% (3 PhD, 9 Master) of the participants thought that the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had Not at all influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The study also examined whether the participants’ home institution/university had
Figure 23: Mak-Sida Programme impact on home faculty research agenda
From the figure above, the majority 57% (46 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that the Mak-Sida Programme had to a great extent impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda, 42% (35 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. Only 1% (1 PhD) of the participants thought the Mak-Sida Programme had Not at all impacted on their home Faculty/School research agenda. The study investigated the degree to which the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The figure below illustrates the findings.
Figure 24: Mak-Sida Programme partnership influence on collaboration with other researchers
27
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The figure above shows that 49% (40PhD, 24 Master) of the participants suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature influenced their collaboration with other researchers, 42% (39 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants suggested that to some extent the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had influenced their collaboration with other researchers. Only 9% (3 PhD, 9 Master) of the participants thought that the Mak-Sida Programme partnership nature had Not at all influenced their collaboration with other researchers. The study also examined whether the participants’ home institution/university had the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. The results of the findings are illustrated in the figure below.
From the figure above, the majority 74% (63 PhD, 33 Master) of the participants’ suggested that the home institution/university had the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020 as opposed to 26% (19 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants who suggested that home institution/university did not have the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. The participants put forward the reasons for their opinion about their home institution/university capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. Below is a summary for their opinion above.
2.4 Academic Quality
Academic quality was interpreted by the evaluation team as per the global standards in terms of; the appropriateness of curriculum used in teaching, staff profile and experience, support resources and infrastructure and the pedagogical approaches used. Therefore, a review of the different aspects that contribute to the academic quality of the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme revealed the following findings as per the categories.
2.4.1 Appropriateness of Curriculum used in the Mak-Sida Programme
The curriculum that was evaluated included for both Masters and PhD. This curriculum was from all the participating Ugandan institutions (MAK, MUST, KYU, BU and GU). It was noted that all the curriculum running under the Mak-Sida Programme is accredited by National Council for Higher Education (NCHE). This indicates that the curriculum is mandated to be run within Uganda, a benchmarking study on a few selected programmes at Makerere University indicate that all these programmes are designed following sound principles of practices which meet local and international standards. It was further noted that the participating Universities implemented the two-year masters’ curriculum within their Universities. The PhD curriculum was only running in Makerere University. The PhD curriculum was both by research only and by course and research but all students registered onto any of them had to undertake some mandatory courses.
Figure 25: Capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020
Page |
8
the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. The results of the findings a illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 25: Capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020
From the figure above, the majority 74% (63 PhD, 33 Master) of the participants’ suggested that the home institution/university had the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020 as opposed to 26% (19 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants who suggested that home institution/university did not have the capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. The participants put forward the reasons for their opinion about their home institution/university capacity to continue with Mak-Sida Programme activities after 2020. Below is a summary for their opinion above. 2.4 Academic Quality Academic quality was interpreted by the evaluation team as per the global standards in terms of; the appropriateness of curriculum used in teaching, staff profile and experience, support resources and infrastructure and the pedagogical approaches used. Therefore, a review of the different aspects that contribute to the academic quality of the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme revealed the following findings as per the categories. 2.4.1 Appropriateness of Curriculum used in the Mak-Sida Programme The curriculum that was evaluated included for both Masters and PhD. This curriculum was from all the participating Ugandan institutions (MAK, MUST, KYU, BU and GU). It was noted that all the curriculum running under the Mak-Sida Programme is accredited by National Council for Higher Education (NCHE). This indicates that the curriculum is mandated to be run within Uganda, a benchmarking study on a few selected programmes at Makerere University indicate that all these programmes are designed following sound principles of practices which meet local and international standards. It was further noted that the participating Universities implemented the two-year masters’ curriculum within their Universities. The PhD curriculum was only running in Makerere University. The PhD curriculum was both by research only and by course and research but all students registered onto any of them had to undertake some mandatory courses.
2.4 Academic Quality
2.4.1 Appropriateness of Curriculum used in the Mak-Sida Programme
28
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
From figure 5, majority of the student’s respondents (114) out of 130 (88%) indicated that the curriculum was appropriate to a greater extent. Also figure 5 shows that majority of the supervisors (32) out of 42 indicated that the curriculum was appropriate.
As part of improving academic quality and capacity of partner public universities, Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University through the Mak-Sida Programme has spearheaded the review and development of PhD programmes. A total of 8 new PhD programmes are being developed while a total of 13 programmes in all participating public universities have been reviewed with Mak-Sida Programme support. The review of the proposed new programmes found them to be well thought through, relevant and ear marked to addressing critical skill gaps in key sectors of the economy. It was noted that almost all the proposed programmes are complete and waiting accreditation from NCHE. It was revealed during the engagement with the Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University and coordinators of PPUs that it was planned the new programmes to commence in the academic year 2019/20. It is believed that by the end of the exercise, Makerere University will have 4 new taught PhD programmes and one for each partner University.
The curriculum for the taught PhDs include the following; BU – PhD in Materials engineering, MUST - PhD in Biomedical Engineering, GU – PhD in Applied Tropical Entomology and Parasitology, Mak – PhD in Maths, PhD in Information Systems, PhD in Management and PhD in Public Health. Development of taught PhD programmes is part of the quality assurance programme of improving PhD training within the country. At the moment, there is great concern with the research only based PhD programmes with very low student
Figure 26: Extent to which curriculum is appropriate for students to achieve their career goals
Page |
9
Concerning the quality of learning received by the students, it was found out that the curriculum being followed in all the Universities was relatively good and contributed to the students’ skills enhancement for their jobs they were performing within the institutions. In some of the Universities the Mak-Sida programme provided support in order for the curriculum to be revised and reviewed. Through the several workshops organized by the programme, capacity in curriculum development has been built for the participating Universities. It was further noted that the lecturers were knowledgeable and committed to teaching the curriculum. Since the quality of learning received was rated well by both students and lecturers, this led to completion rates on the different University programmes to be relatively good. Some of the masters students supported under this programme have already completed their studies under the different University programmes. Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) has the highest completion rate and Gulu University has the lowest completion rates at Master level. The figure 5 illustrates the responses of supervisors and students on the appropriateness of the curriculum being followed on the various programmes being implemented within the Mak-Sida Programme.
Figure 26: Extent to which curriculum is appropriate for students to achieve their career goals
From figure 5, majority of the student’s respondents (114) out of 130 (88%) indicated that the curriculum was appropriate to a greater extent. Also figure 5 shows that majority of the supervisors (32) out of 42 indicated that the curriculum was appropriate. As part of improving academic quality and capacity of partner public universities, Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University through the Mak-Sida Programme has spearheaded the review and development of PhD programmes. A total of 8 new PhD programmes are being developed while a total of 13 programmes in all participating public universities have been reviewed with Mak-Sida Programme support. The review of the proposed new programmes found them to be well thought through, relevant and ear marked to addressing critical skill gaps in key sectors of the economy. It was noted that almost all the proposed programmes are complete and waiting accreditation from NCHE. It was revealed during the engagement with the Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University and coordinators of PPUs that it was planned the new programmes to commence in the academic year 2019/20. It is believed that by the end of the exercise, Makerere University will have 4 new taught PhD programmes and one for each partner University.
Concerning the quality of learning received by the students, it was found out that the curriculum being followed in all the Universities was relatively good and contributed to the students’ skills enhancement for their jobs they were performing within the institutions. In some of the Universities the Mak-Sida programme provided support in order for the curriculum to be revised and reviewed. Through the several workshops organized by the programme, capacity in curriculum development has been built for the participating Universities. It was further noted that the lecturers were knowledgeable and committed to teaching the curriculum. Since the quality of learning received was rated well by both students and lecturers, this led to completion rates on the different University programmes to be relatively good. Some of the masters students supported under this programme have already completed their studies under the different University programmes. Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) has the highest completion rate and Gulu University has the lowest completion rates at Master level. The figure 5 illustrates the responses of supervisors and students on the appropriateness of the curriculum being followed on the various programmes being implemented within the Mak-Sida Programme.
29
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
completion rates due to a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons include student inadequate knowledge within the research areas, many students who enroll rarely have working experience, majority of the PhD by research a geared to forming professionals but not knowledge generation among others. Such reason prompted the directorate of quality assurance in leading the development of PhD taught programmes that are aimed at making sure there is knowledge creation out of the PhD training.
2.4.2 Staff Profile and Experience used in the Mak-Sida Programme
The profile of staff participating in the implementation of the activities within the Mak-Sida programme is critical in realizing the planned outputs since the programme is about capacity building. Assessment of the staff profile who are participating on the programme indicated that all the projects within the Mak-Sida Programme are led by experienced PhD holders. The PIs were all experienced within their fields of research and therefore had the competency to lead others within the project in accomplishing the project activities. It should also be noted that PIs had published widely within the research disciplines. The PIs had also managed some other projects before which clearly indicates that they do have the experience needed to implement the Mak-Sida programme activities.
Further details also revealed that majority (64.3%) of the PIs had been with the institutions they were working in for more than 10 years and another 26.2% had been with the institutions between 5-10 years. This is an indication that the staff profile experience in educational activities such as training, research, administration and management was relatively high. Such experience is good for the effective implementation of the programme activities.
Majority of the academic staff (about 90%) participating on the Mak-Sida programme as supervisors have a ten-year experience of teaching and research at higher education institution as illustrated in figure 6. 100% of these staff have PhDs and 0% have master’s degree of which 36% are professors (full and associate professors). It was found that female academic staff are well represented and involved in the programme, addressing one key programme issues of gender inclusiveness. The staff profile demonstrates high caliber of human resource which is a good indicator of higher quality educational services the beneficiary students might be receiving from the institutions they are registered at.
An assessment of other key staff profile on the Mak-Sida programme such as coordinators, administrators and accountants also indicated a high caliber staff. It was revealed programme administrators and accountants are experienced within their areas of specialty. The accountant is locally and internationally certified practicing professional and possess adequate qualification for the job. The same applied to the rest of the programmes
2.4.2 Staff Profile and Experience used in the Mak-Sida Programme
Figure 27: Staff Years with the University
Page |
10
The curriculum for the taught PhDs include the following; BU – PhD in Materials engineering, MUST - PhD in Biomedical Engineering, GU – PhD in Applied Tropical Entomology and Parasitology, Mak – PhD in Maths, PhD in Information Systems, PhD in Management and PhD in Public Health. Development of taught PhD programmes is part of the quality assurance programme of improving PhD training within the country. At the moment, there is great concern with the research only based PhD programmes with very low student completion rates due to a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons include student inadequate knowledge within the research areas, many students who enroll rarely have working experience, majority of the PhD by research a geared to forming professionals but not knowledge generation among others. Such reason prompted the directorate of quality assurance in leading the development of PhD taught programmes that are aimed at making sure there is knowledge creation out of the PhD training. 2.4.2 Staff Profile and Experience used in the Mak-Sida Programme The profile of staff participating in the implementation of the activities within the Mak-Sida programme is critical in realizing the planned outputs since the programme is about capacity building. Assessment of the staff profile who are participating on the programme indicated that all the projea cts within the Mak-Sida Programme are led by experienced PhD holders. The PIs were all experienced within their fields of research and therefore had the competency to lead others within the project in accomplishing the project activities. It should also be noted that PIs had published widely within the research disciplines. The PIs had also managed some other projects before which clearly indicates that they do have the experience needed to implement the Mak-Sida programme activities. Further details also revealed that majority (64.3%) of the PIs had been with the institutions they were working in for more than 10 years and another 26.2% had been with the institutions between 5-10 years. This is an indication that the staff profile experience in educational activities such as training, research, administration and management was relatively high. Such experience is good for the effective implementation of the programme activities.
Figure 27: Staff Years with the University
Majority of the academic staff (about 90%) participating on the Mak-Sida programme as supervisors have a ten-year experience of teaching and research at higher education institution as illustrated in figure 6. 100% of these staff have PhDs and 0% have master’s degree of which 36% are professors (full and associate professors). It was found that female academic staff are well represented and involved in the programme, addressing one key programme issues of
30
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
staff who had the experience to perform their duties. However, it was noted that the Mak-Sida programme coordination office at Makerere University is under staffed and this affects the effective execution of programme activities most especially within areas of administration and accounting. Services such as student support, stakeholder engagement, procurement, PI administrative support are greatly affected. Majority of the students’ respondents (93) out of 130 indicated that the coordination office at DRGT was responsive to students’ issues. However, a significant number students (37) out of 130 indicated DRGT was not responsive to their needs. They cited a number of issues which include; lack of timely response to request of information, weak systems of document tracking, lack of service level agreements, limited facilitation when called to attend events, delayed procurement, lack of transparency on students approved budgets, lack of a dedicated student support officer among others.
The evaluation revealed that majority of the supervisors (24) out of 42 who responded indicated that the coordination office has not been responsive to their needs per their expectations. Some of the reasons cited for their response include; delayed response to their requests, slow procurement, limited consultations in making key decision like slashing their allowances and approving students’ budgets especially for students on project 377. Also, the supervisors cited the inability of DRGT coordination office to effectively present their concerns and advocate for better engagement conditions like the discrimination between Ugandan supervisors and Swedish supervisors in benefits. Majority of the students (84%) of those who responded to the survey indicated that their supervisors were knowledgeable in their areas of research a key indicator of high academic quality.
2.4.3 Support Resources and Infrastructure used in the Mak-Sida Programme
The availability and accessibility of support resources such as the internet and infrastructure such as well-equipped lecture rooms, laboratories, and research offices among others are key indicators of academic quality an institution can provide. Therefore, the mid-term review conducted a generic assessment of supporting infrastructure used in the delivery of programmes which are being implemented within the Mak-Sida programme. Makerere University and the other PPUs are currently implementing a robust programme to improve physical infrastructure under various initiatives such the African Development Bank initiative which is supporting the development of 2 central teaching facilities among others. It was therefore noted programmes in humanities are well resourced in terms of physical infrastructure like lecture rooms and work spaces for students unlike science based programmes especially in medicine and material sciences which lack specialized equipment at Makerere University and Busitema University respectively.
Assessment of the resources and infrastructure at both host and home universities were the Mak-Sida Programme is being implemented revealed several issues that may need addressing. The students noted that their home institutions had support resources in terms of conducive policies to support their studies e.g. were offered study leave with full pay, merit based career progression systems among others. They too noted that they had infrastructure such as offices for their studies, laboratories to undertake their research (in a few institutions) among others. Also, it was noted that support resources offered by Mak-Sida Programme for students to go and undertake field research is relatively low and being dictated by someone else rather than their supervisors. Students’ time in the field has been significantly reduced. This greatly hinders the quality of the research outputs from the field studies and hence to the knowledge creation process. While support infrastructure at Makerere University was deemed adequate by both students and supervisors, majority of the students (72) of 130 who responded to the question noted that research facilities available at the host institution were not available at their home universities (PPU).
On whether the beneficiaries’ had office space and access to specialized labs and tools at their host institutions, 58% (53 PhD, 23 Master) of the participants said they had an office space at their host university to work from as compare to 42% (29 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants who said they didn’t have.
2.4.3 Support Resources and Infrastructure used in the Mak-Sida Programme
31
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
On access to specialized labs and tools, 62% (52 PhD, 29 Master) said they did have right to use to specialized laboratories and tools to conduct their research at the host institutions. This was however the reverse for 38% (30 PhD, 19 Master) of the participant who suggested they didn’t have access to specialized laboratories and tools to execute their study. The figure below illustrates access to specialized laboratories and tools for the participants to execute their study at the host university.
Further analysis revealed that the majority 55% (48 PhD, 23 Master) of the participants suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available compared to 45% (34 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants who suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were in fact available at their home institutions as well. The study further revealed that Mbarara University had the most participants that suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available. This was followed by Gulu and Kyambogo Universities respectively. The figure below illustrates the availability of research facilities at the participants’ home institutions.
Figure 28: Support to student with decent office space
Figure 29: Accessibility to specialized laboratories
Page |
12
Assessment of the resources and infrastructure at both host and home universities were the Mak-Sida Programme is being implemented revealed several issues that may need addressing. The students noted that their home institution had support resources in terms of conducive policies to support their studies e.g. were offered study leave with full pay, merit based career progression systems among others. They too noted that they had infrastructure such as offices for their studies, laboratories to undertake their research (in a few institutions) among others. Also, it was noted that support resources offered by Mak-Sida Programme for students to go and undertake field research is relatively low and being dictated by someone else rather than their supervisors. Students’ time in the field has been significantly reduced without any logical explanation. This greatly hinders the quality of the research outputs from the field studies and hence to the knowledge creation process. While support infrastructure at Makerere University was deemed adequate by both students and supervisors, majority of the students (72) of 130 who responded to the question noted that research facilities available at the host institution were not available at their home universities (PPU). On whether the beneficiaries’ had office space and access to specialized labs and tools at their host institutions, 58% (53 PhD, 23 Master) of the participants said they had an office space at their host university to work from as compare to 42% (29 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants who said they didn’t have.
Figure 28: Support to student with decent office space
On access to specialized labs and tools, 62% (52 PhD, 29 Master) said they did have right to use to specialized laboratories and tools to conduct their research at the host institutions. This was however the reverse for 38% (30 PhD, 19 Master) of the participant who suggested they didn’t have access to specialized laboratories and tools to execute their study. The figure below illustrates access to specialized laboratories and tools for the participants to execute their study at the host university.
Page |
13
Figure 29: Accessibility to specialized laboratories
Further analysis revealed that the majority 55% (48 PhD, 23 Master) of the participants suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available compared to 45% (34 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants who suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were in fact available at their home institutions as well. The study further revealed that Mbarara University had the most participants that suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available. This was followed by Gulu and Kyambogo Universities respectively. The figure below illustrates the availability of research facilities at the participants’ home institutions.
Figure 30: Availability of research facilities at host institutions
Makerere University as a host University for the Mak-Sida Programme, according to the facts about the University Pocket Statistics 2017, has a total of 18,156 square meters of lecture space and 11,391 square meters classified as lab space. Given that the university had 39,546 students in academic year 2015/16, this implies that each student had a learning space of approximately 1.34 square meters if all students were to seat at a go. This space excludes the new space being offered by the 2 teaching facilities yet to be commissioned. Besides the space the students have access to a modern state of art library at Makerere University with a stock of over 100,000 volume of books and access to over 5000 online resources which the university subscribes to. Besides the library resources at Makerere University, the collaborating universities in Sweden and Uganda also provide complementary resources to the students. Furthermore, the university
32
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Makerere University as a host University for the Mak-Sida Programme, according to the facts about the University Pocket Statistics 2017, has a total of 18,156 square meters of lecture space and 11,391 square meters classified as lab space. Given that the university had 39,546 students in academic year 2015/16, this implies that each student had a learning space of approximately 1.34 square meters if all students were to seat at a go. This space excludes the new space being offered by the 2 teaching facilities yet to be commissioned. Besides the space the students have access to a modern state of art library at Makerere University with a stock of over 100,000 volume of books and access to over 5000 online resources which the university subscribes to. Besides the library resources at Makerere University, the collaborating universities in Sweden and Uganda also provide complementary resources to the students. Furthermore, the university has developed mechanisms and platforms for students to present and publish their work as the Makerere University organizes a number of conferences and workshops and hosts a number of reputable journals.
It is worth noting that Makerere University Library comprises of the Main Library and seven specialized Branch Libraries, five located at Makerere University main campus and two off campus. Makerere University Library also serves as a National Reference Library and thus, it is a legal depository of all works published in Uganda, including government publications. It is also the depository of United Nations' publications and related bodies. The status of Makerere University library gives the students access to wide range of literature and key ingredient of quality training.
Makerere University which hosts majority of the students on the Mak-Sida programme has a postgraduate residence and it is surrounded by numerous affordable accommodation facilities which are accredited by the university. Internet access and quality is critical in a modern academic life of a scholar. It was noted that Makerere University boosts of high speed internet connectivity of 1 GB megabits per second and students have access to broadband internet with Mak-Sida programme support. The good internet connectivity and speeds were cited as some of the outstanding enabling elements promoting students’ progress on the Mak-Sida Programme.
2.4.4 Pedagogical Approaches used in the Mak-Sida Programme
Pedagogy in simple terms can be defined as the art of teaching and learning that takes place in any educational setting. It was noted students on masters’ programs largely followed instructional based learning approach for the first 3 semesters and are engaged on a research project in the final semester. While the trend in higher education is the use of blended learning as a mechanism of improving learner – tutor engagement hence
Figure 30: Availability of research facilities at host institutions
Page |
13
Figure 29: Accessibility to specialized laboratories
Further analysis revealed that the majority 55% (48 PhD, 23 Master) of the participants suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available compared to 45% (34 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants who suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were in fact available at their home institutions as well. The study further revealed that Mbarara University had the most participants that suggested that the research facilities at their host institution were not available. This was followed by Gulu and Kyambogo Universities respectively. The figure below illustrates the availability of research facilities at the participants’ home institutions.
Figure 30: Availability of research facilities at host institutions
Makerere University as a host University for the Mak-Sida Programme, according to the facts about the University Pocket Statistics 2017, has a total of 18,156 square meters of lecture space and 11,391 square meters classified as lab space. Given that the university had 39,546 students in academic year 2015/16, this implies that each student had a learning space of approximately 1.34 square meters if all students were to seat at a go. This space excludes the new space being offered by the 2 teaching facilities yet to be commissioned. Besides the space the students have access to a modern state of art library at Makerere University with a stock of over 100,000 volume of books and access to over 5000 online resources which the university subscribes to. Besides the library resources at Makerere University, the collaborating universities in Sweden and Uganda also provide complementary resources to the students. Furthermore, the university
2.4.4 Pedagogical Approaches used in the Mak-Sida Programme
33
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
improved learner outcomes, it was noted that most master programmes implemented do not follow blended learning approach.
The study examined the methods of teaching and learning used at host institutions. The participants were asked the level to which the methods of teaching and learning used at host institutions were appropriate to achieve learner outcomes. The study showed that majority 59% of the participants suggested the methods of teaching and learning used at host institutions were appropriate to achieve learner outcomes while 39% of the participants suggested this fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 2% of the participants suggested that the methods of teaching and learning used at host institutions were Not at all appropriate to achieve learner outcomes.
The PhD training in the Mak-Sida Programme is classified as both full time local and sandwich between Makerere University and Swedish collaborating universities. The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). It was noted that on both PhD programmes some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. It was observed during the mid-term review that, the approach of twining supervisors for students on a given research project was a good idea and has contributed to the effective supervision being offered to the students. It was observed by both Ugandan and Swedish supervisors that twining on supervision project facilitates the sharing of experiences, knowledgeable and practices which inherently builds capacity for both supervisors, hence resulting into improved quality of supervision service delivered to the students. The results of the survey among the students and supervisors indicate that majority of the supervisors meet students once a month.
Results of the students indicate supervisors meet students once a week (25.4%) and every two weeks (24.6%). This compares favorably with the responses from the supervisors which indicate 21.4% once a week and 19% every two weeks. However, it was observed that a significant portion of supervisors indicated that they meet students every two months (23.8%). This observation compares with the one of students (15.4%) who indicate that they meet their supervisors every two months.
Figure 31: Appropriateness of teaching and learning at host institutions
Page |
15
Figure 31: Appropriateness of teaching and learning at host institutions
The PhD training in the Mak-Sida Programme is classified as both full time local and sandwich between Makerere University and Swedish collaborating universities. The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). It was noted that on both PhD programmes some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. It was observed during the mid-term review that, the approach of twining supervisors for students on a given research project was a good idea and has contributed to the effective supervision being offered to the students. It was observed by both Ugandan and Swedish supervisors that twining on supervision project facilitates the sharing of experiences, knowledgeable and practices which inherently builds capacity for both supervisors, hence resulting into improved quality of supervision service delivered to the students. The results of the survey among the students and supervisors indicate that majority of the supervisors meet students once a month. Results of the students indicate supervisors meet students once a week (25.4%) and every two weeks (24.6%). This compares favorably with the responses from the supervisors which indicate 21.4% once a week and 19% every two weeks. However, it was observed that a significant portion of supervisors indicated that they meet students every two months (23.8%). This observation compares with the one of students (15.4%) who indicate that they meet their supervisors every two months.
0510152025303540
Every�two�months
Once�a�month
Every�two�weeksTwice�a�week
Once�a�week
Responses�on�how�often�Supervsiors�meet�their�studets�
Supervisors�Response Student�Response
Figure 32: Response on how often Supervisors meet Students
34
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The level of engagement between supervisors and students is key in enabling the student to achieve the research outcome. 67.7% of the students who responded to the survey indicated that the level of engagement with their supervisors was indeed effective in enabling achieve the research goals. Probed further on the appropriateness of the style of engagement (channels of communication, schedule of appointments, location of meetings, forms of feedback) among others, majority of the students (40.3%) as illustrated in the figure below indicated to a great extent the style was appropriate and 20% indicated to a greater extent.
From best practices, in graduate student supervision, closer engagement between the student and supervisor especially at infancy stages of the research often yield better outcomes. It is also noted that the style of engagement between the student and supervisor greatly impacts on the student’s success. Therefore, from figure 6 above it is evident that the quality of supervision within the Mak-Sida programme follows the international best practices recommended by many scholars and educationalists. However, the revelation by supervisors (23.8%) meet their students every two months is a key concern as the gap between supervisions sessions are far apart greatly impacts on the students’ progress and there is a risk for the student to go astray in the sea of knowledge most especially in their infancy stages of their research as the case with Mak-Sida Programme in which majority of the students are still in the earlier stages of their research projects.
Figure 32: Response on how often Supervisors meet Students
Figure 33: Students Response on Appropriateness of Style of Engagement
Page |
15
Figure 31: Appropriateness of teaching and learning at host institutions
The PhD training in the Mak-Sida Programme is classified as both full time local and sandwich between Makerere University and Swedish collaborating universities. The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). It was noted that on both PhD programmes some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. It was observed during the mid-term review that, the approach of twining supervisors for students on a given research project was a good idea and has contributed to the effective supervision being offered to the students. It was observed by both Ugandan and Swedish supervisors that twining on supervision project facilitates the sharing of experiences, knowledgeable and practices which inherently builds capacity for both supervisors, hence resulting into improved quality of supervision service delivered to the students. The results of the survey among the students and supervisors indicate that majority of the supervisors meet students once a month. Results of the students indicate supervisors meet students once a week (25.4%) and every two weeks (24.6%). This compares favorably with the responses from the supervisors which indicate 21.4% once a week and 19% every two weeks. However, it was observed that a significant portion of supervisors indicated that they meet students every two months (23.8%). This observation compares with the one of students (15.4%) who indicate that they meet their supervisors every two months.
0510152025303540
Every�two�months
Once�a�month
Every�two�weeksTwice�a�week
Once�a�week
Responses�on�how�often�Supervsiors�meet�their�studets�
Supervisors�Response Student�Response
Figure 32: Response on how often Supervisors meet Students
Page |
16
The level of engagement between supervisors and students is key in enabling the student to achieve the research outcome. 67.7% of the students who responded to the survey indicated that the level of engagement with their supervisors was indeed effective in enabling achieve the research goals. Probed further on the appropriateness of the style of engagement (channels of communication, schedule of appointments, location of meetings, forms of feedback) among others, majority of the students (40.3%) as illustrated in the figure below indicated to a great extent the style was appropriate and 20% indicated to a greater extent.
Figure 33: Students Response on Appropriateness of Style of Engagement
From best practices, in graduate student supervision, closer engagement between the student and supervisor especially at infancy stages of the research often yield better outcomes. It is also noted that the style of engagement between the student and supervisor greatly impacts on the student’s success. Therefore, from figure 6 above it is evident that the quality of supervision within the Mak-Sida programme follows the international best practices recommended by many scholars and educationalists. However, the revelation by supervisors (23.8%) meet their students every two months is a key concern as the gap between supervisions sessions are far apart greatly impacts on the students’ progress and there is a risk for the student to go astray in the sea of knowledge most especially in their infancy stages of their research as the case with Mak-Sida Programme in which majority of the students are still in the earlier stages of their research projects. 2.5 Programme Management Effectiveness and Efficiency The programme management effectiveness and efficiency were interpreted to mean; the appropriateness of the coordination structures, their effectiveness in executing their mandate and efficiency of systems in terms of value for money practices. Section 2.5.1 details the analysis of programme management and coordination, 2.5.2 assesses the management of local PhD training, 2.5.3 details the assessment of financial systems and processes employed onto the programme and 2.5.4 evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of students and support services provided by the DGRT coordination office.
35
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
2.5 Programme Management Effectiveness and Efficiency
The programme management effectiveness and efficiency were interpreted to mean; the appropriateness of the coordination structures, their effectiveness in executing their mandate and efficiency of systems in terms of value for money practices. Section 2.5.1 details the analysis of programme management and coordination, 2.5.2 assesses the management of local PhD training, 2.5.3 details the assessment of financial systems and processes employed onto the programme and 2.5.4 evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of students and support services provided by the DGRT coordination office.
The success of the programme depends on how it was designed, the quality of implementation and the early stages followed in the implementation of the programme. The initial stages and overall student support services is thus fundamental for understanding the implementation of the project at mid-term level. In this regard, the evaluation team specifically sought the views of the beneficiaries in terms of the support systems across the programme. On whether the students were oriented on the Mak-Sida Programme, the majority of participants 92% (77 PhD, 43 Master) said they were oriented on the programme compared to 8% (5 PhD, 5 Master) who were not oriented.
2.5 Programme Management Effectiveness and Efficiency
While the majority indicated they were oriented of these, only 57% indicated the orientation was sufficient to a great extent to prepare them effectively to participate in the Mak-Sida Programme while 26% suggested the orientation was sufficient to some extent and 4% of the participants suggested that it was only sufficient to a small extent. The study examined the beneficiaries’ accessibility to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme and the host institution. The results suggested that 90% (77 PhD, 40 Master) of the participants said they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution while 10% (5 PhD, 8 Master) had no access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution as illustrated below.
Figure 34: Extent to which beneficiaries were oriented
Page |
17
The success of the programme depends on how it was designed, the quality of implementation and the early stages followed in the implementation of the programme. The initial stages and overall student support services is thus fundamental for understanding the implementation of the project at mid-term level. In this regard, the evaluation team specifically sought the views of the beneficiaries in terms of the support systems across the programme. On whether the students were oriented on the Mak-Sida Programme, the majority of participants 92% (77 PhD, 43 Master) said they were oriented on the programme compared to 8% (5 PhD, 5 Master) who were not oriented.
Figure 34: Extent to which beneficiaries were oriented
While the majority indicated they were oriented of these, only 57% indicated the orientation was sufficient to a great extent to prepare them effectively to participate in the Mak-Sida Programme while 26% suggested the orientation was sufficient to some extent and 4% of the participants suggested that it was only sufficient to a small extent. The study examined the beneficiaries’ accessibility to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme and the host institution. The results suggested that 90% (77 PhD, 40 Master) of the participants said they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution while 10% (5 PhD, 8 Master) had no access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution as illustrated below.
Figure 35: Rating on accessibility of research guidelines
36
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The study further assessed the degree to which the research guidelines impacted on the quality of research and training. The majority 67% of respondents said the research guidelines had to a great extent influenced the quality of research and training compared to 33% of the participants who suggested the influence was only to some extent as illustrated in the figure below. This shows that for those that suggested they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution, the study revealed that the research guidelines influenced the quality of research and training positively.
The evaluation examined if the beneficiaries were provided with reporting templates by Mak-Sida Programme and 94% (80 PhD, 42 Master) of participants agreed they were provided with templates.
Figure 35: Rating on accessibility of research guidelines
Figure 36: Accessibility to research guidelines on Quality of research and training
Figure 34: Extent to which beneficiaries were oriented
Page |
17
The success of the programme depends on how it was designed, the quality of implementation and the early stages followed in the implementation of the programme. The initial stages and overall student support services is thus fundamental for understanding the implementation of the project at mid-term level. In this regard, the evaluation team specifically sought the views of the beneficiaries in terms of the support systems across the programme. On whether the students were oriented on the Mak-Sida Programme, the majority of participants 92% (77 PhD, 43 Master) said they were oriented on the programme compared to 8% (5 PhD, 5 Master) who were not oriented.
Figure 34: Extent to which beneficiaries were oriented
While the majority indicated they were oriented of these, only 57% indicated the orientation was sufficient to a great extent to prepare them effectively to participate in the Mak-Sida Programme while 26% suggested the orientation was sufficient to some extent and 4% of the participants suggested that it was only sufficient to a small extent. The study examined the beneficiaries’ accessibility to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme and the host institution. The results suggested that 90% (77 PhD, 40 Master) of the participants said they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution while 10% (5 PhD, 8 Master) had no access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution as illustrated below.
Figure 35: Rating on accessibility of research guidelines
Page |
18
The study further assessed the degree to which the research guidelines impacted on the quality of research and training. The majority 67% of respondents said the research guidelines had to a great extent influenced the quality of research and training compared to 33% of the participants who suggested the influence was only to some extent as illustrated in the figure below. This shows that for those that suggested they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution, the study revealed that the research guidelines influenced the quality of research and training positively.
Figure 36: Accessibility to research guidelines on Quality of research and training
The evaluation examined if the beneficiaries were provided with reporting templates by Mak-Sida Programme and 94% (80 PhD, 42 Master) of participants agreed they were provided with templates.
Figure 37: Rating on availability of reporting templates
Regarding extent to which they used these templates, 80% (73 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants said they used Mak-Sida Programme reporting templates to a great extent when preparing their reports compare to 18% (7 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants who suggested they used the templates to some extent.
37
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Regarding extent to which they used these templates, 80% (73 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants said they used Mak-Sida Programme reporting templates to a great extent when preparing their reports compare to 18% (7 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants who suggested they used the templates to some extent.
2.5.1 Programme Management and Coordination
The programme coordination and management structure as illustrated in the SOP was designed through a consultative process to encourage stakeholder appreciation and ownerships of decisions and actions. It was revealed during the assessment that Sida runs similar programmes in the region like the programme in Rwanda and Tanzania. Each of the programme has unique philosophy guiding the implementation strategy and approaches. It was revealed that Sida conducted a classification of universities in the region on the scale of infancy a case of Rwandan Universities, mid-level a case of Tanzanian Universities and mature a case of Makerere University. Therefore, it was noted that for infant and mid-level universities in the region, the mechanisms of coordination and management were designed to encourage greater participation of Sida and associated Swedish partners on an understanding that the local partners lack capacity in terms of human resource systems and structure to effectively implement the programme.
In Makerere University, it was revealed that Sida adapted maturity form of approach to programme implementation allowing greater participation in decision making by programme beneficiaries as indicated in the SOP coordination structure. Indeed, during the midterm review, it was observed at Makerere University has robust structures, systems, processes and capacity to implement a programme at the scale of Mak-Sida programme. The university governance and management systems are anchored in the national regulatory frameworks like the UOTA, the public service act, the public finance management act among others, as well as the institutional regulations including the Makerere University Human Resources Manual 2009, Makerere University Financial Policies and Procedures Manual (2014), Makerere University Internal Audit Manual (2014) and Makerere University Procurement and Disposal Manual (2014) among others.
It is therefore noted that the structure of programme management and coordination followed sound principles of cooperate governance which provides a generic 3 layers of cooperate governance structure. Layer 1 is about policy and strategic direction which is provided by the steering committee of the programme. Layer 2 which focuses on implementation of the strategic direction is covered by the Mak-Sida consultative committee, the programme implementation committee and DRGT coordination office. Layer 3 which focuses on the day today implementation of the programme activities is represented by the project PIs and graduate students and researchers.
Figure 37: Rating on availability of reporting templates
Page |
18
The study further assessed the degree to which the research guidelines impacted on the quality of research and training. The majority 67% of respondents said the research guidelines had to a great extent influenced the quality of research and training compared to 33% of the participants who suggested the influence was only to some extent as illustrated in the figure below. This shows that for those that suggested they had access to research guidelines from the Mak-Sida Programme or their host institution, the study revealed that the research guidelines influenced the quality of research and training positively.
Figure 36: Accessibility to research guidelines on Quality of research and training
The evaluation examined if the beneficiaries were provided with reporting templates by Mak-Sida Programme and 94% (80 PhD, 42 Master) of participants agreed they were provided with templates.
Figure 37: Rating on availability of reporting templates
Regarding extent to which they used these templates, 80% (73 PhD, 25 Master) of the participants said they used Mak-Sida Programme reporting templates to a great extent when preparing their reports compare to 18% (7 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants who suggested they used the templates to some extent.
2.5.1 Programme Management and Coordination
38
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
By design the structure is appropriate and built on sound principals of organizational and project management which promote separation of roles as a means of creating checks and balances to ensure objectivity in decision making and implementation of activities. The analysis of the mandates and actual practices of programme management and coordination structures revealed a number of issues. I. While by design the role of CMC was well intentioned i.e. to provide a forum for discussion and
consultation of the operation of the bilateral research programme to DRGT and embassy according to section 3.2 and appendix 4 of the SOP, its overlapping mandate between PIC and the programme steering committee (PSC) is a source of concern on the legality and accountability of decisions made by CMC.
II. There is failure to classify the nature of decisions being made at various levels in terms of policy or operational. This has resulted into structures making decisions outside their span of control. For example, the coordination and management guidelines of the Mak-Sida programme as for in the SOP provides for decision of policy nature such as alteration of terms of engagements for project participants like adjusting their allowances to be taken at policy level by the steering committee as such decisions have a wider impact and risk. It was also revealed during the assessment that CMC seems to override decisions at PIC and often times makes decisions which should have been taken at the steering committee. Such decision-making practices not only undermine the motivation of lowers structures but often times raise concerns about effectiveness of other structures and the degree of ownership of such decisions.
III. The Mak-Sida programme management structure did not explicitly provide a role of PPU coordinators and this has affected their overall ability to effectively contribute to the programme implementation as there are not facilitated neither appraised for their time invested in the programme activities. It was noted the unclear terms of engagement for PPU coordinators affects the quality of services students from PPUs receive from the programme coordination and management unit. As one graduate student from the PPU noted
“I have to travel to Kampala to submit a requisition, yet am registered at my local university. Our university coordinator is not empowered to collect these documents and process them on our behalf. Being based at my local university am not even entitled to a per diem or stipend”.
One PPU coordinator noted
“The lack of clear mandate within the programme management affects my ability to help students and
Figure 38: Programme Coordination and Management
Page |
20
Program Coordination & ManagementVC
Sida Steering Committee (SC)
Program Implementation Committee (PIC) (Reps PPUs *)
Directorate of Research and Graduate Training (DRGT)**
Project
Graduate Students/Researchers
ProjectProjectProject Project
Graduate Students/Researchers
Graduate Students/Researchers
Senate
Board of Research & Graduate Training
PI***
Mak-SidaConsultative Management Committee
(Reps PPUs*)
Figure 38: Programme Coordination and Management
By design the structure is appropriate and built on sound principals of organizational and project management which promote separation of roles as a means of creating checks and balances to ensure objectivity in decision making and implementation of activities. The analysis of the mandates and actual practices of programme management and coordination structures revealed a number of issues.
I. While by design the role of CMC was well intentioned i.e. to provide a forum for discussion and consultation of the operation of the bilateral research programme to DRGT and embassy according to section 3.2 and appendix 4 of the SOP, its overlapping mandate between PIC and the programme steering committee (PSC) is a source of concern on the legality and accountability of decisions made by CMC.
II. There is failure to classify the nature of decisions being made at various levels in terms of policy or operational. This has resulted into structures making decisions outside their span of control. For example, the coordination and management guidelines of the Mak-Sida programme as for in the SOP provides for decision of policy nature such as alteration of terms of engagements for project participants like adjusting their allowances to be taken at policy level by the steering committee as such decisions have a wider impact and risk. It was also revealed during the assessment that CMC seems to override decisions at PIC and often times makes decisions which should have been taken at the steering committee. Such decision-making practices not only undermine the motivation of lowers structures but often times raise concerns about effectiveness of other structures and the degree of ownership of such decisions.
III. The Mak-Sida programme management structure did not explicitly provide a role of PPU coordinators and this has affected their overall ability to effectively contribute to the programme implementation as there are not facilitated neither appraised for their time invested in the programme activities. It was noted the unclear terms of engagement for PPU coordinators affects the quality of services students from PPUs receive from the programme coordination and management unit. As one graduate student from the PPU noted
39
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
supervisors based at my university as all communications are directly delivered to DRGT in Makerere University without my input. When am expected to monitor student progress, it is not a mandatory for students to submit reports to me neither comment on their requisitions. This makes my position irrelevant in the programme implementation”.
IV. It was noted that DGTR coordination office is under staffed compared to the magnitude of tasks and stakeholders they are to support. The programme administrator (Mr. Mugabi Nestor) is the front-line officer for the 337 students’ beneficiaries and over 225 student supervisors. Clearly, the office is overwhelmed with amount of administrative workload to support programme implementation.
V. The role of senate and the board of research and graduate training is largely silent and creates a redundant structure which seems not be adding any significant value to the programme.
The beneficiary students were asked their opinion on the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines effectiveness in supporting their research undertaking. The study showed that the majority 78% (65 PhD, 37 Master) suggested that in their opinion the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines were in fact effective in supporting your research undertaking as compared to 22% (17 PhD, 11 Master) of the participants who were opposed to this fact. Below is an illustration of the findings.
The participants had an array of justifications for their opinion on the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines effectiveness in supporting their research undertaking. The following is a summary of their divergent opinions.
The evaluation also examined the student’s opinion on the sufficiency of the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme. The majority 61% of the participants suggested that the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme was not sufficient to meet their living and research costs. On the other hand 39% of the participants suggested the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme to students and post doc researchers was indeed sufficient to meet their living and research costs as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 39: Effectiveness of current Mak-Sida Programme coordination process
Page |
21
“I have to travel to Kampala to submit a requisition, yet am registered at my local university. Our university coordinator is not empowered to collect these documents and process them on our behalf. Being based at my local university am not even entitled to a per diem or stipend”. One PPU coordinator noted “The lack of clear mandate within the programme management affects my ability to help students and supervisors based at my university as all communications are directly delivered to DRGT in Makerere University without my input. When am expected to monitor student progress, it is not a mandatory for students to submit reports to me neither comment on their requisitions. This makes my position irrelevant in the programme implementation”.
IV. It was noted that DGTR coordination office is under staffed compared to the magnitude
of tasks and stakeholders they are to support. The programme administrator (Mr. Mugabi Nestor) is the front-line officer for the 337 students’ beneficiaries and over 225 student supervisors. Clearly, the office is overwhelmed with amount of administrative workload to support programme implementation.
V. The role of senate and the board of research and graduate training is largely silent and creates a redundant structure which seems not be adding any significant value to the programme.
The beneficiary students were asked their opinion on the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines effectiveness in supporting their research undertaking. The study showed that the majority 78% (65 PhD, 37 Master) suggested that in their opinion the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines were in fact effective in supporting your research undertaking as compared to 22% (17 PhD, 11 Master) of the participants who were opposed to this fact. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 39: Effectiveness of current Mak-Sida Programme coordination process
The participants had an array of justifications for their opinion on the current Mak-Sida Programme coordination processes and guidelines effectiveness in supporting their research undertaking. The following is a summary of their divergent opinions.
40
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The study also examined the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The participants were asked for their opinion regarding the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The study showed that the majority 62% (49 PhD, 31 Master) suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students, followed by 35% (32 PhD, 14 Master) suggested that this was fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 3% (1 PhD, 3 Master) said the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University were Not at all supportive, transparent and accountable to students as illustrated in the figure below.
The participants had different reasons for their divergent opinion regarding the Mak - Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. Below is a summary of the participants’ opinion above.
Figure 40: Sufficiency of the research stipend of Mak-Sida Programme
Figure 41: MAK structural support of Mak-Sida Programme
Page |
22
The evaluation also examined the student’s opinion on the sufficiency of the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme. The majority 61% of the participants suggested that the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme was not sufficient to meet their living and research costs. On the other hand 39% of the participants suggested the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme to students and post doc researchers was indeed sufficient to meet their living and research costs as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 40: Sufficiency of the research stipend of Mak-Sida Programme
The study also examined the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The participants were asked for their opinion regarding the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The study showed that the majority 62% (49 PhD, 31 Master) suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students, followed by 35% (32 PhD, 14 Master) suggested that this was fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 3% (1 PhD, 3 Master) said the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University were Not at all supportive, transparent and accountable to students as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 41: MAK structural support of Mak-Sida Programme
Page |
22
The evaluation also examined the student’s opinion on the sufficiency of the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme. The majority 61% of the participants suggested that the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme was not sufficient to meet their living and research costs. On the other hand 39% of the participants suggested the research stipend provided by Mak-Sida Programme to students and post doc researchers was indeed sufficient to meet their living and research costs as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 40: Sufficiency of the research stipend of Mak-Sida Programme
The study also examined the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The participants were asked for their opinion regarding the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. The study showed that the majority 62% (49 PhD, 31 Master) suggested that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students, followed by 35% (32 PhD, 14 Master) suggested that this was fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 3% (1 PhD, 3 Master) said the Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University were Not at all supportive, transparent and accountable to students as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 41: MAK structural support of Mak-Sida Programme
41
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Table 6: Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures
The evaluation examined whether the Mak-Sida Programme provided beneficiaries with any progress tracking tools. The study showed that the majority 72% (67 PhD, 27 Master) of the participants suggested that indeed the Mak-Sida Programme had in fact provided the participants with some progress tracking tools as opposed to 28% (15 PhD, 21 Master) of the participants who suggested they have don been provided with the progress monitoring tool as illustrated below.
In order to achieve the project’s objectives, team work, promote trust better decision making, the examination considered the Communication and Visibility strategy for the project team. The study showed that majority 63% (55 PhD, 27 Master) suggested that the project team had a communication and visibility strategy as compared to 12% (7 PhD, 8 Master) who said there was no communication and visibility strategy. On the contrary, 25% of the participants said they were not aware whether or not the project team had a communication and visibility strategy as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 42: Mak-Sida Programme provision of progress tracking tools
Figure 43: Project team have Communication and Visibility Strategy
Page |
23
The participants had different reasons for their divergent opinion regarding the SIDA programme management and coordination structures at Makerere University supportive, transparent and accountable to students. Below is a summary of the participants’ opinion above.
Table 5: Mak-Sida Programme management and coordination structures The evaluation examined whether the Mak-Sida Programme provided beneficiaries with any progress tracking tools. The study showed that the majority 72% (67 PhD, 27 Master) of the participants suggested that indeed the Mak-Sida Programme had in fact provided the participants with some progress tracking tools as opposed to 28% (15 PhD, 21 Master) of the participants who suggested they have don been provided with the progress monitoring tool as illustrated below.
Figure 42: Mak-Sida Programme provision of progress tracking tools
In order to achieve the project’s objectives, team work, promote trust better decision making, the examination considered the Communication and Visibility strategy for the project team. The study showed that majority 63% (55 PhD, 27 Master) suggested that the project team had a communication and visibility strategy as compared to 12% (7 PhD, 8 Master) who said there was no communication and visibility strategy. On the contrary, 25% of the participants said they were not aware whether or not the project team had a communication and visibility strategy as illustrated in the figure below.
Page |
24
Figure 43: Project team have Communication and Visibility Strategy
Furthermore, the study examined the degree to which the strategy was being implemented by the project team. The study showed that 61% (32 PhD, 18 Master) suggested that the project team had implemented the project team to a great extent as compared to 39% (23 PhD, 9 Master) said the project team had implemented the project team to only some great extent as illustrated below.
Figure 44: Extent of implementation of Communication & Visibility Strategy
ICT are diverse set of technological tools and resources used to create disseminate, store, and manage information. And for this reason, therefore, study examined the degree to which ICT are used to promote the beneficiaries research work. The majority of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to a great extent to promote their research work, followed by 29% (26 PhD, 12 Master) of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to some extent and 5% (3 PhD, 3 Master)’ of the participants suggested that they did Not at all use ICTs to promote their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
42
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Furthermore, the study examined the degree to which the strategy was being implemented by the project team. The study showed that 61% (32 PhD, 18 Master) suggested that the project team had implemented the project team to a great extent as compared to 39% (23 PhD, 9 Master) said the project team had implemented the project team to only some great extent as illustrated below.
ICT are diverse set of technological tools and resources used to create disseminate, store, and manage information. And for this reason, therefore, study examined the degree to which ICT are used to promote the beneficiaries research work. The majority of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to a great extent to promote their research work, followed by 29% (26 PhD, 12 Master) of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to some extent and 5% (3 PhD, 3 Master)’ of the participants suggested that they did Not at all use ICTs to promote their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 44: Extent of implementation of Communication & Visibility Strategy
Figure 45: ICT use in research work
Page |
24
Figure 43: Project team have Communication and Visibility Strategy
Furthermore, the study examined the degree to which the strategy was being implemented by the project team. The study showed that 61% (32 PhD, 18 Master) suggested that the project team had implemented the project team to a great extent as compared to 39% (23 PhD, 9 Master) said the project team had implemented the project team to only some great extent as illustrated below.
Figure 44: Extent of implementation of Communication & Visibility Strategy
ICT are diverse set of technological tools and resources used to create disseminate, store, and manage information. And for this reason, therefore, study examined the degree to which ICT are used to promote the beneficiaries research work. The majority of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to a great extent to promote their research work, followed by 29% (26 PhD, 12 Master) of the participants suggested that they used ICTs to some extent and 5% (3 PhD, 3 Master)’ of the participants suggested that they did Not at all use ICTs to promote their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
Page |
25
Figure 45: ICT use in research work
Furthermore the study examined whether the participants’ research project teams had a project website or web page and WhatsApp group, maintained a project Facebook page and Twitter handle. The results general indicated that 65% of the participants didn’t have a research project team Website or webpage, WhatsApp group, did not maintain a Facebook page and Twitter handle. Further investigation showed that the majority 71% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Facebook page, followed by 68% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Twitter handle, 65% of participants’ research project teams didn’t have a WhatsApp group and lastly 55% of the participants’ research project teams didn’t have any Website or webpage as illustrate in the figure below.
Figure 46: Use of social media
The study examined the degree to which non-ICT tools were being used for communication and visibility. The study showed that 62% (55 PhD, 26 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to some extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as compared to 26% (13 PhD, 20 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team did Not at all use non-ICT tools for communication and visibility 12% (14 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to a great extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as illustrated below
43
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Furthermore the study examined whether the participants’ research project teams had a project website or web page and WhatsApp group, maintained a project Facebook page and Twitter handle. The results general indicated that 65% of the participants didn’t have a research project team Website or webpage, WhatsApp group, did not maintain a Facebook page and Twitter handle. Further investigation showed that the majority 71% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Facebook page, followed by 68% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Twitter handle, 65% of participants’ research project teams didn’t have a WhatsApp group and lastly 55% of the participants’ research project teams didn’t have any Website or webpage as illustrate in the figure below.
The study examined the degree to which non-ICT tools were being used for communication and visibility. The study showed that 62% (55 PhD, 26 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to some extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as compared to 26% (13 PhD, 20 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team did Not at all use non-ICT tools for communication and visibility 12% (14 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to a great extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as illustrated below
Figure 46: Use of social media
Figure 47: Use of Non-ICT tools for Communication and Visibility
Page |
25
Figure 45: ICT use in research work
Furthermore the study examined whether the participants’ research project teams had a project website or web page and WhatsApp group, maintained a project Facebook page and Twitter handle. The results general indicated that 65% of the participants didn’t have a research project team Website or webpage, WhatsApp group, did not maintain a Facebook page and Twitter handle. Further investigation showed that the majority 71% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Facebook page, followed by 68% of participants’ research project teams didn’t maintain any Twitter handle, 65% of participants’ research project teams didn’t have a WhatsApp group and lastly 55% of the participants’ research project teams didn’t have any Website or webpage as illustrate in the figure below.
Figure 46: Use of social media
The study examined the degree to which non-ICT tools were being used for communication and visibility. The study showed that 62% (55 PhD, 26 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to some extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as compared to 26% (13 PhD, 20 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team did Not at all use non-ICT tools for communication and visibility 12% (14 PhD, 2 Master) of the participants suggested that the research project team to a great extent used non-ICT tools for communication and visibility as illustrated below
Page |
26
Figure 47: Use of Non-ICT tools for Communication and Visibility
The study examined the degree of satisfaction of the current level of visibility of their research work. The study showed that majority 54% (45 PhD, 25 Master) of participants were to some extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work, followed by 35% (28 PhD, 18 Master) of participants were to a great extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work. On the other hand, 11% (9 PhD, 5 Master) of participants suggested they were Not at all satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 48: Satisfaction level of Current Research work Visibility
It was noted that, communication and coordination within individual projects is very good and PI’s have adapted a number of tools, like social media to engage members. This is not the case with the overall programme or even within project 377 as many students complained of poor communication within the project. 2.5.2 Management of Local PhD Training The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). A total of 105 PhD students are locally registered at Makerere University. It was noted that on both PhD tracks some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. The PhD scholars were selected following a merit criteria which was participatory developed by the Mak-Sida programme. All PhD students
44
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The study examined the degree of satisfaction of the current level of visibility of their research work. The study showed that majority 54% (45 PhD, 25 Master) of participants were to some extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work, followed by 35% (28 PhD, 18 Master) of participants were to a great extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work. On the other hand, 11% (9 PhD, 5 Master) of participants suggested they were Not at all satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
It was noted that, communication and coordination within individual projects is very good and PI’s have adapted a number of tools, like social media to engage members. This is not the case with the overall programme or even within project 377 as many students complained of poor communication within the project.
2.5.2 Management of Local PhD Training
The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). A total of 105 PhD students are locally registered at Makerere University. It was noted that on both PhD tracks some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. The PhD scholars were selected following a merit criteria which was participatory developed by the Mak-Sida programme. All PhD students are members of staff of the participating public universities. It was revealed that students were required to develop synopsis for their research projects which informed their selection into the programme and the attachment to different projects and supervisors. The management of the PhD programme follows a laid down graduate training guidelines of Makerere University which require the student to make a six months progress report and submit it to graduate school. Through Mak-Sida programme, the quality assurance directorate has developed a web based tool to monitor and track key students’ milestones like submission of concept and approval, submission of proposal and approval, submission of thesis, thesis examination, viva and final clearance for graduation among others. It was observed that the process of monitoring student progress is sound and if well implemented can improve students’ progress and increase chances of students to complete on time.
The programme has contributed to improved research management at the collaborating universities. At Mak, clear structures for research management are in place. Programme coordination has incorporated lessons and experiences from previous phases. However, coordination of the Mak-Sida program places significant demands on time and effort of DRGT staff as well as the PIs. There is need to deepen expedite the staff recruitment plan as per the approved establishment. The position of Deputy Director, Research, Innovations Development and Partnership and other research administrators should be recruited.
It was noted during the mid-term review that supervisors on the local PhD programme are drawn from Makerere
Figure 48: Satisfaction level of Current Research work Visibility
Page |
26
Figure 47: Use of Non-ICT tools for Communication and Visibility
The study examined the degree of satisfaction of the current level of visibility of their research work. The study showed that majority 54% (45 PhD, 25 Master) of participants were to some extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work, followed by 35% (28 PhD, 18 Master) of participants were to a great extent satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work. On the other hand, 11% (9 PhD, 5 Master) of participants suggested they were Not at all satisfied with the current level of visibility of their research work as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 48: Satisfaction level of Current Research work Visibility
It was noted that, communication and coordination within individual projects is very good and PI’s have adapted a number of tools, like social media to engage members. This is not the case with the overall programme or even within project 377 as many students complained of poor communication within the project. 2.5.2 Management of Local PhD Training The local PhD programme is delivered following two tracks (PhD coursework and research & PhD by research only). A total of 105 PhD students are locally registered at Makerere University. It was noted that on both PhD tracks some cross cutting key courses are taught e.g. the philosophy of method and scholarly writing. The PhD scholars were selected following a merit criteria which was participatory developed by the Mak-Sida programme. All PhD students
2.5.2 Management of Local PhD Training
45
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 49: Impact of Supervisor twining
Figure 50: Supervisor Supervision Load
Page |
27
are members of staff of the participating public universities. It was revealed that students were required to develop synopsis for their research projects which informed their selection into the programme and the attachment to different projects and supervisors. The management of the PhD programme follows a laid down graduate training guidelines of Makerere University which require the student to make a six months progress report and submit it to graduate school. Through Mak-Sida programme, the quality assurance directorate has developed a web based tool to monitor and track key students’ milestones like submission of concept and approval, submission of proposal and approval, submission of thesis, thesis examination, viva and final clearance for graduation among others. It was observed that the process of monitoring student progress is sound and if well implemented can improve students’ progress and increase chances of students to complete on time. It was noted during the mid-term review that supervisors on the local PhD programme are drawn from Makerere University, PPUs and Swedish partner institutions. Both supervisors and students appreciated the framework of twining supervisors for PhD students as it enhances the supervision experience and quality of services the student receives.
Figure 49: Impact of Supervisor twining As noted from one of the students;
“my supervisors complement each other in a number of ways. For example, one of my supervisor is very good at critical thinking and attention to detail while the other is very exemplary at scientific writing and has helped me improve my writing skills”
It was noted that the PhD training guidelines require the formulation of doctoral committees for each student, however it was revealed through interaction between supervisors and students that most of the committees are non-operational. The inactiveness of doctoral committees presents a risk to student progression and attainment of the desired quality. As highlighted by one of the students;
“I was verbally informed about the doctoral committee but I have never met them and I have never been guided on how to engage them”.
Page |
28
It was further noted that the six-month progress report are not analyzed and processed to provide input to the process of student training and supervision. A sample of reports reviewed indicated limited details on actual student progress and often they do not reflect the actual progress level of the students. It was noted from the supervisor submission that the average number of PhD students per student were below 3 as illustrated in figure 50 below which is a relatively acceptable supervision load at a reputable university.
Figure 50: Supervisor Supervision Load
In terms of delivery of cross cutting courses especially the philosophy of method, it was revealed from the students that the format and style of delivery often times fails to contextualize issues in various disciplines. Where general principles of research apply in all disciplines, some concepts and practices can significantly vary from discipline to discipline. In such a case, courses should be localized to disciplines or have a multidisciplinary team to facilitate the course. It emerged that the main supervisors of local PhD students are supposed to be based at Makerere University as per the programme design even in areas where PPUs had the capacity to provide main supervisors for students. This was seen as an unfair practice as it largely benefits supervisors at Makerere University at the expense of the PPUs. As noted from one of the supervisors;
“Being a main supervisor of the thesis carries more credibility in terms of professional experience as far as directing a graduate research project is concerned. Furthermore, it carries more weight when applying for promotion to higher levels of academic career”
By and large the review of process and engagement of stakeholders revealed a satisfactory level of implementation of the local PhD training programme. The issues observed are within the means of the institution to address and do not represent a significant risk to the programme success. 2.5.3 Financial Management It was noted that Makerere University has a well-defined and sound financial management framework that is composed of public financial management laws, structures within the university that provide for checks and balances in the management of financial resources and systems & processes which operationalize the framework. The university financial framework is complemented with Mak-Sida programme financial guidelines as stipulated in the SOP which were found to be clear, consistent with prevailing regulatory framework within the university and easy to use. The SOP do provide an annual planning meeting which is a platform for
As noted from one of the students;
“my supervisors complement each other in a number of ways. For example, one of my supervisor is very good at critical thinking and attention to detail while the other is very exemplary at scientific writing and has helped me improve my writing skills”
It was noted that the PhD training guidelines require the formulation of doctoral committees for each student, however it was revealed through interaction between supervisors and students that most of the committees are non-operational. The inactiveness of doctoral committees presents a risk to student progression and attainment of the desired quality. As highlighted by one of the students;
“I was verbally informed about the doctoral committee but I have never met them and I have never been guided on how to engage them”.
It was further noted that the six-month progress report are not analyzed and processed to provide input to the process of student training and supervision. A sample of reports reviewed indicated limited details on actual student progress and often they do not reflect the actual progress level of the students. It was noted from the supervisor submission that the average number of PhD students per student were below 3 as illustrated in figure 50 below which is a relatively acceptable supervision load at a reputable university.
46
University, PPUs and Swedish partner institutions. Both supervisors and students appreciated the framework of twining supervisors for PhD students as it enhances the supervision experience and quality of services the student receives.
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
In terms of delivery of cross cutting courses especially the philosophy of method, it was revealed from the students that the format and style of delivery often times fails to contextualize issues in various disciplines. This view was however rejected during the interview with the DRGT who argued that cross-cutting courses had been always well appreciated by all students and this was evidenced from the evaluations of such workshops. At that time of the evaluation, DRGT had organized a writing workshop for about 60 beneficiaries and this was facilitated by a team from South Africa. It was in the opinion of the evaluators however that where general principles of research apply in all disciplines, some concepts and practices can significantly vary from discipline to discipline. In such a case, cross-cutting courses should be contextualized to disciplines or have a multidisciplinary team to facilitate the course. It emerged that the main supervisors of local PhD students are supposed to be based at Makerere University as per the programme design even in areas where PPUs had the capacity to provide main supervisors for students. This was seen as an unfair practice as it largely benefits supervisors at Makerere University at the expense of the PPUs. As noted from one of the supervisors;
“Being a main supervisor of the thesis carries more credibility in terms of professional experience as far as directing a graduate research project is concerned. Furthermore, it carries more weight when applying for promotion to higher levels of academic career”
By and large the review of process and engagement of stakeholders revealed a satisfactory level of implementation of the local PhD training programme. The issues observed are within the means of the institution to address and do not represent a significant risk to the programme success.
2.5.3 Financial Management
It was noted that Makerere University has a well-defined and sound financial management framework that is composed of public financial management laws, structures within the university that provide for checks and balances in the management of financial resources and systems &processes which operationalize the framework. The university financial framework is complemented with Mak-Sida programme financial guidelines as stipulated in the SOP which were found to be clear, consistent with prevailing regulatory framework within the university and easy to use. The SOP do provide an annual planning meeting which is a platform for consolidating annual work plans for the programme and involves the allocation and approval of budgets.
The SOP does provide explicit budget templates for various stakeholders and budget guidelines on allowable costs and their ranges. The programme SOP also do provide the acceptable framework of accountability in very simple terms. The university procurement manual of 2014, the SOP procurement guides and the PPDA act as amended (2016) provide the guidelines for procurement on the programme. It was noted that all procurements request are collected and processed by the coordination office at Makerere University following 2 levels: first – a small committee headed by a programme administrator who checks the requisition for conformity with various guidelines, second – the director DGTR approves the request on recommendation of the committee and follows a prescribed procurement channel depending on the type of product or service and the amount involved. It was further noted that the role of the student supervisor is minimized when making a decision on what should be procured or not.
Majority of the stakeholders on the programme including Swedish partners noted with great concern that there are endless delays in procuring items and services on the programme. The procurement delays indeed pose significant risk to time sensitive projects and these might impact on the attainment of the programme outputs. The risks are real as noted by one of the supervisors that;
“Sometimes procurement of components and consumables has to be done in sequence because the consumables like reagents have to be used at the same time. Yet there is a case where one component is procured and has an expiry date but cannot be used unless the other component is procured. Such a delay automatically results into a loss of money invested into the purchase of the first component. It is therefore important that the advice and technical guidance of the supervisor must be considered in the decision making””
A Master student noted an interesting case;
“I requested for a number of items under the research support including a laptop and laptop bag. To my surprise a laptop was rejected and a laptop bag was approved. This clearly indicates that the
2.5.3 Financial Management
47
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
processing of procurement requests lacks a scientific approach to decision making”
It was noted that where the financial frameworks exist, some concerns on implementation were noted by stakeholders. For example, where the students are asked to prepare annual budgets, they never received feedback on their approved budgets. This constrained their ability to manage the resources they are entitled to. It was further noted that there was lack of a system which tracks students’ financial requests and provides timely notification on the status of their requests. One student highlighted;
“You have to physically present yourself to DGTR Makerere University to get anything done on your financial request. Often time’s queries on your requests are not communicated to you until you physically appear and sometimes you are told to make a new request because they can’t locate the old one”
It was revealed that supervisors and students are not in full control of their budget as the coordinator office often time override their decisions without local explanation. Furthermore, it was revealed that delays in procurement are also attributed to interference in the processes by CMC as opposed to following formal processes of PPDA.
The evaluation team examined the Budget performance for the last two years of the Mak-Sida Programme and for the period 2015/16-2017/18(Dec 31st 2017), the following illustration gives a summary of the emerging the findings.
From the figure above, bilateral programme was allocated UgX. 13.823Bn during the year 2015/16. The bilateral programme was allocated a budget of UgX. 12.536Bn accounting for a 9.3% reduction in budget allocation the previous year. The programme was allocated a budget of UgX. 14.722Bn during the period 2017/18, which was a 17.4% increase from the previous period 2016/17.
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2015/16, was SEK 34,559,319 amounting to UgX 13,823,727,600. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 400) and a 0.2946% loss on transfer, the Budget Available reduced from UgX. 13,823,727,600 to Total Budget Available at UgX. 13,783,003,800. The actual expenditure for the period 2015/16 was UgX. 5,883,299,323 with an additional UgX. 613,166,022. This period saw a UgX. 7,286,538,455 balances carried forward hence a budget performance (percentage consumption) of 47% as illustrated below.
Figure 51: Budget Allocation 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions)
Page |
30
It was revealed that supervisors and students are not in full control of their budget as the coordinator office often time override their decisions without local explanation. Furthermore, it was revealed that delays in procurement are also attributed to interference in the processes by CMC as opposed to following formal processes of PPDA. The evaluation team examined the Budget performance for the last two years of the Mak-Sida Programme and for the period 2015/16-2017/18(Dec 31st 2017), the following illustration gives a summary of the emerging the findings.
Figure 51: Budget Allocation 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions)
From the figure above, bilateral programme was allocated UgX. 13.823Bn during the year 2015/16. The bilateral programme was allocated a budget of UgX. 12.536Bn accounting for a 9.3% reduction in budget allocation the previous year. The programme was allocated a budget of UgX. 14.722Bn during the period 2017/18, which was a 17.4% increase from the previous period 2016/17. The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2015/16, was SEK 34,559,319 amounting to UgX 13,823,727,600. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 400) and a 0.2946% loss on transfer, the Budget Available reduced from UgX. 13,823,727,600 to Total Budget Available at UgX. 13,783,003,800. The actual expenditure for the period 2015/16 was UgX. 5,883,299,323 with an additional UgX. 613,166,022. This period saw a UgX. 7,286,538,455 balances carried forward hence a budget performance (percentage consumption) of 47% as illustrated below.
48
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2016/17, was SEK 30,576,534 amounting to UgX 12,536,378,940. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410) and a 0.9480% loss on transfer, the Budget Available reduced from UgX. UgX 12,536,378,940 to UgX. 12,417,533,642. With a UgX. 7,899,704,478 balance carried forward from 2015/16, the 2016/17 Total Budget Available amounted to UgX. 20,317,238,120 of which UgX. 10,594,488,218 was utilized and accounted for. Advances to researchers carried forward amounted to UgX. 781,145,209. This led to an overall budget performance of 56% hence carrying forward UgX. 8,941,604,693 as illustrated below.
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2017/18, was SEK 35,907,558 amounting to UgX 14,722,098,351. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410), the Cumulative Budget Available for the period 2017/18 was UgX. 24,444,848,253. Expenditure up to the period 31st December 2017 was UgX. 6,997,836,240 with a cumulative balance of UgX. 17,447,012,013 accounting to percentage usage of 29% as illustrated below.
Figure 52: Makerere-Sweden bilateral research programme budget performance 2015/16
Figure 53: Makerere Swedish Bilateral Research Program Budget performance 2016/17
Page |
31
Figure 52: Makerere-Sweden bilateral research programme budget performance 2015/16
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2016/17, was SEK 30,576,534 amounting to UgX 12,536,378,940. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410) and a 0.9480% loss on transfer, the Budget Available reduced from UgX. UgX 12,536,378,940 to UgX. 12,417,533,642. With a UgX. 7,899,704,478 balance carried forward from 2015/16, the 2016/17 Total Budget Available amounted to UgX. 20,317,238,120 of which UgX. 10,594,488,218 was utilized and accounted for. Advances to researchers carried forward amounted to UgX. 781,145,209. This led to an overall budget performance of 56% hence carrying forward UgX. 8,941,604,693 as illustrated below.
Figure 53: Makerere Swedish Bilateral Research Program Budget performance 2016/17
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2017/18, was SEK 35,907,558 amounting to UgX 14,722,098,351. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410), the Cumulative Budget Available for the period 2017/18 was UgX. 24,444,848,253. Expenditure up to the period 31st December 2017 was UgX. 6,997,836,240 with a cumulative balance of UgX. 17,447,012,013 accounting to percentage usage of 29% as illustrated below.
Page |
31
Figure 52: Makerere-Sweden bilateral research programme budget performance 2015/16
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2016/17, was SEK 30,576,534 amounting to UgX 12,536,378,940. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410) and a 0.9480% loss on transfer, the Budget Available reduced from UgX. UgX 12,536,378,940 to UgX. 12,417,533,642. With a UgX. 7,899,704,478 balance carried forward from 2015/16, the 2016/17 Total Budget Available amounted to UgX. 20,317,238,120 of which UgX. 10,594,488,218 was utilized and accounted for. Advances to researchers carried forward amounted to UgX. 781,145,209. This led to an overall budget performance of 56% hence carrying forward UgX. 8,941,604,693 as illustrated below.
Figure 53: Makerere Swedish Bilateral Research Program Budget performance 2016/17
The Makerere - Sweden Bilateral Research Program Budget allocation for the period 2017/18, was SEK 35,907,558 amounting to UgX 14,722,098,351. At an exchange rate of (1 SEK = UgX 410), the Cumulative Budget Available for the period 2017/18 was UgX. 24,444,848,253. Expenditure up to the period 31st December 2017 was UgX. 6,997,836,240 with a cumulative balance of UgX. 17,447,012,013 accounting to percentage usage of 29% as illustrated below.
49
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Given the less than 50% absorption rate of the finances in the 2 ½ years, this raises serious questions about programme implementation. It’s not surprising that most key outputs are still below the targets set by midterm.
From the figure above, the overall proportion of budget consumption has been increasing. The period 2015/16 had a 47% budget consumption which increased to 52% for the period 2016/17. By December 31st 2017, the percentage usage of the budget was 29%.
Figure 54: Makerere Swedish bilateral research programme budget perform1ance 2017/18 (Dec 31st 2017)
Figure 55: Consolidated Budget performance 2015/16-2017(Dec) %
Page |
32
Figure 54: Makerere Swedish bilateral research programme budget perform1ance 2017/18 (Dec 31st 2017)
Given the less than 50% absorption rate of the finances in the 2 ½ years, this raises serious questions about programme implementation. It’s not surprising that most key outputs are still below the targets set by midterm.
Figure 55: Consolidated Budget performance 2015/16-2017(Dec) %
From the figure above, the overall proportion of budget consumption has been increasing. The period 2015/16 had a 47% budget consumption which increased to 52% for the period 2016/17. By December 31st 2017, the percentage usage of the budget was 29%.
Page |
32
Figure 54: Makerere Swedish bilateral research programme budget perform1ance 2017/18 (Dec 31st 2017)
Given the less than 50% absorption rate of the finances in the 2 ½ years, this raises serious questions about programme implementation. It’s not surprising that most key outputs are still below the targets set by midterm.
Figure 55: Consolidated Budget performance 2015/16-2017(Dec) %
From the figure above, the overall proportion of budget consumption has been increasing. The period 2015/16 had a 47% budget consumption which increased to 52% for the period 2016/17. By December 31st 2017, the percentage usage of the budget was 29%.
50
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
From the figure above, considering the period 2015/16 and 2016/17 budget consumption figures, it is estimated that the budget performance for the period 2017/18 around 57%. The first half of the period 2017/18 has already registered a 29% budget consumption which is about half of the estimated projection of 57%. We also analyzed the consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18. The figure below gives an illustration.
From the figure above, all items’ expenditure have been increasing. However, expenditure on research equipment and research consumables has been on the decline. Overall, 80% of expenditure over the period 2015/16-2017/18 has been on field/Lab work (34%), Research consumables (16%), Research supporting component (13%), Student stipends (9%) and Research equipment (9%). The study also revealed that a fifth of the overall expenditure has been on Student University fees (8%), Curriculum development (4%), Salaries (3%), Indirect costs (2%), Extra load (1%), Maintenance of equipment (1%), Audit (0.4%) Publications and Other costs were each at (0.1) respectively. Below is an illustration of the overall expenditure by item over the period 2015/16-2017/18.
Figure 56: Budget performance projection for period 2017/18
Figure 57: Consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions)
Page |
33
Figure 56: Budget performance projection for period 2017/18
From the figure above, considering the period 2015/16 and 2016/17 budget consumption figures, it is estimated that the budget performance for the period 2017/18 around 57%. The first half of the period 2017/18 has already registered a 29% budget consumption which is about half of the estimated projection of 57%. We also analyzed the consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18. The figure below gives an illustration.
Figure 57: Consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions)
From the figure above, all items’ expenditure have been increasing. However, expenditure on research equipment and research consumables has been on the decline. Overall, 80% of expenditure over the period 2015/16-2017/18 has been on field/Lab work (34%), Research consumables (16%), Research supporting component (13%), Student stipends (9%) and Research equipment (9%). The study also revealed that a fifth of the overall expenditure has been on Student University fees (8%), Curriculum development (4%), Salaries (3%), Indirect costs (2%), Extra load (1%), Maintenance of equipment (1%), Audit (0.4%) Publications and Other costs were each at (0.1) respectively. Below is an illustration of the overall expenditure by item over the period 2015/16-2017/18.
Page |
33
Figure 56: Budget performance projection for period 2017/18
From the figure above, considering the period 2015/16 and 2016/17 budget consumption figures, it is estimated that the budget performance for the period 2017/18 around 57%. The first half of the period 2017/18 has already registered a 29% budget consumption which is about half of the estimated projection of 57%. We also analyzed the consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18. The figure below gives an illustration.
Figure 57: Consolidated budget performance by item 2015/16-2017/18 (Billions)
From the figure above, all items’ expenditure have been increasing. However, expenditure on research equipment and research consumables has been on the decline. Overall, 80% of expenditure over the period 2015/16-2017/18 has been on field/Lab work (34%), Research consumables (16%), Research supporting component (13%), Student stipends (9%) and Research equipment (9%). The study also revealed that a fifth of the overall expenditure has been on Student University fees (8%), Curriculum development (4%), Salaries (3%), Indirect costs (2%), Extra load (1%), Maintenance of equipment (1%), Audit (0.4%) Publications and Other costs were each at (0.1) respectively. Below is an illustration of the overall expenditure by item over the period 2015/16-2017/18.
51
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Code Item Overall expenditure (UgX)
30050 Field/Lab work 8,369,062,800
30040 Research Consumables 4,063,488,956 30130 Research supporting component 3,179,107,006
30080 Student stipends (PPUs) 2,182,528,022
30020 Research equipment 2,132,017,050 30070 Student University fees/costs 1,923,964,219 30010 Curriculum development 972,944,560 30160 Salaries (DSS Mayuge Only) 869,410,914 30110 Indirect costs 597,996,339 30120 Extra load 288,560,297 30030 Maintenance of equipment 150,757,553 30100 Audit 96,073,906 30090 Publication costs 23,809,083 30140 Other costs 20,214,307
Total 24,869,935,012
Table 7: Overall Expenditure by Item
2.5.4 Student and Supervisor Support Services
A bilateral programme of Mak-Sida Programme nature and scope requires well thought through mechanisms for supporting various stakeholders to achieve their goals. It is noted that in the interest of optimizing resources the programme coordination unit at DRGT and associated implementing structures like PIs and partner university coordinators lacked sufficient minimum human resources to provide a desired support services like counselling and guidance, mentorship on projects budgeting and management, follow-up services on students requests among others. It has been noted that the coordination unit lacks service level agreements for various services they offer largely due to limited staff for example there is not explicit timeline any stakeholder should expect feedback on a particular service. Students based at PPUs noted that the coordination office does not seem to appreciate the unique conditions as highlighted by one of the students;
“Sometimes you go to follow up on your requests after taking a morning bus to Kampala hoping to do a return journey since you do not have sufficient funds to sustain you in Kampala only to be told by DRGT staff to come back the following day without a guarantee when you will be served”
Another student highlighted the following;
“The academic structures are effective, however the system (requisition and accountability) are lacking. Whenever we are in either the Annual Planning meetings (APM) or Annual Review Meetings (ARM) there has been a consistent complaint about the time it takes to receive the requisitioned money on one's account. DRGT always says it takes 2-4 days but personally it has taken close to a month. I have heard to attend some activities without receiving money on my account. Besides the staff who receive the requisitions and also keep students posted on when they shall receive the money need some customer care training? The way they respond to students leaves a lot to desire. I hope the above issues can be worked on”.
The DRGT Coordination’s office works with a stringent University-wide financial and audit control system. The DRGT follows an elaborate, transparent but often a slow process for disbursement of funds and procurement of research consumables/materials. PI and researchers have to account for the funds before getting the subsequent releases. Requisition and accountability reports are submitted through the PI to the Director DRGT, and the subsequent review and approval process involves the DRGT Director and Accountant, internal audit unit, and the university bursar before a cheque is issued to the respective unit/researcher. In case of research equipment the assets
2.5.4 Student and Supervisor Support Services
52
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
are engraved prior to passing them on to the units and the units maintain a physical assets register that also tracks the officer responsible for the equipment.
Majority of the supervisors especially the PI noted that the project implementation demands a lot administratively from them with regular requests for information and yet they do not have project assistants to correlate and aggregate information being demanded from time to time. It was observed as noted from the Swedish partners;
“This project seems to be building capacity of academic supervisors in project administration than research itself”
The Mak-Sida programme management (PSC, CMC and DRGT) needs to appreciate that this programme is very unique as it aims at building capacity for the future leaders in Ugandan PPUs. Therefore, the beneficiary students are not just merely students but colleagues and staff of these PPUs. Therefore, the programme implementation should have a holistic approach to human capacity building which not only focuses on transmission of facts but rather sharing experiences and transforming the philosophy of work in the eyes of the project beneficiaries.
Effective graduate training requires regular interactions between the students and their supervisors. The evaluation team assessed the extent to which students as the primary beneficiaries of the programme were satisfied with this quality assessment measure. The participants were asked the frequency of meeting their supervisors. The study showed that majority 29% (22 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants met their supervisors Once a month, this was followed by 25% (19 PhD, 14 Master) who said they met Once a week, followed by 25% (21 PhD, 11 Master), 20% suggested they met their supervisor Every two months and only 8% said they met their supervisor Twice a week as illustrated in the figure below.
The evaluation examined the level of engagement between the participants and their supervisors in effectively enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. The results from the study showed that the majority 68% (55 PhD, 33 Master) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was to a great extent effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. This was followed by 30% (24 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was to some extent effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. On the contrary, 2% (3 PhD) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was not at all effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 58: Frequency of meetings between students and supervisors
Page |
35
account. DRGT always says it takes 2-4 days but personally it has taken close to a month. I have heard to attend some activities without receiving money on my account. Besides the staff who receive the requisitions and also keep students posted on when they shall receive the money need some customer care training? The way they respond to students leaves a lot to desire. I hope the above issues can be worked on”.
Majority of the supervisors especially the PI noted that the project implementation demands a lot administratively from them with regular requests for information and yet they do not have project assistants to correlate and aggregate information being demanded from time to time. It was observed as noted from the Swedish partners;
“This project seems to be building capacity of academic supervisors in project administration than research itself”
The Mak-Sida programme management (PSC, CMC and DRGT) needs to appreciate that this programme is very unique as it aims at building capacity for the future leaders in Ugandan PPUs. Therefore, the beneficiary students are not just merely students but colleagues and staff of these PPUs. Therefore, the programme implementation should have a holistic approach to human capacity building which not only focuses on transmission of facts but rather sharing experiences and transforming the philosophy of work in the eyes of the project beneficiaries. Effective graduate training requires regular interactions between the students and their supervisors. The evaluation team assessed the extent to which students as the primary beneficiaries of the programme were satisfied with this quality assessment measure. The participants were asked the frequency of meeting their supervisors. The study showed that majority 29% (22 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants met their supervisors Once a month, this was followed by 25% (19 PhD, 14 Master) who said they met Once a week, followed by 25% (21 PhD, 11 Master), 20% suggested they met their supervisor Every two months and only 8% said they met their supervisor Twice a week as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 58: Frequency of meetings between students and supervisors
53
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The study examined the style of engagement the participants had with their supervisors. The study revealed that most 61% (50 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested the style of engagement (Communication, schedule of appointments, location of meetings, forms of feedback, etc) with their supervisors was to a great extent appropriate while 36% (28 PhD, 18 Master) of the participants suggested this fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 3% of the participants suggested that the style of engagement was Not at all appropriate with their supervisors as illustrated in the figure below.
The study examined the experience for the supervisors in the participants’ area of research. The participants were asked to give their opinion on the extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. The study findings showed that the supervisors were supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. A breakdown of the participants’ opinion on the level of knowledge showed that majority 84% (68 PhD, 41 Master) suggested that to a great extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research while 15% (14 PhD, 6 Master) suggested that this fact was only to some extent. Only 1% (1 Master) of the participants thought that the supervisors were not at all knowledgeable in their area of research.
Figure 59: Level of engagement between students and supervisors
Figure 60: Appropriateness engagement style of participants with supervisors
Page |
36
The evaluation examined the level of engagement between the participants and their supervisors in effectively enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. The results from the study showed that the majority 68% (55 PhD, 33 Master) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was to a great extent effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. This was followed by 30% (24 PhD, 15 Master) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was to some extent effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes. On the contrary, 2% (3 PhD) of the participants suggested that the level of engagement with their supervisors was not at all effective in enabling them to achieve their research outcomes as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 59: Level of engagement between students and supervisors
The study examined the style of engagement the participants had with their supervisors. The study revealed that most 61% (50 PhD, 29 Master) of the participants suggested the style of engagement (Communication, schedule of appointments, location of meetings, forms of feedback, etc) with their supervisors was to a great extent appropriate while 36% (28 PhD, 18 Master) of the participants suggested this fact was only to some extent. On the other hand, 3% of the participants suggested that the style of engagement was Not at all appropriate with their supervisors as illustrated in the figure below.
Page |
37
Figure 60: Appropriateness engagement style of participants with supervisors
The study examined the experience for the supervisors in the participants’ area of research. The participants were asked to give their opinion on the extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. The study findings showed that the supervisors were supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. A breakdown of the participants’ opinion on the level of knowledge showed that majority 84% (68 PhD, 41 Master) suggested that to a great extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research while 15% (14 PhD, 6 Master) suggested that this fact was only to some extent. Only 1% (1 Master) of the participants thought that the supervisors were not at all knowledgeable in their area of research.
Figure 61: Supervisors’ knowledge in area of research
It was clear throughout the evaluation that, key Mak-Sida Programme stakeholders (students and supervisors) need improved support services. PI’s are not allowed to have project assistants to help with administrative work, yet they carry full load on their official duties. DRGT is unstaffed to administratively delivered quality services. Mr. Mugabi Nestor the only project administrator is overwhelmed with work, hence the poor quality of service stakeholders might be receiving.
54
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
It was clear throughout the evaluation that, key Mak-Sida Programme stakeholders (students and supervisors) need improved support services. PI’s are not allowed to have project assistants to help with administrative work, yet they carry full load on their official duties. DRGT is unstaffed to administratively delivered quality services. Mr. Mugabi Nestor the only project administrator is overwhelmed with work, hence the poor quality of service stakeholders might be receiving.
2.6 Gender Integration According to world re-known gender theorists, gender can have ambiguity and fluidity in conceptualization. The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics as opposed to physical characteristics distinctive to the sexes. But is generally accepted that, gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity of human beings. Therefore, the analysis of the programme inherent theory change on the dimension of gender it is fair to conclude that the programme gender integration focused on 3 gender aspects. 1) Gender equality – which is a condition focusing at providing equal opportunities and enjoyment of human rights to both men and women. 2) Gender equity – which is framed on an understanding that women and men by social constructs have different needs and social power resulting into imbalances between both sexes in terms of access to opportunities and resources. Gender equity focuses on building frameworks of addressing imbalances between the sexes especially girls and women. 3) gender mainstreaming – which is a dimension that focuses on instituting sustainable social strategies promoting gender through policies, programmes, institutional cultures and administrative functions among others.
2.6.1 Gender equality
In terms of gender equality, the programme by design defined principles of fairness in the selection of project beneficiaries and participants, emphasized the respect of human rights as enshrined in the UN Charter of Human Rights and the constitution of the republic of Uganda. Furthermore, the programme operating practices and principles discourages any form of discrimination against an individual based on their social defined identity like tribe, race, and religion among others. It was noted that Mak as a leading implementer of the project has a non-discriminatory policy on religion and describes itself as a circular community which respects the beliefs and values of the diversity of membership. It was revealed by one administrator that;
Figure 61: Supervisors’ knowledge in area of research
Page |
37
Figure 60: Appropriateness engagement style of participants with supervisors
The study examined the experience for the supervisors in the participants’ area of research. The participants were asked to give their opinion on the extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. The study findings showed that the supervisors were supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research. A breakdown of the participants’ opinion on the level of knowledge showed that majority 84% (68 PhD, 41 Master) suggested that to a great extent their supervisors were knowledgeable in their area of research while 15% (14 PhD, 6 Master) suggested that this fact was only to some extent. Only 1% (1 Master) of the participants thought that the supervisors were not at all knowledgeable in their area of research.
Figure 61: Supervisors’ knowledge in area of research
It was clear throughout the evaluation that, key Mak-Sida Programme stakeholders (students and supervisors) need improved support services. PI’s are not allowed to have project assistants to help with administrative work, yet they carry full load on their official duties. DRGT is unstaffed to administratively delivered quality services. Mr. Mugabi Nestor the only project administrator is overwhelmed with work, hence the poor quality of service stakeholders might be receiving.
2.6.1 Gender equality
2.6 Gender Integration
55
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
“the university is very sensitive on the issue of discrimination and follows practices and guidelines provided for by the Equal Opportunities Commission Act and Constitution of Uganda”.
One of the students noted that;
“the selection process was very transparent and I have not witnessed any form of discrimination from the programme administrator”.
In terms of gender equality, the programme implementation team must be commended for observing and implementing the programme in a transparent and fair manner.
2.6.2 Gender equity
In terms of gender equity, the programme from conceptualization through implementation has embedded frameworks of addressing historical imbalances between women and men in terms of access to graduate training. It is noted that majority of PhD holders in both sciences and humanities are men. Various gender related studies continue to show that women and girls chances of access to graduate training opportunities are greatly constrained by the unique role they play within the community. Women are expected to mother the children and take care of their homes. In addition to be engaged in income generating activities like running a career. Therefore, it was revealed that the programme required at least a 30% level of participation of women as student beneficiaries and supervisors. The review of the students’ profile provided revealed that of the 323 programme beneficiaries 128 are females representing a 39.63% of the beneficiaries. This is acceptable and above the target of 30%.
The study also examined the gender sensitivity of the Mak-Sida Programme implementation practices. The participants were asked to give their opinion on the extent of gender integration in the Mak-Sida Programme activities. Below is an illustration of the findings.
2.6.2 Gender equity
Page |
39
Therefore, it was revealed that the programme required at least a 30% level of participation of women as student beneficiaries and supervisors. The review of the students’ profile provided revealed that of the 323 programme beneficiaries 128 are females representing a 39.63% of the beneficiaries. This is acceptable and above the target of 30%. The study also examined the gender sensitivity of the Mak-Sida Programme implementation practices. The participants were asked to give their opinion on the extent of gender integration in the Mak-Sida Programme activities. Below is an illustration of the findings.
Figure 62: Student Perception on Gender Integration
The figure above shows that majority 66% (58 PhD, 28 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had to a great extent been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of, 30% (22 PhD, 17 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had to some extent been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of while 4% (2 PhD, 3 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had Not at all been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of. The results of the survey among supervisors and students as illustrated in Figure 63 show that 26.2% of the all the supervisors who responded to the survey were females and 37.7% of all students’ respondents to the survey were females. Considering that 39.63% of the students are females, the response of 37.7% females to the students’ survey indicated a greater participation to this activity and may be interpreted to mean a greater participation in the programme activities.
The figure above shows that majority 66% (58 PhD, 28 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had to a great extent been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of, 30% (22 PhD, 17 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had to some extent been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of while 4% (2 PhD, 3 Master) of the participants suggested that gender had Not at all been integrated in the Mak-Sida Programme activities that they're a member of.
The results of the survey among supervisors and students as illustrated in Figure 63 show that 26.2% of the
Figure 62: Student Perception on Gender Integration
56
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
all the supervisors who responded to the survey were females and 37.7% of all students’ respondents to the survey were females. Considering that 39.63% of the students are females, the response of 37.7% females to the students’ survey indicated a greater participation to this activity and may be interpreted to mean a greater participation in the programme activities.
However, it was observed that besides encouraging women to undertake graduate training through the provision of female biased scholarships, the programme design did not explicitly provide for mechanisms to support women beneficiaries who have constraints of maternity, taking care of their families among others. The programme beneficiaries still have to jargon between their core obligations and studies.
As noted by one of the students who delivered during the course of study;
“University closure affected my time table as I had planned to deliver in January. However, exams where pushed from December to January the following year which coincided with my expected date of delivery. My request to have makeup exams at my department since the change was due to the university issues, were never given due consideration. Secondly, my request for help from DRGT coordination office was equally not given the due attention it deserves. As a mother, I felt let down by the system”.
By and large the programme implementation has to be commended for promoting and advocating gender equity. However, it was observed that the gender capacity at Makerere University in terms of systems, structures and policies is well developed as compared to other PPUs.
2.6.3 Gender mainstreaming
Gender mainstreaming as alluded to in the proceedings sections focuses on instituting gender sensitive approaches in institutional system, work processes and corporate values. It was noted that in order to respond effectively to the gender component on institutional development the Mak-Sida programme not only promoted gender practices within the project but also dedicated a specific project on gender integration (project number 2891).
The analysis of project 2891 titled “Enhancement of Gender focused research capacity building of women in leader mainstreaming in education of learning in Uganda” revealed of the 8 PhD students, 7 are females and only 1 is male. The world appreciated theory of gender mainstreaming promotes the principle of empowering men to appreciate and engage with an empowered woman. Therefore, the evaluators found it odd that a gender focused project did not hold the principles of gender equality to create a sustainable environment for gender mainstreaming. It is our considered opinion that gender mainstreaming should not only be focused on women empowerment but rather the empowerment of the entire community to appreciate the unique role of
Figure 63: Supervisor and Student Respondents Gender classification
Page |
40
Figure 63: Supervisor and Student Respondents Gender classification
However, it was observed that besides encouraging women to undertake graduate training through the provision of female biased scholarships, the programme design did not explicitly provide for mechanisms to support women beneficiaries who have constraints of maternity, taking care of their families among others. The programme beneficiaries still have to jargon between their core obligations and studies. As noted by one of the students who delivered during the course of study;
“University closure affected my time table as I had planned to deliver in January. However, exams where pushed from December to January the following year which coincided with my expected date of delivery. My request to have makeup exams at my department since the change was due to the university issues, were never given due consideration. Secondly, my request for help from DRGT coordination office was equally not given the due attention it deserves. As a mother, I felt let down by the system”.
By and large the programme implementation has to be commended for promoting and advocating gender equity. However, it was observed that the gender capacity at Makerere University in terms of systems, structures and policies is well developed as compared to other PPUs. 2.6.3 Gender mainstreaming Gender mainstreaming as alluded to in the proceedings sections focuses on instituting gender sensitive approaches in institutional system, work processes and corporate values. It was noted that in order to respond effectively to the gender component on institutional development the Mak-Sida programme not only promoted gender practices within the project but also dedicated a specific project on gender integration (project number 2891). The analysis of project 2891 titled “Enhancement of Gender focused research capacity building of women in leader mainstreaming in education of learning in Uganda” revealed of the 8 PhD students, 7 are females and only 1 is male. The world appreciated theory of gender mainstreaming promotes the principle of empowering men to appreciate and engage with an empowered woman. Therefore, the evaluators found it odd that a gender focused project did not hold the principles of gender equality to create a sustainable environment for gender
2.6.3 Gender mainstreaming
57
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
woman and accommodate the empowered woman in that community. It would have been nice if more men were allowed to conduct gender focused research within project 2891.
Overall the project beneficiaries acknowledged a greater emphasis of gender in their activity implementation as highlighted in the Figure 13below which majority of supervisors and students noted that gender is being integrated in Mak-Sida Programme activities to a great extent. They cited a number of actions including training in gender focused research, engendering some curriculum, gender advocacy initiatives among others.
One supervisor/coordinator highlighted;
“The Gender Program is funded as a component at the university level through the School of Gender Studies. At sub-program levels gender, responsive policies are used (the Gender Policy) as a requirement by the university”.
Another supervisor/coordinator further highlighted;
“Training provided on the use of gender and gender theories in research, mainstreaming gender in the curriculum, gender awareness and gender focus in all research proposals and projects”
The Mak-Sida programme has to be commended for the pro-active approach to gender as discussed above, it is evident that the stakeholder feel and appreciate the gender capacity building of the programme. However, the gender capacity could have been more inclusive like address promoting the needs and aspiration of persons with disabilities which is a demographics which this project gender element did not provide for.
2.7 Sida Programme Ownership and Sustainability
One of the key objectives of the MTR was to assess the level of institutional; preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human, physical infrastructure and financial), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme activities beyond 2020 when the Mak-Sida Programme funds end. In a nutshell, the MTR evaluated the existence of sustainability strategies among partnering public universities. Research, Evaluation and Planning Agenda intended to develop and implement a rigorous agenda for research, evaluation and planning for the Sector provides an overall sustainability framework through which the benefits of the current programme will be sustainably discussed and implemented. 2.7.1 Emerging Systems and Structures
The MTR made an assessment of the emerging systems and structures at the participating public universities to continue undertaking research capacity building activities within their institutions. The assessment also focused on establishing resource mobilization strategies that promote research culture and output. Majority
Figure 64: Opinions on level of gender integration in programme activities
Page |
41
mainstreaming. It is our considered opinion that gender mainstreaming should not only be focused on women empowerment but rather the empowerment of the entire community to appreciate the unique role of woman and accommodate the empowered woman in that community. It would have been nice if more men were allowed to conduct gender focused research within project 2891. Overall the project beneficiaries acknowledged a greater emphasis of gender in their activity implementation as highlighted in the Figure 13 below which majority of supervisors and students noted that gender is being integrated in Mak-Sida Programme activities to a great extent. They cited a number of actions including training in gender focused research, engendering some curriculum, gender advocacy initiatives among others.
Figure 64: Opinions on level of gender integration in programme activities
One supervisor/coordinator highlighted;
“The Gender Program is funded as a component at the university level through the School of Gender Studies. At sub-program levels gender, responsive policies are used (the Gender Policy) as a requirement by the university”.
Another supervisor/coordinator further highlighted;
“Training provided on the use of gender and gender theories in research, mainstreaming gender in the curriculum, gender awareness and gender focus in all research proposals and projects”
The Mak-Sida programme has to be commended for the pro-active approach to gender as discussed above, it is evident that the stakeholder feel and appreciate the gender capacity building of the programme. However, the gender capacity could have been more inclusive like address promoting the needs and aspiration of persons with disabilities which is a demographics which this project gender element did not provide for. 2.7 Sida Programme Ownership and Sustainability
2.7.1 Emerging Systems and Structures
2.7 Sida Programme Ownership and Sustainability
58
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
of supervisors indicated that the programme is sustainable as illustrated in the figure below, citing a number of reasons. However, it should be noted that, majority of supervisors (88.1%) were from Makerere University which is a relatively mature institution with strong systems with guaranteed sustainability.
Page |
42
One of the key objectives of the MTR was to assess the level of institutional; preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human, physical infrastructure and financial), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme activities beyond 2020 when the Mak-Sida Programme funds end. In a nutshell, the MTR evaluated the existence of sustainability strategies among partnering public universities. 2.7.1 Emerging Systems and Structures Therefore, the MTR made an assessment of the emerging systems and structures at the participating public universities to continue undertaking research capacity building activities within their institutions. The assessment also focused on establishing resource mobilization strategies that promote research culture and output. Majority of supervisors indicated that the programme is sustainable as illustrated in the figure below, citing a number of reasons. However, it should be noted that, majority of supervisors (88.1%) were from Makerere University which is a relatively mature institution with strong systems with guaranteed sustainability.
Figure 65: Response on Institution's Capacity to continue with Sida Programme Activities after
2020 It emerged from the interviews with key PPU representatives that, one of the strategies being implemented is the development of local PhD programmes with the support from Mak-Sida Programme. The ideas is to provide a mechanisms of continuous training of their staff at minimal costs. As noted by one of the VC’s during the interview that
“The development of PhD programmes and their implementation at partner’s universities will significantly lower the cost of a PhD training, furthermore, it will also improve specializations within the specific research disciplines”
One of the supervisors highlighted;
“Institutionalization has been a built-in strategy right from the beginning of the programme. For instance, all the curriculum developed will stay with the university and will continue recruiting students. The policies that have been influenced will continue in place. The funds will obviously go down but the government has promised to integrate the required funding into the budget; perhaps this will not at once be at the level of exit of the programme. The Human resource trained will continue serving with the training. Some of the
It emerged from the interviews with key PPU representatives that, one of the strategies being implemented is the development of local PhD programmes with the support from Mak-Sida Programme. The ideas is to provide a mechanisms of continuous training of their staff at minimal costs. As noted by one of the VC’s during the interview that “The development of PhD programmes and their implementation at partner’s universities will significantly lower the cost of a PhD training, furthermore, it will also improve specializations within the specific research disciplines” One of the supervisors highlighted;
“Institutionalization has been a built-in strategy right from the beginning of the programme. For instance, all the curriculum developed will stay with the university and will continue recruiting students. The policies that have been influenced will continue in place. The funds will obviously go down but the government has promised to integrate the required funding into the budget; perhaps this will not at once be at the level of exit of the programme. The Human resource trained will continue serving with the training. Some of the equipment and facilities procured under the programme may continue in use for a bit of time and get replaced when government funding comes in. The networks that have been developed between the institutions will continue being useful in the globalized research environment”.
Another supervisor noted that; “Currently on the TSEED project we are building capacity in GIS and are hopeful that by 2020 the students and Ugandan supervisors involved in this project will have strengthened their capacity in GIS to sustainably extend the goals of the project”.
The other strategy is continuous lobbying of government through the public universities VC forum to address the issues of staff capacity as most of the universities are operating below 50% of their staff establishment. This has an impact on the overall quality of services the university does provide. Another VC noted that;
“Our government seems to listen more to a group than an individuals, as witnessed by the growing trend of stakeholders aggregating their voices in advocacy and getting attention from government”
It was revealed that universities have now started to allocate or increase their research budgets from their internally generated resources. This is a commendable stand and it’s a good strategy which anchors the universities as research led institutions of higher learning. It was revealed through KIIs with top administrators of PPUs that their institutions are currently allocating about 10% of their institutional budget to research and graduate training. The evaluation team was also informed that through the VC’s forum they are working with government to increase the research budget to public universities to about 30%. These observations correlate well with the results of the survey among supervisors which indicate that their institutions allocate less than 10% of their budget to research as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 65: Response on Institution's Capacity to continue with Sida Programme Activities after 2020
59
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
It was revealed through interviews with top administrators with the participating public universities that, all PPUs have development frameworks of nurturing and sustaining research collaboration, both local and international within academia, public and private sectors. These networks, will not only enable universities access funds, but also infrastructures and human capacity that they do not have within their institutions.
A major achievement of the Swedish support is a significant enhancement of the academic sustainability at the collaborating Ugandan public Universities. More staff are undertaking their Ph.D.´s, Post-doc, Master degree training and have been provided with the corporate research opportunities, relevant and promising research has been conducted and infrastructure for research has been strengthened. Funding of research training and research remains the most critical issue for the Ugandan public universities. Sweden and other external donors have been and still are the primary source of funding for graduate training and research. At the national level, there is still no separate budget provision for graduate research and training.
2.7.2 Emerging Staff Retention Strategies
Given the poor remuneration of academic staff in the country and the growing demand for skilled knowledge workers, the universities have to compete with the public and private sectors for talent. Therefore, training alone without addressing potential risks of staff turnover might not address the current human capital challenge in public universities. Accordingly, the participating public universities have identified staff retention as critical strategy of maintaining the desired human capacity in service.
One of the strategies is to streamline staff appointment and promotion within the universities. Currently most promotions have stalled due to limited budget as directed by government. Accordingly, PPU indicated they have engaged government to implement a phased approach to remuneration enhancement for public university staff. One of the VC noted that;
“My university is streamlining staff promotions which has been a source of disharmony for a while. We are also lobbying government to ensure that the annual budget sufficiently cater for staff promotions”. Another strategy is the establishment of research groups in order to keep the staff engaged in a meaningful way. Through these research groups further funding through grant proposal writing is being undertaken as one way to keep the staff engaged. One supervisor noted that;
“Our university is promoting the establishment of multi-disciplinary research groups as a mechanism of enabling researchers in faculties which have low appeal to donors to access research funds”.
While majority of key informants and supervisors in Makerere University indicated the programme was sustainable, majority of PPU key informants noted that their institutions where still in infancy stage of development and hence still needed support to build the desired capacity. They noted that the current Mak-Sida Programme is largely building capacity for Makerere as opposed to PPUs. Citing that the experience Makerere is gaining in managing the research programme, the number of Makerere staff involved in the programme and that fact that PPU staff are being trained on Makerere academic programmes denies them a valuable experience.
Page |
43
equipment and facilities procured under the programme may continue in use for a bit of time and get replaced when government funding comes in. The networks that have been developed between the institutions will continue being useful in the globalized research environment”.
Another supervisor noted that;
“Currently on the TSEED project we are building capacity in GIS and are hopeful that by 2020 the students and Ugandan supervisors involved in this project will have strengthened their capacity in GIS to sustainably extend the goals of the project”.
The other strategy is continuous lobbying of government through the public universities VC forum to address the issues of staff capacity as most of the universities are operating below 50% of their staff establishment. This has an impact on the overall quality of services the university does provide. Another VC noted that;
“Our government seems to listen more to a group than an individuals, as witnessed by the growing trend of stakeholders aggregating their voices in advocacy and getting attention from government”
It was revealed that universities have now started to allocate or increase their research budgets from their internally generated resources. This is a commendable stand and it’s a good strategy which anchors the universities as research led institutions of higher learning. It was revealed through KIIs with top administrators of PPUs that their institutions are currently allocating about 10% of their institutional budget to research and graduate training. The evaluation team was also informed that through the VC’s forum they are working with government to increase the research budget to public universities to about 30%. These observations correlate well with the results of the survey among supervisors which indicate that their institutions allocate less than 10% of their budget to research as illustrated in the figure below.
Figure 66: Response on how Institutional budget is dedicated to research and graduate training It was revealed through interviews with top administrators with the participating public universities that, all PPUs have development frameworks of nurturing and sustaining research collaboration, both local and international within academia, public and private sectors. These
Figure 66: Response on how Institutional budget is dedicated to research and graduate training
2.7.2 Emerging Staff Retention Strategies
60
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The Swedish support has clearly been relevant and useful for MaK for a long period of time, but less so for the other four public universities. The current capacity building initiatives will with time lead to institutionalized, improved academic curricula, research and graduate training systems at the PPU. Programme investments in library, GIS and Muchap/DSS coupled with acquisition of equipment in college based laboratories following implementation of research projects has improved the environment that support research. Limitations still exist with respect to adequacy of laboratory equipment and updating of software at the GIS laboratory.
2.7.3. Research Infrastructure
Programme investments in ICT, library, GIS and DSS coupled with acquisition of equipment in college based laboratories following implementation of research projects has improved the environment that support research. Limitations still exist with respect to adequacy of laboratory equipment, malfunctioning software at the DSS and updating of software at the GIS laboratory. The programme set out to improve the environment for research through provision of quality library and ICT resources, laboratory infrastructure, and support to Iganga/Mayuge Demographic Surveillance Site (DSS). Findings reveal that the Sida support has made significant contributions to improvement of infrastructure that supports research. In addition to funding research through master and Ph.D. training as well as Post doc research efforts directly, marked investment went into the environment in support of research namely ICT infrastructure, library services, and the GIS laboratory.
With respect to ICT infrastructure, there has been increased capacity notably servers which have improved network services, increased storage space for email, and web pages. Users can now access the WIFI network anywhere on campus. The bandwidth was noted to have been a limitation, but the university has taken up the strategy of using the wireless connectivity system so as to improve connectivity and bandwidth. This is expected to reduce costs and the ICT service. The library acquired a modern document scanner and digitization of material and enrichment of information resources, and integration of ICT in library functions have made it possible for researchers to access the ‘Library without walls’ due to easier access of the net to quantity and quality materials and linking with collaborating institutions’ libraries, for example Ph.D. students’ access to Gothenburg Library.
The GIS laboratory has acquired minor GIS equipment including computers, printers, and scanner. The staff have also developed a cross cutting course on GIS. The Muchap acquired 30 note book computers with Sida support. The equipment has higher speed improving execution of data management. The support has enabled the site to access relatively fast and reliable internet connection. Sida support has enabled the Muchap to pay for rent, undertake routine demographic surveillance data collection and management. However they have had challenges with the data management software.
The DSS has been used by research teams from the various colleges in Makerere, as well as students from Sweden. The DSS conducts two rounds of routine data collection in April and in August every year and findings shared with the District Local Governments as well as the public through radio talk shows and spot messages on health education. The DSS provides a population under surveillance for research studies. Many Ph.D. and Master Students have used the DSS for their research work. Undergraduate students come for field attachments/ internships.
Limitations still exist with regards to infrastructure notably laboratory equipment in the GIS lab as well as the laboratories in the colleges. The GIS can only accommodate 30 students/users at a time. Absence of some equipment was cited as a key factor for continuing with the sandwich program to enable the students’ access and use such specialised equipment which is not available locally. The DSS continues to experience software challenges and the database either has to be upgraded or replaced with a new one. License for software updates remain a key challenge. Bandwidth has limited ability to download some documents but this problem is expected to soon disappear after installation of the campus wide VoIP system, which will improve connectivity.
There are mixed results with regards to sustainability of the established infrastructure. A lot will depend on access to sufficient operational funding for DICTS, the GIS lab and the DSS. The library will need more librarians to be trained. Academic librarians need M.Sc. for career progress and ability to offer the services. The GIS lab is one of the cross-cutting laboratories that will benefit from the infrastructure development support under the Higher Education Science and Technology project of the African Development Bank loan. It will get an entire floor on the building. However, operational funds, equipment, and software will present serious challenges. Currently there is no user fee for individuals from the public and other universities who use the lab, though those who come for short courses pay. Sustainability of the DSS will heavily depend on its transformation into a semi-autonomous entity able to directly mobilise and manage grants, as well as success in attracting and managing the grants.
61
2.7.3 Research Infrastructure
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3 Progress towards Planned Outputs, Outcomes and Impact
One of the key objectives of the mid-term review was to assess the Mak-Sida Programme progress towards outputs, outcomes and impact. The terms of reference were biased to assessment of results at the outcome level with focus on changes in research capacity and the enabling environment during the period November 2015 –February 2018. The assessment is largely in terms of institution capacity improvement, policy environment and corporate culture. The results of the progress are presented at two levels: project level and object level.
3.1 Individual Project Status
In order to assess the level of progress towards overall planned outcomes, it was important to evaluate the progress of each individual project towards key outputs which are linked to the overall outcomes. The summary status for each project is provided in the following sections. The progress of students is measured on a four-stage level metric (beginner, middle, near completion and completed). A student is classified to at a beginner level if they have completed course work and writing a proposal. A student who has an approved proposal and conducting data collection or lab work is classified as middle. A student who is analyzing data and writing the thesis is classified to be near completion. A student who has defended the thesis is classified as completed.
3.1.1 Project 317
Project 317 Profile as provided by the Project PI
3.1 Individual Project Status
3.1.1 Project 317
Project Number: 317Project Name: Building research capacity in innovative
information and communication technologies for development for sustainable socio-economic growth in Uganda (BRIGHT)
Collaborating institutions: Makerere University, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, University of Gothenburg, and Chalmers of University of Technology
Project PI and Co-PI: Engineer Bainomugisha and Michel R. V. Chaudron
Collaborating Staff: Prof. Imed Hammouda, Assoc. Prof. Anthony Gidudu, Assoc. Prof. KaleviPessi, Dr. Raymond Mugwanya, Dr. Dina Koutsikouri,, Prof. Philippas Tsiga, Dr. John Ngubiri , Dr. John Businge, Assoc. Prof. EricK nauss, Dr. Benjamin Kanagwa, Assit Prof. Regina Hebig, Prof. Peter Ljunglof, Dr. Peter Nabende, Assoc. Prof. Johan Magnusson , Dr. Evelyn Kigozi-Kahiigi, Asoc. Dr. Michel Dione, Assoc. Prof. Patrizio Pelliccione, Assoc. Prof. Urban Ask
Total Project Amount SEK 25,709,510 Amount Spent as of April 2018 Not Provided
62
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
From the project profile, the project was able to recruit all the PhD students but only recruit 2 out of 5 planned post docs. The project has an excellent staff profile one of the key indicators of academic quality student are receiving.
According to the analysis of the students status, one of the students is at the beginner level, the rest are at middle level a good indicator the students are progressing well. The student who is still writing his proposal is Mr. Bakaki Paul, yet he enrolled at the sometime with his colleagues. Given the excellent record of supervisors on the project in directing research projects, it was not clear why Mr. Paul Bakaki was struggling and team needs to device mechanism to help the student catch up.
Start Dates October 2015 End Dates June 2020
Planned number of post doc
05 Number of post docs registered
02
Planned number of PhD
10 Number of PhD registered
10
registered
Output Planned Achieved Remarks
Scientific publications 30 13 30 for the project period
Number of students visits to Sweden
2 Some students have made 3-4 visits to Sweden with funding from outside Sida
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
1 per year 2 Metric unclear. Is this per supervisor? Or occurrence?
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
2 per year 4 Occurrences but involves several supervisors
Figure 67: Project 317 Student progress
63
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Number of conferences organized
1 summer school per year
1 International Conference on Software Engineering in Africa, May 27, Gotherburg (Co-located with ICSE 2018)
Number of workshops organized
~>15 Summer schools (2) and research Seminars (2)Stakeholder workshops (3)Guest lectures (several >10)
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
1 per year per supervisor and 1 per student
13 IEEE workshops (2)UML training (1)The project attracted additional funding from the Swedish MIT school to support conference travels for students
Overall, this project is progressing well and is on track. The PI and collaborating staff must be commended for excellent efforts.
3.1.2 Project 321
Project 321 Profile as provided by the Project PI
3.1.2 Project 321
Project Number: 317Project Name: Training for Sustainable Spatially Enabled E
Services Delivery in UgandaCollaborating institutions: Makerere University and Lund UniversityProject PI and Co-PI: Associate Professor Gilbert Maiga (Makerere
University) and Associate Professor Ali Mansourian (Lund University)
Collaborating Staff: Professor Petter Pilesjo, Dr. Emily Bagarukayo, Dr. Aminah Zawedde, Dr. Patrick Ogao, Dr. Dennis Ssebugwawo, Dr. Agnes Nakakawa, Dr. Benedict Oyo
Total Project Amount SEK 8,302,823Amount Spent as of April 2018 SEK 4,416,772
Start Dates October 2015 End Dates 31/June/ 2020
Planned number of PhD
5 Number of PhD registered
5
Planned number of Masters
2 Number of Masters registered
2
64
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Output Planned Achieved Remarks
Scientific publications 20 7 Satisfactory at this stage. Include submitted Journal Papers and conference proceedings
Non-scientific publications 0 4 Include posters and conference proceedings
Number of students visits to Sweden
15 5 Except for one student all the rest are registered at Makerere.
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
10 5 Four supervisors have had research working visits to Sweden
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
10 5 Supervisors have visited during the annual planning meetings and the annual reviews meetings
Number of conferences organized 1 0 A conference planned for 2019 when we have sufficient outputs
Number of workshops organized 10 4 Plan is to have two workshops per month
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
10 5 Plan is for each student to attend a conference per year for two years
Total number of Master student completed
2 0 Maters students expected to graduate in 2019
This project has been able to recruit all the targeted masters and PhD students. Also the project has an effective funds absorption rate as it has spent about 51% at midterm level.
Of the 5 PhD students, 4 at the middle and one at beginner level, the two master students are at middle level as well, although they are expected to have completed or near completion. They is need to speed up the master’s student completion as they risk spending more than 2 years on their study programme.
Figure 68: Project 321 student progress
65
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Given the key indicators we note that the performance of this project is on track and satisfactory at this stage. The PI and collaborating staff must be commend for excellent work.
3.1.3 Project 344
Project 344 Profile as provided by the Project PI
3.1.3 Project 344
Project Number: 344
Project Name : Innovations for accelerating reduction in maternal, newborn and child mortality in post conflict Uganda
Collaborating institutions:
Makerere University, Karolinska Institute
Project PI and Co-PI: Prof. James K. Tumwine (Mak) PI and Prof. Claudia Hanson (KI) PI. Prof. Grace Ndeezi (Mak) Co-PI
Collaborating Staff: Dr. Rose C. Nabirye, Dr. Jolly Beyeza-Kashesya, Prof. Peter Waiswa, Dr. Jolly Nankunda
Total Project Amount Noted provided
Amount Spent as of April 2018
Noted provided
Start Dates November 2015 End Dates December 2020
Planned number of post doc
2 Number of post docs registered
2
Planned number of PhD
3 Number of PhD registered
3
Planned number of Masters
6 Number of Masters registered
6
Number of curriculum developed or improved
2 2 One PhD and one masters curricula have been developed successfully
Number of policy developed or contributed too
1 0
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
28 23 Twenty workstations, one server and a laboratory for eservices were set up. PhD room for students was also improved upon
Overall Comment on progress Progress is satisfactory to date
66
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Output Planned Achieved Remarks
Scientific publications 15 3 Two PhD students are writing manuscripts.
Non-scientific publications 2 0
Number of students visits to Sweden 6 1
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
4 0
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
10 6
Number of conferences organized 2 0
Number of workshops organized 6 2
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
12 0
Total number of Master student completed 6 3
Number of policy developed or contributed to
5 0 Policy briefs to be developed
Overall Comment on progress The students are making very good progress. Proposed changes in the SOPS worrying both students and supervisors. There is need for consultation on this through the structures especially the PIC.
The project has an excellent profile of staff and has recruited all planned positions for post docs, PhD and masters students.
The project has good student progress record with two PhD already writing their manuscripts, 3 post docs near completion.
Figure 69: Project 344 student progress
67
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The progress of this project is good and it’s on track to meet the set targets. The PI and collaborating staff need to be commended for excellent work.
3.1.3 Project 344
Project 374 Profile as provided by the Project PI
The project has a staff profile with only 2 PhD holders supporting 4 masters’ students. The project so far has not recruited any of the master students. The project needs to quickly recruit the two master’s students so that they can complete their programme before the Mak-Sida Programme closed in 2020.
3.1.4 Project 374
Project Number: 374
Project Name: Information Support for Quality Higher Education and Research in Uganda
Collaborating institutions:
Makerere University Library and KTH Library
Project PI and Co-PI: Dr. Helen M. Byamugisha/ Mr. Johan Hinders
Collaborating Staff: Mr. Andrew Mwesigwa, Ms Caroline Kobusingye, Mr. Timothy Sentamu and Dr. Eliz N.State
Total Project Amount SEK 15,427,481
Amount Spent as of April 2018
Not provided
Start Dates 2015 End Dates 2020
Planned number of PhD
4 Number of PhD registered
4
Planned number of Masters
2 Number of Masters registered
0
It is noted that all 4 PhD students are at the middle level of their programs an acceptable progress at this stage of the Mak-Sida programme.
Figure 70: Project 374 student progress
68
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Output Planned Achieved Remarks
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
4 1
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
12 7 The project does not have supervisors but collaborators
Number of workshops organized 28 16
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
28 13
Total number of Master student completed 2 0 Have not attracted any students yet. Re-advertised the vacancies twice
Number of policy developed or contributed too
N/A 1
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
13
Overall Comment on progress Progress hampered by intermittent Standard operating procedures every cycle. Hence values set during proposal writing cannot align with the deliverables realized.
Makerere University library (Maklib) is implementing the project in partnership with the KTH Library. The major objective of the project is to support all academic programmes through the provision of information using modern technology. The Library plays a central role in teaching, learning and research. In this project, the Library pays annually to access to such information.
Each year the subscriptions vary depending on the database costs. Currently, the subscription stands at 47 databases and two platforms i.e Libhub (discovery tool) and the Ez-proxy (For remote access). Of the 47 databases, the Consortium of University libraries of Uganda subscribes to 3 databases. We noted that the overall progress of the project is satisfactory.
3.1.5 Project 377
Project 377 Profile as provided by the Project PI
3.1.5 Project 377
69
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Project Name : Enhancement of Research Environment, Coordination and Management for sustainability at Makerere University
Project Number: 377Collaborating institutions:
Makerere University, Kyambogo, Gulu, Busitema and Mbarara
Project PI and Co-PI: Prof. Buyinza Mukadasi
Collaborating Staff: Dr. Wambede Nabalegwa, Dr. Vincent Batwala, Dr. Victor Ochwo and Dr. Benedict Oyo
Total Project Amount SEK 41,189,426
Amount Spent as of April 2018
SEK 19,609,774 as of Dec. 2017
Start Dates 3rd November, 2015 End Dates 30th June, 2020
Planned number of post doc
30 Number of post docs registered
28
Planned number of PhD
50 Number of PhD registered
48
Planned number of Masters
100 Number of Masters registered
103
This project is special in many ways as it carries nearly 50% of the total Mak-Sida Programme outputs. It has so far recruited 28 out of 30 post docs, 48 out of 50 PhD students and 103 out of 100 master’s students. This is excellent performance in terms of student’s recruitment must be commended especially given the fact that it involves engagement with PPU.
Figure 71: Project 377 student progress70
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Most of the post doc students on the project are near completion, while the master’sstudents’ majority are at middle level with same (10) from Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) completed. MUST should be commended for efficient systems which ensure that students complete within their study time (2 years). It’s noted that most of the master’sstudents at middle level are from Guluand Busitema Universities, there is need to investigate factors constraining the progress of master students registered at those institutions and device mechanism of reducing the barriers. It’s noted that majority of the PhD students are at beginner’s stage, which is a worry especially as the students has spent 2 years on their studies. There is need to understand facts constraining PhD students’ progress and address them urgently as success of this project has a wider impact on the entire Mak-Sida Programme.
It was explained that masters and PhD students were recruited in phases this explains why the project has many students at beginning stage. Overall, the project is on track and has a good momentum, but constraining factors like; limited roles of PPU coordinators, lack of involvement of student’s supervisors in the student budget management and procurement, research facilitation among others need to be addressed.
Output Planned Achieved Remarks
Scientific publications 100 12 Most students have just had their proposals approved and have not yet corrected data
Non-scientific publications 0 4 Such include posters and conference proceedings
Number of conferences organized 2 0 A mini- dissemination conference planned for 208-2019 financial year
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
50 5 Plan is for each student to attend 2 conferences during 4 years of study
Total number of Master student completed 100 15 Maters students were recruited in phases and thus recruitment has just been concluded.
Number of policy developed or contributed too
5 0
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
80 60 Laptops computers and printers
Overall Comment on progress Considering the processes, the students go through and the time when they were recruited, we are on course.
71
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3.1.6 Project 316 Profile as provided by the Project PI
Project Name: CAPACITY BUILDING IN MATHEMATICS AND ITS APPLICATIONS
Collaborating institutions:
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY- UGANDA, DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS, LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY-SWEDEN, DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS, STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY-SWEDEN, DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS, UPPSALA UNIVERSITY-SWEDEN, DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS, ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, DEPT. MATHEMATICS, MÄLARDALEN UNIVERSITY-SWEDEN, SCHOOL OF EDUC., CULTURE & COMM
Project PI and Co-PI: PI-UGANDA: Prof John Mango Magero, Makerere UniversityE-mail: [email protected]
PI-SWEDEN: Prof Bengt Ove Turesson, Linköping UniversityE-mail: [email protected]
Collaborating Staff: Uganda Team Members: Prof John Mango, Prof Juma Kasozi, Prof Mugisha Joseph, Dr Kakuba, Dr Ssevviiri David, Dr Ssembatya Vincent, Dr. S. H. NsubugaDr. J. Ssebuliba, Dr. H. Ddumba, Dr. G. I. Mirumbe, Mrs. J. Nakakawa NsumbaMrs. B. K. Nabiyonga, Mr. H. W. Kayondo, Dr. H. Kasumba, Dr. O. Kurama, Dr. F. Mayambala, Dr. Alex. Bamunoba, Mr. W. G. Naigambi, Mr. I. Ndikubwayo, Mr. M. K. Nganda, Dr. A. B. Tumwesigye, Mr. D. D. Walakira, Mr. D. Wokiyi
Collaborating Staff: Dr. Wambede Nabalegwa, Dr. Vincent Batwala, Dr. Victor Ochwo and Dr. Benedict Oyo
Total Project Amount 39 Million SEK (for both Uganda and Swedish component)
Amount Spent as of April 2018
NOT SURE TO THE DOT BUT ABOUT 45%
Start Dates 3rd Nov. 2015 End Dates 30th June 2020
Planned number of post doc
9 Number of post docs registered
4
Planned number of PhD
21 Number of PhD registered
21
Planned number of Masters
0 Number of Masters registered
0
The project has an excellent staff profile and has recruited all the 21 PhD students. It has only recruited 4 post docs out of the 9 targeted.
72
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
All the PhD students are at middle level and post docs are either middle or near completion. This is excellent performance of the project.
Figure 72: Project 316 student progress
Output Planned value
Achieved so far
Remarks
Scientific publications 150 42 The 150 publications include all publications by the department of mathematics. Since the starting of Sida support, the department has so far published 42 papers some of which are under direct support by the Sida . We expect a big increase in this publications in the the second half of the project since all the 21 PhD students and the nine PostDocs will be deep in their research and hence more publications.
Number of students visits to Sweden
50 25 There are five students on the Sandwich mode. Each student has so far visited five times.
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
25 10 Each Sandwich student is visited once a year in Sweden by a local supervisor
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
35 23 The number includes visits by the Swedish teachers/supervisors on the local PhD curriculum
Number of conferences organized 4 2
Number of workshops organized 15 8
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
50 15
73
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Number of curriculum developed or improved
2 2 Planned to develop one PhD curriculum and review on Msc curriculum. All these were accomplished
Number of policy developed or contributed too
4 0 These will be achieved in the 2nd half when research is at its best by the students.
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
21 21 Planned to buy the 21 laptops for PhD students and team members. The laptops were bought.
By far this is the most impressive project by performance at mid-term level. The project has delivered 42 scientific publications and yet majority of the students are still at middle level, this means they will exceed their target of 150 papers by end of the project. The PI and team must be commended for excellent efforts. Almost on all parameters of progress, this project ticks the boxes. There is need to engage the PI of this project to share which practices with other PIs for the greater success of Mak-Sida Programme.
3.1.7 Project 313
Project 313 Profile as provided by the Project PI
The project has recruited all the post docs and PhD students, but has only recruited 4 of the 12 planned master’s students. There is need to speed up the recruitment of the reminding masters students if they are to complete before the Mak-Sida programme closure in 2020.
3.1.7 Project 313
Project Name: Strengthening Social Science Research for National Development
Collaborating institutions:
Schools of Social Sciences and Women and Gender Studies of Makerere University and Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Business, Economics and Law of University of Gothenburg
Project PI and Co-PI: Professor Andrew Ellias State (Uganda) and Professor Staffan Hojer (Sweden)
Collaborating Staff: Professor Peter Atekyereza, Professor William Muhumuza, Professor Julius Omona, Professor Josephine Ahikire, Professor Robert Kabumbuli
Total Project Amount SEK 14,669,128
Amount Spent as of April 2018
Not given by DRGT
Start Dates November 2015 End Dates June 30, 2020
Planned number of post doc
5 Number of post docs registered
5
Planned number of PhD
8 Number of PhD registered
8
Planned number of Masters
12 Number of Masters registered
4
74
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
As illustrated in figure 73, all master students are at the beginner level and the PhDs are at middle level. The project needs to quickly recruit the remaining 8 master’s students and work to ensure they complete on time as the programme has only 2 years remaining. The progress of PhD student is satisfactory at this stage of Mak-Sida programme.
Figure 73: Project 313 student progress
Output Planned value
Achieved so far
Remarks
Scientific publications - - Still analyzing data. Hope to start having papers in the fourth year
Non-scientific publications 5 4 Conference attendance
Patents - - -
Number of students visits to Sweden
2 2 All the two sandwich students have fully registered for a Double degree program. MOU has been signed
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
2 2 Joint supervision
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
4 6 Planning meetings and writing workshops
Number of conferences organized - - -
Number of workshops organized 6 3 Writing workshops done but Curriculum review workshops were never approved
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
6 4
Number of curriculum developed or improved
7 - Curriculum funds were frozen, i.e. not to be spent on hotel expenses
75
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The project has not indicated the progress of the post doc students’ status but has presented for both PhD and Masters. The data indicates that 8 students have been recruited for the PhD studies as planned and 7 of these are mid-way. Out of the 12 planned master’s students only 4 have been enrolled and all just beginning. There are no scientific publications so far made in this project despite that there are some students mid-way in their PhD studies.
Project 376 Profile as provided by the Project PI
The project has recruited 6 of the 4 planned masters and 3 of the 4 planning PhDs. This is good performance in terms of student recruitment.
3.1.8 Project 376
Project Name: Building Research and Training capacities to develop innovations in sustainable intensification of maize–based cropping systems for improving productivity, food security and resilience to climate change in Uganda
Collaborating institutions:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Kyambogo University, Gulu University
Buginyanya Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute of NARO
Professor Andrew Ellias State (Uganda) and Professor Staffan Hojer (Sweden)
Project PI and Co-PI: Herbert Talwana and Sigrun Dahlin
Collaborating Staff: Makerere University - Moses M. Tenywa, Johnny Mugisha, Paul Kibwika, Jeninah Karungi – Tumutegyereize, John Baptist Tumuhairwe, John Ilukor
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences - Mattias Jonsson, Konstantinos KarantininisOthers: Basil Mugonola, Gulu University, Bosco Bua, Kyambogo University, Frank Kagoda, National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
Total Project Amount 8,700,860 SEKAmount Spent as of April 2018
Not Provided
Start Dates November 2015 End Dates October 2020Planned number of PhD
4 Number of PhD registered
3
Planned number of Masters
4 Number of Masters registered
6
76
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
The progress of student is between middle and beginner therefore, the project team needs to put in more efforts to ensure accelerated student progress.
Figure 74: Project 362 student progress
Output Planned value
Remarks
Scientific publications 12 0 Field research delayed to take off until this year 2018
Non-scientific publications 3 0 Interfacing with farmers to understand information needs delayed
Patents 0 0 This is applied research, and no patents are anticipated
Number of students visits to Sweden
8 2 Students only started visiting Sweden this year
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
2 0 Planned for next year 2019. Supervisors couldn't visit without students
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
4 4 Their visits are linked to attending the Annual Planning and Review meetings
Number of conferences organized
0 0
Number of workshops organized 2 0 Dissemination workshop Planned for next year 2019 and a close out Stakeholders workshop in 2020
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
4 0 Project results are not ready for sharing
Total number of Master student completed
4 0 Delayed recruitment
77
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Number of curriculum developed or improved
0 0
Number of policy developed or contributed too
1 0 We anticipate to inform policy on sustainable agricultural intensification once the data is collected and analyzed
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
Equipment Bits received
The procurement process is too slow
Overall Comment on progress by PI
As a project, we comfortable with our progress although seasonal changes in rainfall is greatly affecting our planned activities
While the PI overall assessment of the progress is comfortable, this progress is we below the expected at midterm level as the project is has a score of zero on all major indicators of progress. There is need for the Mak-Sida Programme coordination team to interface with this project team and address issues which could be constraining project progress.
3.1.9 Project 362
Project 362 Profile as provided by the Project PI
Key outputs in the Period under Review:
I. Implementation of self-assessment exercises; The Quality Assurance Self-Assessment 2017 report was completed after a successful self-assessment exercise that covered 2016 data; Outputs of this report were presented to the University Management on July 4 2017. Feedback was given and a detailed report forwarded to Management for further action; a breakfast meeting was held on May 10th 2018 preceding the Council meeting of May 17th 2018. This meeting will updated the University Management on policy implications of the undertakings in Quality Assurance. Breakfast meetings are now routine activities utilized as fora between QA and Management.
II. Tracer studies; The 2017 Tracer study focused on the 2014 graduates. The report is out and has been under circulation to various stakeholder. A new Tracer study on the 2015 graduates was completed and is in print. A few copies have been availed. Illuminating information on the challenge of the 13,000 graduate on finding employment out of the 4000 degree jobs advertised in 2015. Self-employment becomes a focal point after the findings of this study. A planned activity is the employer expectation survey to gain feedback into the curriculum development and review exercises at the university. The
3.1.9 Project 362
Project Name : Quality assurance support
Project Number: 362
Collaborating institutions: Makerere University, Kyambogo, Gulu, Busitema and Mbarara
Project PI and Co-PI: Dr. Vincent Ssembatya
Collaborating Staff:
Total Project Amount Did not provided
Amount Spent as of April 2018 Not provided
Start Dates 3rd November, 2015 End Dates 30th June, 2020Focusing on quality assurance
78
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Directorate is to team up with the National Council for Science and Technology to interrogate further the questions of matching training and job openings.
III. Review of curriculum; the major review was completed in March 2017. The university council approved all the reviews after due consideration by the Senate and the Quality Assurance Committee. Key highlights of the review:
a. Undergraduate academic programs made broader with core courses and options for specialization; b. Undergraduate programs based on single cross-cutting disciplines phased out: for example ethics and human rights; c. Programs designed to address similar job opportunities merged; for example Bachelors of Information technology and Bachelors of Information Systems; d. Programs with high level of content similarity merged; Examples in Agricultural Economics and Agricultural Applied Economics; e. Programs and courses hosted and facilitated by the units with mandates in those respective disciplines; f. Programs shall have a proper balance between theory and practice and shall adhere to international standards; g. All Undergraduate Diplomas and Certificates phased out and offered at affiliated institutions.The current reviews include the development of taught PhDs; The PhD in Mathematics is now accredited by the National Council for Higher Education. Other taught PhD programs are in several stages of development; the support to development of taught PhDs has been extended to participating public universities. Each university has been requested to identify such a program to be supported. The Directorate is working with these universities individually on developing the curriculum on these taught PhDs.
IV. Colleges being supported to develop taught PhDs: a. College of Computing and Information Sciences (COCIS). A taught PhD has been proposed
in Computing and Informatics; the College Management has already met and proposed designing a single PhD program in the area with several tracks. Several taught PhDs in the School of Computing and IT will be combined into one with the following tracks: Computational Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence & Data Science, Bio-Informatics, GIS, Informatics and Eservices and Software & Systems Security; The college of Computing and Information Sciences has now developed a program in Information Systems which has been approved by the Senate and before the Council committee of Quality Assurance, Gender and ICT
b. CHS: A PhD in Public Health will be developed; The College of Health is at the level of stakeholders’ consultation in developing the PhD in Public Health.
c. COBAMS: A PhD in the School of Business and Management will be developed; The College of Business has developed a PhD in Management which is to be presented to Senate soon.
d. Busitema University – A PhD in Materials Engineering; e. Mbarara University of Science and Technology – A PhD in Biomedical Engineering; f. Gulu University – A PhD in Applied Tropical Entomology and Parasitology.
V. SECAT: Student Evaluation of Course and Teaching – Initially co-funded to develop an ICT based system on evaluation. The system is on makmobile.info and is capable of producing personalized reports; five semesters (last three academic years) have been evaluated with online auto generated reports. The activity is currently underway.
VI. Training of Graduate Supervisors – 149 so far trained from Makerere University and PPUs; Seventeen trainees were awarded certificates on completion of all the course requirements. Three staff attended further training at Uppsala University in March 2018. These are future facilitators on the training at Makerere University. Planned training will target a class size of 50 with 16 from PPUs in 2018; 100 trainees in 2019 and 100 in 2020. The program will be institutionalized in 2020 when the certificate becomes a requirement for supervision. The curriculum will be submitted to Senate in 2018/2019. The PPUs will encourage to follow suit with institutionalization.
79
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
VII. Graduate progression tracking (to propel completion rates); the online system is functional at www.gradtrack.mak.ac.ug; Modifications have been made on the program and the data updated. As of April 24 2018, there were over 2100 students registered on the system;
Overall, this is one of the best performing projects within the Mak-Sida Programme. There are clear outputs linked to the project activities. However, there is need to strengthen the collaboration with PPU as most of the capacity in quality assurance processes is being developed at Makerere University with minimal focus to PPU. PPU have mainly benefits from support through curriculum development yet they luck capacity in QA systems and processes.
3.1.10 Project 382
Project information (Data Source Project PI for Project 382)
3.1.10 Project 382
Project Name : Upgrading and Strengthening the University Wide GIS Centre
Collaborating institutions: Lund and KTH Sweden
Project PI and Co-PI: Dr. Lydia Mazzi Kayondo (Makerere), and Prof. Yifang Ban (KTH)
Collaborating Staff: Dr. John Richard Otukei, Prof. Moses Musinguzi, Prof. Anthony Gidudu, Prof. Henry Arinaitwe, Prof. Pilesjö Petter, Prof. Shirabe,Takeshi, Dr. Jonathan Seaquist, Dr. Andrea Nascetti and Dr. Dyozo
Total Project Amount 5,130,946 SEK
Amount Spent as of April 2018 900,000 SEK
Amount Spent as of April 2018 Not provided
Start Dates 2015 End Dates 2020 (same as other projects)
Output Planned value
Achieved so far
Remarks
Scientific publications N/A 1 Were not specified
Non-scientific publications N/A N/A N/A
Patents N/A N/A N/A
Number of students visits to Sweden
N/A N/A N/A
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
2 5 Planned visits for PI once every year
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
6 10 Planned visit for 2 collaborators 1 from Lund and 1 from KTH twice a year for APM and ARM
Number of conferences organized
N/A N/A N/A
Number of workshops organized
2 5 Curriculum and short courses were reviewed and developed in workshops
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
3 8 Staff from Geomatics have attended conferences
80
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Total number of Master student completed
N/A N/A N/A
Number of curriculum developed or improved
5 1 MSc curriculum 4 Short Course
Number of policy developed or contributed too
N/A N/A N/A
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
20 computers20 computer tables1 server table1 bookshelf cabin
0 Delayed recruitment
Overall Comment on progress
Progress has been hampered by delayed procurement bureaucracies - 70% of the project budget is for equipment. Tremendous improvement is expected in project progress once all equipment is delivered.
It was observed that this project is progress very well as per their performance indicators
3.1.11 Project 2891
Project 2891 Profile as provided by the Project PI
The project has done very well in terms of student recruitment and the team must be commended.
3.1.11 Project 2891
Project Name: Enhancement of Gender Focused Research, Capacity Building of Women in Leadership and Gender Mainstreaming in Higher Education in Uganda
Collaborating institutions: Makerere University and University of Gothenburg
Project PI and Co-PI: Dr. Consolata Kabonesa and Dr. Margareta Espling
Collaborating Staff:Total Project Amount SEK10,000,000
Amount Spent as of April 2018 49000000
Start Dates March 2015 End Dates June 2020Planned number of post doc 5 Number of post docs
registered 5
Planned number of PhD 7 Number of PhD registered
8
Planned number of Masters 15 Number of Masters registered
12
81
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Majority of the students are at middle level, which is a satisfactory progress at this level of the project.
Figure 75: Project 2891 student progress
Output Planned value
Achieved so far
Remarks
Scientific publications 0 0
Non-scientific publications 0 0
Patents 0 0
Number of students visits to Sweden 0 0
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to Sweden
0 0
Number of Swedish supervisor visits to Uganda
1 0
Number of conferences organized 0 0
Number of workshops organized 50 40 More than
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA support
10 3
Total number of Master student completed
12 0
Number of curriculum developed or improved
1 In process Should be completed before August
Number of policy developed or contributed too
2 --
82
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Number of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)Overall Comment on progress from the PI
Progressing very well
This project seems to lack a project tracking matrix of their own. It’s interesting to note that project with 5 post docs, 8 PhD and 12 masters has no targets set for research outputs. Currently, there is needed for the Mak-Sida Programme Coordination office to interface with this project team and set the minimal target in terms of research outputs. Otherwise, it will be difficult to measure the level of effectiveness and efficiency of this project at the end of the programme.
3.1.12 Project 372
This project headed by Dr. Dan Kajungu did not provide information to the evaluation team despite numerous efforts. The coordination team and the oversight organs of the project will need to find out the exact progress on all agreed parameters of the project.
3.1.13 Project 334
The project entitled “Empowerment for Research Capacity in Knowledge and Information Production and Sharing for Socio-Economic Development in Uganda” coordinated by Dr. George William Kiyingi did provide information to the evaluation team despite numerous efforts. The coordination team and the oversight organs of the project will need to find out the exact progress on all agreed parameters of the project.
3.1.14 Project 313
No information was provided to the evaluation team despite numerous efforts. The coordination team and the oversight organs of the project will need to find out the exact progress on all agreed parameters of the project.
3.1.15 Project 331
The project “Partner for Building Resilient Ecosystems and Live Hoods to Climate Change and Disaster” headed by Dr. Yazidhi Bamutaze did not provided information the evaluation team despite numerous efforts. The Mak-Sida Programme coordination office and the oversight organs of the programme will need to find out the exact progress on all agreed parameters of the project.
In conclusion, the Mak-Sida Programme has made excellent progress on the parameters of student recruitment as highlighted by the figure below.
3.1.12 Project 372
3.1.13 Project 334
3.1.14 Project 313
3.1.15 Project 331
83
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Figure 76: Summary of Capacity Building within the Programme
3.2 Progress towards individual Objective
Program goal: to increase the capacity of public universities to generate knowledge and promote research uptake for national and regional development
3.2.1 Objective One: Improve the institutional and research infrastructure to support a robust environment for research and innovations at Makerere University
3.2 Progress towards individual Objective
3.2.1 Objective One: Improve the institutional and research infrastructure to support a robust environment for research and innovations at Makerere University
Baseline Outputs Achieved so far Performance indicator
Status
226,597 users in 2013
1.1 ICT environment upgraded
Increased use of ICT and library resources in research provision
No. of people accessing and using ICT and library resources1.2 Subscribed
to one research management tool1.3 Five College libraries automated
No satisfaction survey yet done
1.4 Reformed processes implemented by units and complete devolution to colleges by 2020
84
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
50% completion rate
1.5 Reports of benchmarking exercise on best practices
Increased efficiency and effectiveness in public university sub-sector operations
Increased number of staff using the acquired skills to develop quality proposals, dissertations and publications Increased number of students are successfully trained in ICT
Improved Library e-recourses
No of students and staff satisfied with the services offered
Increased graduate through-put
Increased enrolment in graduate programs
No. of staff utilizing he skills to conduct quality research
No. of students completing their program in time
10% graduate student enrollment
1.6 Early warning system to eliminate predictable/unforeseen hurdles in program implementation developed 1.7 QA mechanisms in the 5 public university system developed1.8 M&E Tools for the program developed
Two curricula engendered by 2013
28% in 2013
1.9 Makerere University curricula and research engendered
-increased female student enrolment, retention and enhanced performance especially in the science disciplines
A gender-responsive organizational culture institutionalized in public universities
No. of engendered graduate curriculaProportion of established female staff
No curricula is engendered
1.10 Gender Mainstreaming institutionalized in partner public universities
No. of engendered graduate curriculaProportion of established female staff
85
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
So far the Mak-Sida programme has provided support resulting into the development of 12 web applications in the directorate of quality assurance to facilities quality training. The programme is training over 50 staff of Makerere University who will form a new breed scholars to anchor the university research agenda. Furthermore, the Mak-Sida programme is support interventions aimed at institutional systems strengthening such as training of project accountants, project administrators among others.
3.2.2 Objective Two: Strengthen local PhD training in public universities in Uganda 3.2.2 Objective Two: Strengthen local PhD training in public universities in Uganda
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator (outcome level)
11% 2.1 PhD programs at Makerere reviewed and harmonized (6 programs)
Increased enrolment in PhD programs and completion rates at Makerere University
-No. of PhD students enrolled yearly
10% in 2013
2.2 New curricula for PhD programs developed (17 developed)
PhD graduation rate2.3 Ph.D cross cutting courses reviewed (6 reviewed)2.4 Trained PhD students and staff in supervision (500 participants)
0.4 per student per year
2.5 Trained PhD students and staff in scholarly writing (500 participants)
Increased number of publications in peer reviewed Journals
No. of Publications in peer reviewed journals
Yet to determine the actual increase
2.6 State of the art laboratory equipment procured
Increased number of researchers using the state of the art equipment in the research labs
-No. of researchers using the research labs
No statistic provided
<0.1 2.7 PhD dissertations submitted (80% of 75 submitted)
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at Makerere university
Annual per capita publications
10% 2.8. Female staff PhD training in public universities in Uganda by 2020
Increased female PhD holders in PPUs
2.8.1.No. of academic staff graduating with PhD’ degree2.8.2. No of publications by female staff2.8.3. Citation index and University rankings
86
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Majority of the programme beneficiaries are members of staff from 4 public universities of which about 39% of the beneficiaries are women. The programme has supported the review of curriculum and development of 7 new PhD programmes one at each PPU. The programme has a conducted a number of scholarly writing workshops of which over 500 staff in all participating universities have already benefited.
3.2.3 Objective Three: Increase the generation and dissemination of research and research outputs through multidisciplinary teams
So far, a total of 78 scientific publications have been produced, and a total of 15 master’s thesis completed these are contribute this increase research output. Furthermore, the programme has support a wide range research dissemination activities including research seminars, workshops, and conferences. It has been noted that in Makerere university, research seminars at various levels have nee revived, this can be partly attributed the Mak-Sida programme activities.
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator Status
0.4 Publications per PhD student annually
3.1.1 PhD dissertations submitted (60% of the 200 PhD students)
Increased number of staff involved in quality teaching and research
- Annual per capita publication
1 in 2014 3.1.2 Masters dissertations submitted (80% of the 150 students)
- No. of patents
3 per year 3.3 Postdoc project reports submitted (80% submitted)
- No of conference proceedings
3.4 Research reports submitted from small grants awards (80% submitted)3.5 Conference proceedings (80% of the grantees)3.6.1 New Journals developed (3 journals)3.6.2 Existing Journals supported (11 journals)
3.2.3 Objective Three: Increase the generation and dissemination of research and research outputs through multidisciplinary teams
87
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3.2.4 Objective 4: Increase capacity for knowledge translation and innovations
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator Status
3 in 2014 4.1 Trained staff in research uptake (200 staff)
Increased number of people utilizing the Technology Transfer office at Makerere University, and an increased number of businesses generating better income
- Annual per capita publication- No. of patents- No of conference proceedings4.2
Dissemination report on research outputs and uptake4.3 Technology Transfer office equipped
6 in 2014 4.4 Businesses incubated through seed funding (10 businesses)
No. of businesses developed
4.5 Innovation clusters formed/developed (50 clusters)
At this stage of the programme implementation there was no observable evidence of outputs aligned to this objective. The main narrative from PI was that, most of the students and the individual research project are still in infancy stages to be able to contribute outcome on this goal. This was acceptable explanation, but the Mak-Sida Programme coordination office must put in place a tracking mechanism for this objective.
3.2.5 Objective 5: Increase partnerships and regional synergies for knowledge generation and sharing 3.2.5 Objective 5: Increase partnerships and regional synergies for knowledge generation and sharing
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator Status
4 hubs 5.1 Centers of excellence developed (2 centers)
Increased number of functional research hubs attracting regional and international collaborators/partners
No. of research hubs based at Makerere University
5.2 Partnerships developed (10 partnerships
10 (college based)
5.3 Web-enabled communication channels developed
Increased use of web-based communication channels and databases
No. of web-based communication channels in use
88
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
It was clear during this midterm evaluation that collaborations and partnership among researchers within Makerere University and among public universities are being nurtured and strengthen. It was also evident that Mak-Sida Programme is helping shape research agenda in the PPU through establishment of partnerships and collaboration between PPU’s and other universities within Uganda and outside Uganda.
It was observed that a number of colleges within Makerere University as established grants and resource mobilization offices as a means of strengthen research functions within their colleges. It was further revealed that Colleges have now focusing on developing systems of structures of monitoring and tracking research outputs. These have to be commended efforts. Furthermore, a number of prototype mobile and web based tools have been developed by the Directorate of Quality Assurance Makerere University to track and monitor graduating training and research output.
5 per year 5.4 Databases developed
Sharing of research information through networks and conference proceedings
No. of conference proceedings
5.5 Conferences held
3.2.6 Objective 6: Improve the coordination and management of research and knowledge uptake
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator Status
One college (CHS) has a functional facility
6.1 Research grants offices established in all colleges (7 colleges)
Improved coordination and management of research and research projects in the university
No. of researchers benefiting from the services of the college research grants offices
4% of the university budget i.e. 7 billion of 200 billion
6.2 Automated graduate training tracking system developed
Increase in research income to the university
50% 6.3 Automated graduate research tracking system developed
Timeliness in completion of research projects
40% 6.4 University Research Information Management system developed
Timeliness in reporting on research projects
6.5 Reports on university-wide research audits
89
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
3.2.7 Objective 7: Increase cooperation with and strengthen capacity of partner public universities
Baseline Outputs Outcomes Performance indicator Status
<0.1 7.1.1 PhD dissertations submitted (60% of 50 submitted)
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.1.2 Fifty (50) PhD students trained
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.2.1. About 35 female PhD students trained during the research cooperation agreement period, 2015-2020
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.2.2 Hundred (100) Masters students trained
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.2.3 About 70 female Master degree students trained during the research cooperation agreement period 2015-2020
Trained and skilled female students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Female-based research-uptakeAnnual per capita publications
<0.1 7.3 Masters dissertations submitted (90% submitted)
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
90
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
<0.1 7.3 Masters dissertations submitted (90% submitted)
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.4 Five (5) Postdoc project reports submitted
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
<0.1 7.5 Trained and skilled students in proposal writing (100 trained)
Trained and skilled students resulting in improved quality of teaching and research at partner public universities
Annual per capita publications
The Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme is catalyzing changes in participating Ugandan universities as far as addressing training, research and collaboration issues are concerned. It has been noted and reported that twining of supervisors is accelerating the sharing of knowledge and practices among supervisors. Furthermore, the PPU are now embracing research as pillar elements of their work as opposed to teaching which has been the main practices. The programme has influence PPU to increase their internal budget allocations to research and staff training, which was note the case before. Furthermore, the project is influence PPU to quickly transitions into center of excellent in graduate training by facilitating the training of high caliber staff, but also enabling the development of new PhD programme and the review of master curriculum. Furthermore, the programme is influencing PPU to adopt robust quality assurance systems like those of Makerere University. The Mak-Sida programme is influencing the development of gender main streaming in other PPU as means of building holist capacity of these institutions. It should be noted that public universities in Uganda loosely collaborate, reasons that there advocacy efforts have been weak. Now the Mak-Sida programme has open barriers not only at institutional level, but also at personal level. The multi-disciplinary approach to research has helped bridge collaboration gap within Makerere University, as most of the current research in has largely been conducted in silos.
So far, one can state confidently that that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme has delivered the expected outputs in terms of student’s recruitment which is a critical indicator of the programme students. Students are the drivers of all key outputs of the programme, including research publication and research dissemination. It is noted that majority of the students on Mak-Sida programme view their progress so far as satisfactory, which is logical as majority of PhDs have approved proposal and currently under taking data collection and lab work. For the masters, majority are conducting their research after completion of course works, a clear indicate the programme is on track at midterm level.
91
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
4.1 Introduction
This section presents a reflection on the process and the key findings of the MTR in terms of observation from the process of MTR (section 4.1), lessons learnt and best practices emerging from the evaluation (section 4.2), conclusions (section 4.3) and recommendations (section 4.4).
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Lessons and Best Practices
92
1. Programme Relevance. There is convincing evidence from the various stakeholders and literature about the significance and relevance of the research collaborative programme on building capacity of the participating partners. The Swedish Government is commended for its long support to the Ugandan government since 2000. The programme is well aligned with Uganda’s national development agenda and address key capacity issues within Uganda’s higher education sector. The Mak and PPUs have made deliberate efforts to select and prioritize research projects with high relevance and potential development impact.
2. Academic Quality. The academic quality offered on the study programmes on which Mak – Sida programme beneficiaries are enrolled meet both national and international standards as the programmes are accredited by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) and are design based on international based practices in each discipline. The PIs have good experience and academic caliber to ensure quality of programme implementation.
3. Management of Local PhD training. There are appropriate steps and quality assurance procedures for the management of the local PhD training. Themove towards establishment of taught PhDs is a commendable development that is aligned to current thinking on doctoral types favored in universities. However, partner universities other than Mak do not have many senior academic staff that will ensure adequate supervision on the taught PhDs on their own without partnering with well-established universities.
4. Cross-cutting PhD Courses: The courses were well planned and pedagogically sound, and they offer integrative knowledge that all stakeholders especially the PhD students perceived as valuable and productive. Some of the courses had a transformational effect on students’ research thinking, and would serve well the supervisors and academic staff members and could be scale-out to all the partner Universities.
4. Cross-cutting issues: The programme at mid-term level has integrated cross-cutting issues in appropriate proportions. Cross-cutting issues particularly gender have been adequately integrated into the programme implementation processes and all stakeholders have a high appreciation for this integration. Also ICT is well integrated into the Mak – Sida Programme activities.
5. Supervisor Management Processes. The twining of supervisors both at local level and with Sweden partners has a positive impact and is a key pillar for the success of the programme. The twining arrangement has allowed the sharing of experience and practices resulting into improve capacity of graduate supervision in the collaborating universities. Furthermore, the quality of supervision as evidenced by the frequency of supervision engagement and supervisor load meet both local and international quality standards.
6. Research management: The programme has contributed to improved research management at the collaborating universities. At Mak, clear structures for research management are in place. Programme coordination has incorporated lessons and experiences from previous phases. However, coordination of the Mak-Sida program places significant demands on time and effort of DRGT staff as well as the PIs. There is need to deepen expedite the staff recruitment plan as per the approved establishment. The position of Deputy Director, Research, Innovations Development and Partnership and other research administrators should be recruited.
7. Master’s completion rate. There are variations in the completion rates of Master’s students from the partnering universities. There is for example high completion rates for masters students at Mbarara University of Science and Technology than is in other partner universities. There is thus a need to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
emphasize sharing of best practices on effective mechanisms of ensuring timely completion of students. 8. Reporting systems The use of well-defined templates for planning and reporting has ensured that
correct information is supplied by those responsible to supply it. However, the evaluation team did not find fully compiled monitoring reports.
4.3 Conclusions
This process of a mid-term review began with the award of the contract and the implementation of inception activities which largely focused on gaining a deeper understanding of the assignment from various perspectives. The evaluation team held a number of entry meetings with various stakeholders and reviewed a number of programme related documents. It was clear from the onset that the Mak-Sida programme was one of its kind in the country and was well intentioned, timely and well received by stakeholders. The evaluation team then conducted 34 interviews, held 8 focus group discussions, surveyed over 200 students of which 130 responded, surveyed over100 student supervisors of which 42 responded, and surveyed 16 project coordinators of which 7 responded.
The Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme is catalyzing changes in participating Ugandan universities as far as addressing training, research and collaboration issues are concerned. It has been noted and reported that twining of supervisors is accelerating the sharing of knowledge and practices among supervisors. Furthermore, the PPU are now embracing research as pillar elements of their work as opposed to teaching which has been the main practices. The programme has influence PPU to increase their internal budget allocations to research and staff training, which was note the case before. Furthermore, the project is influence PPU to quickly transitions into center of excellent in graduate training by facilitating the training of high caliber staff, but also enabling the development of new PhD programme and the review of master curriculum. Furthermore, the programme is influencing PPU to adopt robust quality assurance systems like those of Makerere University. The Mak-Sida programme is influence the development of gender main streaming in other PPU as a means of building holist capacity of the institutions.
So far, one can state confidently that that to a great extent the Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Programme has delivered the expected outputs in terms of student’s recruitments which is a critical indicator of the programme
93
9
9. Co-funding mechanisms. The requirement of PPU’ and Makerere University to co-funding the programme activities is a well-intentioned strategy to ensure ownership and later sustainability.
12. Quality assurance systems. The developed of QA tools by the Directorate of QA Makerere university, has not only impacted on the improvement of academic quality on programme in Makerere but also to PPU. It has further led to the improved appreciated of evidence based decision making in educational institutional management especially among the partner public universities.
13. Research and Publications. There is a good progress on publication by few of the projects as reported in the findings. Some of these few projects have exceedingly performed impressively well at mid-term level and this offers important lessons for other projects. Student publication record is still low and majority of students at different levels are yet to appreciate the benefits of expanded interest in publication as supported by the project.
14. Internal systems Management. There is a weak internal procurement system and this affects programme effectiveness. There is a lot that can be done in the remaining programme period to improve the performance of the procurement systems.
15. Sustainability. A major achievement of the Swedish support is a significant enhancement of the academic sustainability at the collaborating Ugandan public Universities. More staff are undertaking their Ph.D.´s, Post-doc, Master degree training and have been provided with the corporate research opportunities, relevant and promising research has been conducted and infrastructure for research has been strengthened. Funding of research training and research remains the most critical issue for the Ugandan public universities. Sweden and other external donors have been and still are the primary source of funding for graduate training and research. At the national level, there is still no separate budget provision for graduate research and training.
10
11
12
13
14
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
students. Students are the drivers all key outputs of the programme, including research publication and research dissemination. It is noted that majority of the students programme review so far indicate a satisfactory level of progress as majority of PhDs have approved proposal and currently under taking data collection and lab work. For the masters, majority are conducting their research after completion of course works, I clear indicate the programme is on track.
4.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are suggested based on the emerging findings from the MTR: -1. Programme Governance. . The governance structures as had been planned in the agreements and
SOPs need to be reactivated to ensure each organ performs its assigned roles. There may be a need to revisit the mandates of the existing governance structures for programme implementation taking into account the agreement between GOU and the embassy, the agreement between the embassy and Mak, and the MOUs between Mak and PIs as well as PPUs. There exists a system of programme governance and decision making whereby the different PPUs manage the student selection process at their universities and PPU Coordinators are members of the Programme Management Committee. Ownership. The research programme is fully owned by Ugandan partner Public Universities. It was noted that Sweden embraced the shift to allow Ugandan universities decide on their priority areas. The support addresses areas already determined as priorities in the strategic plan of the different University. The multidisciplinary approach was applauded for having provided opportunity for the Colleges to form research groups and teams to respond to real problems affecting society.
3. Sustainability strategies. The programme coordination office should develop a road map for a stakeholder consultative forum to discuss the sustainability of the programme. DGRT needs to organize a workshop/meeting devoted to discussing sustainability of the programme. The forum should involve all partnering institutions, the Government represented by the Ministries of Education, Finance, Science and Technology as well as NCHE among others. Development partners will need to be involved especially if establishment of a donor’s forum is to be endorsed as one sustainability strategy. A sustainability champion needs to be identified and a multi-disciplinary sustainability committee needs to be established. A comprehensive sustainability plan should be prepared and approved by April 2019.
4. Stakeholder Engagement. In the remaining period, the programme steering committee and DGRT coordination office needs to improve on stakeholder engagement strategies especially to ensure conducive environment for robust discussion of the sustainability strategies. The embassy will need to play a key leadership role in creating this environment as well. The PIs will be central in ensuring workable sustainable strategies are brought on table. Stakeholders in each of the participating institutions need to feel this ownership through their own involvement. Ultimately, there will be need for respect for processes, personalities and best practices to ensure this is achieved. The centrality of PIs in the success of the programme needs to be underscored.
6. Academic Quality. The Mak-Sida Programme Coordination office (DRGT) needs to ensure systems which have been designed for ensuring quality are sustained through individualized institutional strategies at both Makerere University and PPU. DRGT should continue with regular interactions with PIs and coordinators regarding academic quality issues as recommended quarterly in the remaining period of the programme. DRGT should also implement processes and systems of analyzing data from student progress report and use it to inform decisions. Currently this data is not analyzed.
7. Communication system improvement. The Mak-Sida Programme management should establish a student and supervisor support task. But also improve the communication function between supervisors, students and Swedish Embassy.
9. Establish Service Level Agreements (SLA) for Services offered Coordination Function. The Mak-Sida programme coordination office should establish a customer or client centered service level agreement which is enforceable by programme regulations and institutional frameworks at Makerere University.
4.4 Recommendations
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
10. Budget Absorption. The Programme Steering Committee needs to conduct a delivery chain analysis of programme implementation with a view to investigate factors constraining budget absorption at different levels and provide for remedial actions. There is a need by the different programme implementation structures to ascertain and agree on strategies of how to re-utilize the funds which are never spent within a year and which may not be accessed by the student anymore.
11. More Emphasis on PPUs Gradate Capacity Building. The current balance between what goes to the PPUs in terms of building their capacity to take on graduate training after 2020 is not sufficient to cause a systematic change given their level of institutional development. The programme steering committee needs to review terms of engagement with PPUs with a view of empowering PPU to coordinate Mak-Sida Programme activities at their institutions and actively participate in the management of their staff on the programme.
12. Student completion. The Mak-Sida Programme management structures especially PIC and DRGT should improve the monitoring of student progress to ensure that issues constraining their timely completion are addressed on time. The majority of PhD students on the programme are mid-way of their studies and significant number are still at the beginner level. The student progress should not only based measured by 6 monthly reports which are often times not analyzed by with also a progress interviewed at the end of the year by their doctoral committee to find out what their status is and what they have left to complete. This will help with the student completion rates. Senate may need to revisit the one year duration which PhD students spend conceptualizing their studies as it is too much time. DRGT should provide an evidence-based analysis of the progress and effectiveness of students who have to spend this duration.
13. Research and publications. In order to improve publications within the programme since they are part of the key outputs, some students’ funds should be tagged onto having published. Also, it should be a requirement for students to publish at least one paper every year in order to make sure that the targets set are met. Also, research paper writing workshops should be held at the different PPUs so that both staff and students benefit from workshops.
14. Empowering PPU Coordinators. Mak-Sida Programme PPU coordinators should be mandated to monitor and evaluate the progress of Mak-Sida Programme student based at their institutional and staff of their institution participating in the programme. For example PPU coordinators should have a role on management of student budgets and procurement of their requirement since they have a local context understanding, especially for students on project 377. There is need to encourage networking among the PPUs which can enhance sharing of best practices.
15. Strengthening of programme administrative support. There is too much responsibility that is held at the Centre in Makerere University at the Programme Coordination Office (DRGT). Yet the office is under staffed to effectively deliver the mandate on the programme. The University on the recommendation of the programme steering committee needs to expand the number of programme support staff at DRGT to add at least two people, one dedicated to supervisor and student support and another to support the procurement and finance function. Furthermore, some components of programme management could be decentralized to the relevant PPUs and colleges. Also PI’s could be supported with project assistants to help them effectively manage the project. Clarify of roles and mandate in the Programme Coordination and Management Structure. In the current state of affairs within the programme, there seems to be a problem of some structures (committees) overlapping their mandate. This may cause friction amongst the different stakeholders. There is need for revisiting the mandates of the various governance organs based on the experienced if the implementation period at mid-term level.
17. Distinctive programme responsibilities for Institutions. The Mak-Sida programme should be clearer on responsibilities for the institutions in for them to better prepare themselves on what is required from them. It was noted that institutions were not really fulfilling their mandates in the MOUs they
95
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
signed. These included among others supporting coordinators, supplementing students’ funds where possible, making sure students are studying hence monitoring and evaluating them regularly. By taking on such responsibilities, institutions will be nurturing their ability to sustain similar capacity building for graduate students in the future.
18. Institutionalizing a research culture. In the remaining activities of the programme, more emphasis should be put on building a research culture within the PPUs. Vice Chancellors at their committee level should commit on availing funds for further research undertaking every year. Publication for staff and students per year should be put as part of their assessable indicators. Institutional conferences, workshops and journals should be established and encouraged to run every year to allow young researchers appreciate publications. Enabling environment such as research groups should be encouraged across all institutions.
19. ICT Integration in Programme Management and Coordination. It was noted that several coordination processes were being undertaken without the support from an ICT system that can support information consolidation, storage, management and manipulation fro decision making. For such a programme, different stakeholders need to be able to access information when needed, submit information ubiquitously and also use information for decision making when needed. In the current state information is being held by different stakeholders which makes it hard to monitor and evaluate the programme. A need to have ICT enables coordination and management services for the programme.
20. Supervisor’s mentorship. There is need to strengthen a capacity of supervisors on the programme through creation of forums for experience and knowledge sharing. It was note that some of the projects within the programme are progressing very well and fast but others are not. Mentorship from other colleagues would be a good idea to improve on how supervision is undertaken within the programme. For example, excellent performers like Prof. Mango and Prof. Bainomugisha should be able to mentor and share experience with other members of PIC.Quality research Control at PPUs. There is need to build capacity for quality control in the graduate programmes within the PPUs. At the moment Makerere University has established a very effective quality assurance directorate which needs to support the PPUs by building capacity of their QA directorates or departments. This will help to make sure there is sustained quality assurance in graduate training and research within the PPUs. For the remaining period of the programme, Makerere University QA directorate should be allowed to undertake peer to peer mentorship for all PPUs QA directors/officers.
20. Programme reporting. There will be need to strengthen programme reporting on each of the agreed upon deliverables and outputs by the 16 projects. The evaluation noted a laxity in actual reporting by the various actors. To facilitate subsequent evaluations, a clear quarterly reporting template for each project needs to be designed and enforced.
21. Infrastructure and institutional support. There is need to scale up the institutional support for partnering universities whose infrastructure is well below that of Makerere University.
22. Sustainability strategies. The programme coordination office should request each of the participating universities to initiate sustainability strategies and a complete document on the country sustainability strategies should be produced and discussed by April 2019.Some of the areas for attention should be strengthening of College Grant Units, and encouraging multidisciplinary research teams.
23. Addressing internal management weaknesses. There are a number of internal weaknesses like procurement management, granting of leave to participating universities and the whole processes of requisition management that need to be resolved. The programme steering committee should ensure there is a report from each of the partner universities suggesting the steps for management of these issues.
96
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
5 APPENDICES AND REFERENCES
5.1 Beneficiary Students Survey Tool
5.2 Student Supervisors and PI Survey Tool
5.3 University Programme Coordination Interview Protocol
1. Does the programme has a theory of change? If yes provide highlight of the key components of the theory 2. How were the collaborating universities/institution selected? Was it a competitive process? 3. How is the programme managed given the multi institutional nurture of the programme?4. Were projects selected on competitive basis? Describe the process5. To what extent are projects aligned to institutional strategic plans? Indicate on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest.6. How were the beneficiary students and researchers selected?7. Do you think the programme delivery systems are providing the desired academic quality? explain your opinion 8. In terms of programme implementation does partner universities have the necessary institutional capacity to deliver the programme output? In terms of staff and facilities?9. How often does the CMC sit in the year? A. <2, b. 3 c<4, d.>410. In your opinion what the emerging risks to the programme implementation?11. Are performance reports from grantees satisfactory to you? And why? 12. What percentage of students can be described to be on track to complete their programme on time? a. <30%, b. <50% c. <60% d> 60%. Give reasons13. What are the key areas of the programme implementation you would like to see an improvement? And from whom?14. Have there been any conflicts during the programme implementation? give more details15. What are some of the value for money mechanism is the project implementing? 16. How efficient is funds release system being used? 17. How effectives is the current reporting framework?18. How effective is the current student progress tracking system?19. Are there any projects which has been terminated? If yes, list them and give some the reasons which led to their termination.20. How flexible is the current budget implementation framework? Provide some details21. Are you satisfied with the visibility and impact attained by the projects? Rate in the scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest. 22. Has the programme developed an exit strategy or the sustainability framework? And what are the key elements?23. What has been the impact of the programme on the research output so far? Key success stories
97
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
5.4 Programme Steering Committee Interview Protocol
Interview Guide for the PSC
This study seeks to establish opinions from Programme Steering Committee (PSC) about overall programme performance per the set strategic vision. The interview seeks to gain high-level understanding of the programme strategic vision, values and inferred theory of change in engagement with collaborators. The overall focus is to form an opinion about programme; relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Furthermore, the study seeks to establish key emerging lessons in terms of best practices and challenges which are impacting on programme results matrix.
Please be assured that all your information will be treated as confidential and will be used for the purpose intended, which is to generate an aggregated opinion on the appropriateness of Mak-Sida programming mechanisms to deliver the planned outcomes in the most cost-efficient manner.
1. Your organization and role at the organization you represent?2. Does the programme has a theory of change? If yes provide highlight of the key components of the theory 3. How were the collaborating universities/institution selected? Was it a competitive process? 4. In your opinion what are the characteristics of the ideal strategic collaboration for research capacity building among institutions?5. How does the collaboration framework work in practical terms? 6. Are projects selected on competitive basis?7. To what extent is PSC involved in the design of programme delivery strategies? Indicate on a scale of 1-5, 5 being the highest, indicating deeply involved? 8. Since programme inception how many times have you reviewed planned activities and budgets? a. 1, b. 2 c. 5 d. more than 5 times9. How often do you review resource utilization and audited reports? 10. How often does the committee sit in the year? A. <2, b. 3 c>3 times11. In your opinion what the limitations of the current programme management framework?12. What are the key strength of the programme management approach being implemented? 13. How you identified any emerging risk to the programme? 14. Are performance reports from grantees satisfactory to you? And why? 15. What are the key areas of the programme collaboration you would like to see an improvement?16. Have there been any conflicts during the programme implementation? Give more details17. To you think that the current programme management approach has sufficient mechanism of enhancing value for money? If yes provide some details18. How efficient is funds release system being used? 19. Are there any projects which has been terminated? If yes, list them and give some the reasons which led to their termination.20. How flexible is the current budget implementation framework? Provide some details21. Are you satisfied with the visibility and impact attained by the projects? Rate in the scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest. 22. Has the SCM developed a programme exist strategy? And what are the key elements?23. How many policy briefs has PSC developed for partners? A. 0, b<5, c. <10, d>10
5.5 CMC (Swedish Embassy Staff) Interview Guide
Interview Guide for CMC (Embassy Staff)
This study seeks to establish opinions from CMC about overall programme performance per the set strategic vision. The interview seeks to gain high-level understanding of the programme strategic vision, values and
5.4 Programme Steering Committee Interview Protocol
5.5 CMC (Swedish Embassy Staff) Interview Guide
98
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
inferred theory of change in engagement with collaborators. The overall focus is to form an opinion about programme; relevancy, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability. Furthermore, the study seeks to establish key emerging lessons in terms of best practices and challenges which are impacting on programme results matrix.
Please be assured that all your information will be treated as confidential and will be used for the purpose intended, which is to generate an aggregated opinion on the appropriateness of Mak-Sida programming mechanisms to deliver the planned outcomes in the most cost-efficient manner.
1. Does the programme have a theory of change? If yes provide highlight of the key components of the theory 2. How were the collaborating universities/institution selected? Was it a competitive process? 3. Were projects selected on competitive basis? Describe the process4. How often does the CMC sit in the year? A. <2, b. 3 c>3 times5. In your opinion what the limitations of the current programme management framework?6. What are the key strength of the programme management approach being implemented? 7. How you identified any emerging risk to the programme? 8. Are performance reports from grantees satisfactory to you? And why? 9. What are the key areas of the programme collaboration you would like to see an improvement?10. Have there been any conflicts during the programme implementation? give more details11. To you think that the current programme management approach has sufficient mechanism of enhancing value for money? If yes provide some details12. How efficient is funds release system being used? 13. Are there any projects which has been terminated? If any, what are some of the reasons which led to their termination?14. How flexible is the current budget implementation framework? Provide some details15. Are you satisfied with the visibility and impact attained by the projects? Rate in the scale of 1-5, with 5 being the highest. 16. Do you think the partners universities have sufficient resources, systems and structures to continue with the programme activities after Sida funding has expired? Given reasonsWhat are the standout success stories you can attribute to other programme some far?
5.6 Project Progress Matrix
Project information (Data Source Project PI through SIDA University Coordination Office)
5.6 Project Progress Matrix
Project Name :
Collaborating institutions:
Project PI and Co-PI:
Collaborating Staff:
Project Amount
Start Dates End Dates
Planned number of post doc
Number of post docs registered
Planned number of PhD Number of PhD registered
Planned number of Masters
Number of Masters registered
99
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Student Name
Year of Registration
Programme Key outputs achieved
Stage (Beginner,
Middle, Near Completion, Completed)
PI General remarks
Output Planned value Achieved so far Remarks
Scientific publications
Non-scientific publications
Patents
Number of students visits to Sweden
Number of Uganda supervisor visits to SwedenNumber of Swedish supervisor visits to UgandaNumber of conferences organized
Number of workshops organized
Total number of international conference attended by both students and supervisors with SIDA supportTotal number of Master student completedNumber of curriculum developed or improvedNumber of policy developed or contributed tooNumber of infrastructure development activities (e.g. labs renovation, computer installation, equipment acquisition)
Student Progress status (University Coordinators)
Status of key planned outputs (Project PI and Coordinators)
100
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Parameter Value
# of PhD Holders
# of Professors (Associate and full)
# of masters holders
# of female PhD holders
# of female professors (Associate and full)
# of Ugandan PhD holders
# of PhD holders with over 10 years of post-PhD experience
# of PhD holders with less than 3 years of post-PhD experience
Parameter Value
# of average SIDA PhD students per Supervisor
# of average SIDA Master students per supervisor
# of average SIDA Post-Doc per supervisor
# of average teaching hours per week for supervisors
# of average Non-SIDA PhD students per Supervisor
# of average Non-SIDA Master students per Supervisor
Average number of publications from SIDA student Supervisor per year
# of PhD holders with less than 3 years of post-PhD experience
SIDA Programme Student Supervisor profile [MUK, GU, KYU, MUST, BU] – Source SIDA coordinators
SIDA Programme Student Supervisor Load Analysis [MUK, GU, KYU, MUST, BU]-Source SIDA coordinators
101
5.7 Research Teams and thematic areas supported with Swedish funds
#Project Project Title Uganda PI/Team leader
Swedish Collaborator
1 313-2014 Strengthening Social Science Research for National Development
Andrew Elias State Dean, School of Social Sciences, Makerere University, Email: [email protected];[email protected]
StaffanHöjer, Faculty of Social Sciences and School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Email: [email protected]
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
102
2 316-2014 Capacity Building in Mathematics and Its Applications
John Mango Magero, Department of Mathematics, CONAS, Email: [email protected]
Bengt-Ove Turesson, E-mail:[email protected] Dept. of mathematics, Linköping University
Collaborating Institutions:Dept. of Mathematics, Stockholm UniversityDept. of Mathematics, Uppsala UniversityDept. Mathematics, Royal Institute of TechnologySchool of Educ., Culture & Comm., Mälardalen Univ.
3 317-2014 Building Research Capacity in Innovative Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) for Sustainable Socio-economic Growth in Uganda
Engineer Bainomugisha,College of Computing and Information [email protected];[email protected]
Michel R. V. ChaudronEmail:[email protected] of Gothenburg (GU), IT Faculty, Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Computer Science and Engineering
4 321-2014 Training for sustainable spatially enabled e-services delivery in Uganda
Gilbert Maiga, Computer Science, COCiSEmail:[email protected]
Ali Mansourian, Lund UniversityEmail: [email protected]
5 331-2014 Partnership for Building Resilient Ecosystems and Livelihoods to Climate Change and Disaster
Yazidhi BamutazeDepartment of Geography, Geo-Informatics and Climatic Sciences, Makerere [email protected]
Petter PILESJO Lund UniversityE-mail: [email protected]
6 343-2014 Innovating health systems and healthcare delivery in rural Uganda: towardsbuilding critical capacity to tackle the rising Type 2 Diabetes challenge
David Guwatudde Dept. Biostatistics & Epidemiology,School of Public Health, College of Health Sciences,Makerere UniversityEmail: [email protected]
Meena Daivadanam, KarolinskaInstitutet, [email protected]
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
7 346-2014 Towards better treatment of infectious diseases in children in rural Uganda. Better diagnostics and algorithms for increased quality of care, rational use of medicines and minimized antimicrobial resistance
Celestino Obua, College of Health Sciences, Makerere UniversityEmail:[email protected]
Cecilia StålsbyLundborg (CSL),KarolinskaInstitutet (KI)Email:[email protected]
8 372-2014 Quality improvement of Makerere University’s population-based health and demographic surveillance site: maximizing the potential of the research platform for capacity development and generation of valid population data to inform policy formulation
Dan KajunguExecutive Director, Makerere University Centre for Health & Popu Research (MUCHAP), HDSSEmail: [email protected]
Claudia HansonDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Division of Global Health (IHCAR), Karolinska Institute, Email: [email protected]
9 374-2014 Information Support for Quality Higher Education and Research in Uganda
Byamugisha HellenAg. University [email protected]@mulib.mak.ac.ug
Ann Tobin Royal Institute Of Technology, KTHEmail: [email protected]
10 334-2014 Building Capacity for Knowledge and Information Production and Sharing for Socio-Economic Development in Uganda
Kiyingi GeorgeEast African School of Library and Information Sciences (EASLIS), CoCIS, Makerere University, <[email protected]>,
Jan Nolin, Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Email: [email protected]
11 344-2014 Innovations for accelerating reduction in maternal, newborn and child mortality in post conflict Uganda
James Tumwine, Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere UniversityEmail:[email protected]
Claudia Hanson KarolinskaInstitutet Email:[email protected]
12 376-2014 Strengthening Quality Assurance initiatives for relevance and optimal productivity at Makerere University and partnering public universities
Ssembatya Vincent, Director, Quality Assurance DirectorateEmail:[email protected]
Åsa Kettis Uppsala UniversityEmail: [email protected]
103
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
13 362-2014 Building Research and Training capacities to develop innovations in sustainable intensification of maize–based cropping systems for improving productivity, food security and resilience to climate change in Uganda
Herbert Talwana, Dept. Crop Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences (CAES)Email:[email protected]
Sigrun Dahlin Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Email:[email protected]
14 377-2014 Enhancement of Research Environment, Coordination, Leadership and Management for sustainability at Makerere University
Buyinza Mukadasi, Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate [email protected]@rgt.mak.ac.ug
N/A
15 382-2014 Upgrading and Strengthening the University Wide GIS centre
Lydia Mazzi Kayondo – NdandikoDepat. Geoinformatics and SurveyingCollege of Engineering and TechnologyEmail: <[email protected]>
Ban, Yifang, Department of Urban Planning & Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Tel: + 46 8 790 8648 Email:[email protected]
Petter PILESJO Lund UniversityE-mail: [email protected]
16 2391 Enhancement of Gender Focused Research Capacity Building of Women in Leadership and Gender Mainstreaming in Higher Education in Uganda, Nr. 2391-Uganda
Consolata KabonesaSchool of Women and Gender StudiesMakerere [email protected]@gmail.com
Margareta EsplingUnit of Human GeographyDepartment of Economy and SocietyUniversity of [email protected]
104
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
5.8 References
5.9 NAMES OF OFFICERS/RESPONDENTS INTERVIEWED
1) Standard Operating Procedures (SoP) for Mak-Sida Research Collaboration Program 2015-20202) Mak DRGT 2015, Makerere-Sweden Bilateral Research Program (2015-2020), Program Beneficiaries: Postdocs, PhD and Masters Students3) Ministry of Education and Sports, 2017. Education And Sports Sector Strategic Plan 2017/18 - 2019/20204) Ministry of Education and Sports, 2017. Ministry Annual Sector Report 2016/20175) Makerere University, 2009. Makerere University strategic plan 2008/2009 to 2018/20196) Busitema University, 2015. Busitema University Strategic Plan. 2014/2015 – 2018/197) MUST, June 2013. Mbarara University of Science and Technology. Strategic Plan For. Research, Innovations &. Uptake. (2013-2022). 8) Kyambogo University, 2013. Kyambogo University Strategic Plan 2012/13-2022/239) Makerere University Visitation Committee 2016. Makerere University Visitation Committee Report 201610) Prof. Benon Basheka 2015. The state of higher Education training in Uganda 2013/201411) Prof. A.B.K. Kasozi, 2017. The National Council for Higher Education and the Growth of the University Sub-sector in Uganda, 2002-201212) The National Planning Authority. Uganda Vision 2040 13) PPU MoU’s 14) Intellectual Property Management Policy. March 2008. 15) Makerere University Full proposal for Uganda-Swedish Research Cooperation 2015-202016) Quality Assurance Policy Framework, April 200717) University Research Agenda, December 2013
105
Names Role Organisation Education Programme
Oyo Benedict Coordinator Gulu University NIL
Dr. Christine Oryema Director Institute of Research and Graduate Studies
Gulu University NIL
Alice Akello Omara Student Gulu University Masters
Owot Godfrey Studen Gulu University PhD
Beatrice Anena Student Gulu University Masters
Agness Atalo Oliver Student Gulu University Masters
Samuel Baker KUCEL Deputy Vice Chancellor
Busitema University NIL
Coordinator Busitema University NIL
Joseph Luyimba Student Busitema University Masters
Ariokot Eseza Student Busitema University Masters
Karurungi Peace Student Busitema University Masters
Dr. Vincent Ssembatya Director Quality Assurance, Mak
Makerere University NIL
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
Nestor Mugabe Coordinator Makerere University, DRGT
NIL
Accountant Makerere University, DRGT
Professor Buyinza Mukadasi
Project Leader Makerere University, DRGT
NIL
Prof. William Bazeyo Deputy Vice Chancellor, AG VC
Makerere University NIL
Prof Gilbert Maiga Makerere University Makerere University
Prof. Andrew Ellias State
Makerere University Makerere University
Prof. Nixon Kamukama DVC MUST
Prof. Vicent Batwala Director-DGRT MUST
Prof. Victor Okang Busitema University
Dr. Benon Oya Gulu University
In charge of material science Programme
Selected Masters students from MUST (FGD)Selected PhD studentsSwedish PartnersSwedish Embassy (FGD)PIs through survey instrumentMembers of PIC through survey instrumentProject coordination staffParticipants of APR meeting
106
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
5.10 TERMS OF REFERENCE AND WORKPLAN
1. Review Purpose
Pursuant to article 12 (Section 12.3) of the specific Agreement on Research Collaboration between Sweden and Makerere University during the period 3rd November 2015 – 30th June 2020 between The Uganda state owned Makerere University (“Mak”) and Sida, represented in Uganda by the Embassy of Sweden in Kampala, Makerere University shall undertake an internal Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the program in the last quarter of 2017 (postponed to Feb. 2018), including an assessment of academic quality and management of local PhD training, management of cross-cutting courses; the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities based on the guidelines developed (Article 11.5); and an ‘Exit Strategy’ foreseeing the phasing out of Swedish funding to research collaboration.
The review should consider the plans by the Ugandan Public Universities to sustain what has been achieved and clearly state their strategy to ensure enhanced Government funding as well as methods to continue sucessful partnerships beyond Sida funding in 2020. The MTR should cover the period of November 2015 to February 2018. The review shall provide an independent view on the bilateral research support to five Ugandan public universities. The purpose of the review is to assess progress and make realistic recommendations, regarding outputs (e.g. Trained PhD’s etc.), outcomes, (e.g. use of research results etc) and other internal management control systems. The review will thus provide information regarding the effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and efficiency of the research cooperation.
2. Background
The Government of Sweden, represented by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) at the Embassy of Sweden in Uganda, and the Government of Uganda, represented by the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoF) entered into a mutual agreement to implement the Sweden-Uganda Research Collaboration programme 1st November 2015 - 30th June 2020. The point of departure is the overall objectives of the Strategy for research cooperation and research of relevance in development cooperation 2015-2021 “to strengthen research of high quality and of relevance to poverty reduction and sustainable development, with a focus on low-income countries”. In addition, the objectives of the Strategy for Sweden´s development cooperation with Uganda 2014-2018, in particular Synergies with research collaboration should be sought in order to promote knowledge and innovation within all result areas.In accordance with the Agreement, Sweden shall provide 275 000 000 SEK to enable the Ugandan public universities and Swedish partner universities implement their joint research projects including training of 125 PhD students, 147 MA students, and 65 post-doc fellows, divided between the five partner public universities. This graduate training, including institutional support, brings the Swedish contribution to 32 million USD over the five years. The collaboration is directed to support an environment that is conducive for research and research training. The support to individual research projects within project-based research and research-training programs is a tool to achieve this goal.
The main objective of the bilateral research cooperation is to increase the capacity of Makerere and Partner Public Universities to generate knowledge and promote research uptake for national and regional development.
3. Objectives of the Consultancy
The Over-arching objectives of the consultancy are to: 1. An assessment of academic quality and management of local PhD training, management of cross- cutting courses; and the program partnership with Ugandan regional universities. 2. Assess results at the outcome level with focus on changes in research capacity and the enabling environment during the period November 2015 – February 2018.3. Make an overall analysis of the research cooperation in relation to its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability.
107
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
4. Make an assessment of the level of institutional preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human and physical), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme beyond 2020.
The MTR shall also make an overall analysis of the research cooperation in relation to its effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and sustainability. The MTR is intended to make an assessment of the level of institutional preparedness, capacity in terms of resources (human and physical), mechanisms, policies and structures to continue implementing the research programme after the Swedish funds comes to an end in 2020. The specific recommendation(s) will enable Makerere and its Partner Public Universities to plan for an Exit Strategy after 2020.
A. General
1. Given the present institutional context in which the bilateral research cooperation program operates, describe and analyse, at a general level, changes in the research and research environment especially with regard to multi-disciplinary approach that have occurred and how the research cooperation program between Sweden and Uganda has contributed to that change.
B. Relevance
2. Analyse and describe the relevance of the programme in relation to other programmes that focuses of strengthening research capacity at the five partner universities including Makerere University, Gulu University, Busitema University, Kyambogo University and Mbarara University of Science and Technology including funding from other donors.
C. Scientific quality
3. What are the quantity of research results obtained, in terms of publications in international and national scientific journals and presentations at international conferences?
4. Do the universities have sufficient quality assurance mechanisms? How do the different universities follow up the students’ academic and research performance?
5. Have the research groups adopted the multi-disciplinary approach in their research activities, curriculum review and training?
6. To what extent has the research cooperation impacted on academic quality within the local PhD programmes at the partner universities.
7. What is the assessed scientific quality of local PhD programs with regard to coursework, produced research and supervision?
D. Efficiency
8. Comment on the issues around the sandwich and local PhD training.9. Comment on the multidisciplinary method in view of the achievements and challenges faced? What
has worked well and what has not worked well with the multi-disciplinary approach? How can implementation be improved?
E. Effectiveness
10. Assess in particular the quality and effectiveness of the crosscutting PhD courses.11. Assess the supervision within the program, both regarding the quality, availability and commitment of
the Ugandan and Swedish supervisors.12. Procurement procedures are a key function within the program. Are these working efficiently at Mak
and how have these procedures affected the program? How can procedures be improved?13. How has the disbursement of funds affected the effectiveness of the program? From Sweden to Mak,
108
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
and from Mak coordination office to the projects.14. How has the gender policies adopted by partner universities been implemented and followed up by
the Gender guidelines in the program?15. Describe changes in the partner universities ‘strategies and priorities for research and research
training, and ways in which the research cooperation has contributed to improving the strategic environment for research.
F. Effect
16. Assess to what extent the programme has contributed to improved research capacity at the Uganda partner universities. In which specific fields? To what extent?
17. Are there any indications that the research program will ultimately have impact on policy, collaboration with ministries, industry and civil society? Give examples.
18. Have the supervision capacity, skills and competency at the partner universities improved? Has any change detected been institutionalised beyond the Swedish program. If so how?
19. What impact have the research program had on the Swedish partner universities? Could they have been more incorporated within the program or used in a different way?
20. How has the program increased capacity to formulate research problems and proposals? Propose future possible changes.
G. Sustainability
21. Generally, to what extent can the results of the current program (both in terms of research capacity and institutional changes) aiming to create an enabling environment be sustained? (Specifically in relation to Institutional support to Library, ICT, GIS, DSS and research management). In addition to what extent have regional (Africa) and international long- term research collaboration been established as direct or indirect result of the Program?
22. Assess the sustainability of research and research training at the partner universities when the Swedish research cooperation program supported by Sida ends. What is the current plan for sustainability in research capacity building when support ends?
23. Assess the disbursement performance and compare/match the rate of disbursement with outputs or activities achieved, resource mobilization efforts and long-term sustainability.
24. To what extent have regional and international research collaborations been established? 25. To what extent are the synergies between the research results and the result areas in the Result strategy
for Sweden’s International Development Cooperation with Uganda 2014 – 2020? 26. In what areas do partner universities have the preconditions, e.g. critical mass of supervisors, courses,
and infrastructure and management capacity to continue with the local PhD training?27. Assess the efficiency in coordinating the program during the review period. Has Mak worked in a
sustainable way, when coordinating the research teams? Assess effectiveness of decision-making.28. What are the main bottlenecks for development of research capacity within the partner universities
such as ICT, personnel and welfare issues, procurement, etc.?
4. Recommendation(s) and lesson(s) learnt for the future
The MTR shall provide recommendations including guidelines for an exit strategy foreseeing the phasing out of Swedish funding to research cooperation in 2020.Recommendations shall address the following questions: • How can the present research cooperation with Uganda be improved and made more efficient with regard to overall goals, research management, program coordination, and scientific goals? • How can the research cooperation’s contribution to viable and sustainable research environments be further improved? • How can the Swedish partner universities be used further in an innovative and sustainable way within the program?
109
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
• How can Sweden/Uganda cooperate in the improvement of quality of supervision of PhD students? • How could the system for quality control of the local PhD training programs be improved? • Should the crosscutting PhD courses continue in the current set up and comment on the existence of sustainable funding mechanisms for the courses? • How can the Demographic Surveillance Site’s future be secured in a sustainable way? What should the role of Sweden as a donor be – if any? What efforts have been/are going to be made to make the DSS research Facility/resource known to the Ugandan Government in order to assess funds from the appropriate ministry? • What risks does the Review Team foresee in the research cooperation and how can these be mitigated?
5. Methodology
The assignment shall be performed through, but not limited to, document review and analysis, review of project reports, interviews with implementers and beneficiaries and another method deemed appropriate by the consultant in consultation with the project team leadership, supervisors, researchers, PhD and master students, academic staff. The methodology used shall be described and annexed to the final report. All conclusions should be supported by data, and if not, it should be stated that the conclusions are based on the opinions of the authors.
6. Work plan and schedule
The assignment will be implemented over a period not exceeding ten weeks. The assignment is expected to start on 5th April 2018 and end on 22nd May 2018.
Activity Period / Point in time Whom
Preparation of ToRs 30th Nov 2017 DRGT
Advertising the Consultancy services
15th Dec 2017 DRGT
Submission of the Consultant’s proposal
Friday 5th January, 2018 DRGT
Contracting of Consultant 21st March 2018 DRGT
Inception meeting with Mak 6th April 2018 DRGT & Consultant
Assessment (survey, visit to Partner Universities, interviews, document review and analysis)
16th - 2018-27th April 2018 Consultant
Submission of draft report (electronic)
11th May 2018 Consultant
Presentation of Report to DRGT & Embassy
15th May 2018 Consultant
Submission of Final Report to DRGT & Embassy (Electronic)
22nd May 2018 Consultant
100
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T
NB: • The Consultant will interact with the Swedish Collaborators during the Annual Planning Meetings due from Monday 23rd April – 27th April, 2018.• The Consultant will present preliminary findings and observations during the wrap-up meeting on Friday 27th April 2018.
8. Reporting /Deliverables
5.11 The following outputs shall be delivered by the Consulting Team:
• Inception report • Draft MTR report • Final MTR report
The draft report should be submitted electronically to the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training, Makerere University and the Embassy of Sweden, Kampala on 23rd March 2017. The draft report shall be presented and discussed at the Mak-Embassy Consultative Committee meeting for their feedback and input, on 27th March 2018. The final reports shall be submitted to the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training, Makerere University and the Swedish Embassy, Kampala, not later than 3rd April 2018, in electronic form in Microsoft Word for Windows and should be presented in a way that enables publication without further editing. The report will be presented during the Annual Planning Meeting on 23rd April 2018.
Reporting requirements: • The report shall be in English and not exceed 50 pages, excluding annexes. • The reports shall contain a list of persons interviewed during the review, detailing their names, positions and affiliations. • The report shall contain an Executive Summary, which shall provide an overview of the report highlighting the main conclusions and recommendations.
9. Desired attributes of the Consultant
The Consultant must include a Team Leader and other persons with: • Knowledge of higher education contexts in Uganda • Knowledge of sustainable research capacity building • Knowledge of research management/institution building • Knowledge of gender policy and gender mainstreaming issues • Knowledge of multi-disiclinary research programming in practice
10. Application process
The following documents should be submitted as part of the application: i. A cover letter outlining the applicant’s motivation and summarizing their relevant experience. ii. Applicants’ summary of relevant experience should include: o A description of experience and proven capacity to conduct an evaluation of a large research training programme in the last five years, with names and contacts of the clients. o Experience in qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis, and report writing. o A technical proposal showing the applicant’s understanding of the assignment and how they plan to carry it out. o A financial proposal detailing the cost of carrying out the assignment. o A proposed work plan for carrying out the assignment. o Contact details for at least three independent referees with in-depth and proven knowledge of the applicant’s expertise and relevant work experience.
5.11 The following outputs shall be delivered by the Consulting Team:
111
M a k – S i d a R E S E A R C H CO L L A B O R AT I O N P R O G R A M 2 0 1 5 - 2 0 2 0 M I D -T E R M E VA LUAT I O N R E P O R T