Evaluation of strategies for building a research culture--an empirical case study at an African university.

There were some differences between the two surveys in response to questions about attitude to research at the University of Botswana (U.B.) (Table 1). A total of 80% (69%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that research is encouraged at U.B. Only 9% (16%) disagreed.

In the second survey, 44% of respondents (35%) agreed with the statement that "the U.B. research administration assists me to do research," while 21% (36%) disagreed. On the other hand, Financial Services were viewed slightly less favourably: 33% (38%) agreed that "U.B. financial services assist me to do research" while 25% (29%) disagreed.

Responses to both surveys concurred with the statement that "In my department, research activities are encouraged and supported," as 74% (69%) agreed or strongly agreed and only 7% (16%) disagreed. Most people felt that consultancies should not be discouraged. The statement "Consultancies should be discouraged for the good of U.B. as a whole" was only supported by 15% (13%) while 68% (71%) disagreed. Nearly all respondents--96% (91%) felt that, to meet its obligation to society, U.B. should do more research; only 2% (3%) disagreed.

Slightly more respondents to the second survey felt that there had been a positive change in attitude among colleagues in favour of doing more research in the previous 12 months: 46% (39%) agreed and 17% (19%) disagreed. At a personal level, there was also a slight increase in enthusiasm. "I am more enthusiastic now about doing research than I was 12 months ago" was supported by 44% (37%), while 26% (25%) disagreed.

Sources of Information about Research Activities

In a separate question introduced in the second survey, respondents were asked to indicate their main sources of information on research matters. Seventy-two percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that the U.B. e-mail group was where they had learned a great deal about research activities. Only 12% disagreed. In order of priority, the other sources of information favoured by respondents were: research seminars (58% agreed, 13% disagreed); other staff members (49% agreed, 21% disagreed); research mail group (46% versus 19%); presentations and research meetings (45% versus 29%). In all, 34% found the Community of Science database very helpful in identifying possible sources of funds while 13% did not, It is therefore clear that the Office of Research and Development should continue to provide information through all these outlets, and that more effort should go into alerting staff about the research funding databases.

Knowledge of Research Policy and Awards

The number of staff who were aware of the research policy--82% (60%)--showed a significant increase in the second questionnaire; only 18% (40%) were not aware. Seventy- one percent (45%) of respondents were also more aware of research awards to individual researchers.

Reasons for Undertaking Research

Results were generally similar for the two surveys: 89% of staff always or almost always did research because it helped their careers and 86% enjoyed doing research. Doing research to be known as a good researcher always or almost always applied to 68% (58%) of respondents.

Interestingly, financial incentives were not seen as a main reason for doing research. Only 13% (14%) always or almost always did research for financial incentives whereas 56% (63%) indicated that they rarely or never did research for this reason. Similarly, the departmental requirement on the staff member to do research was not a major factor: only 23% (16%) always or almost always did research for this reason, whereas 60% (65%) rarely or never did.

Demand for Funding

Just under half of the respondents planned to seek internal research funding within the next 12 months: 49% (48%) would seek support, while 15% (21%) were not sure and 36% (30%) would not. Of these, 46% (37%) indicated they already had funds, while 37% (27%) said funds were not needed. Only 3% (7%) were not interested. Forty-seven percent (43%) of respondents would seek external research funding, 22% (31%) were unsure, and 31% (26%) would not. Of the latter, only 3% (7%) were not interested, while 17% (34%) already had funds and 42% (25%) did not need external funds for their research. When asked in the second survey to identify obstacles to seeking funds, 17% cited lack of experience in writing proposals, 3% noted fear of rejection, 3% cited lack of previous success, and 9% did not know where to get information on funding.

Interestingly 59% (52%) of respondents indicated they were doing research that did not require funding; 44% (42%) were undertaking research funded by the university, while 29% in both surveys were undertaking externally funded research. Only 8% (15%) indicated they were not undertaking research.

Incentives to do Research

In both surveys, a large proportion of staff--79% (85%)--reported that being given time to do research would be an incentive. Promotion was second (61% in both surveys). Cash provided an incentive to only 32% (34%), and special commendations motivated only 29% (47%) of respondents. Receiving training in research management (an option only in survey 2) was an incentive for 32%.

Constraints

When staff were conducting research, several factors were identified as constraints or difficulties. Thirty-eight percent (46%) identified financial limitations as always or almost always a constraint, while only 18% (16%) said they were rarely or never a constraint. In the first survey, responses about other factors (availability of personnel, financial administration, support and encouragement, or equipment) were all evenly divided between those who felt they were almost always a constraint and those who felt they were not, and in all cases the number of responses either way was between 32% and 37 %. In the second survey slightly fewer staff indicated the following as constraints: availability of personnel, 26% (35%); administration, 23% (32%); and equipment, 28% (37%). Support and encouragement were constraints for 33% (35%), and not a constraint for 38% (37%), suggesting little change between the two surveys.

When staff were not undertaking research, lack of time was identified as always or almost always a reason for 65% (61%), while only 8% (11%) felt this was rarely a constraint. Lack of incentives constrained 32% (36%), but was not a problem for 42% (40%). Only 4% (13%) of staff felt constrained because their head of department was not supportive, compared to 84% (76%) who felt this was not a constraint. In the second survey, no one felt that lack of interest in doing research was a constraint; 7% in the first survey did. In additional questions in the second survey, 69% of staff felt always or almost always constrained by too much teaching, 49% by too many meetings, and 42% by lack of research assistants.

Not all respondents answered every question on constraints. However, each question identifying a possible constraint was answered by between 50% and 90% of the respondents in both surveys, with time being the most often answered, and lack of interest the least.

The study of compliance with research policy showed that, while only a very small number of policy statements had been fully implemented, an equally small number had not been undertaken at all. The mean score was 40% compliance.

Discussion

There was a steady improvement in the opinions of staff about research support, and, despite the pressures of increased teaching loads and financial constraints, there was an improvement in the attitude of staff towards doing research.

The increased number of internal research proposals shows that the new system has encouraged staff to seek funding. However, there has been only a small increase over the study period in the intention to seek internal or external funding. It is also worth noting that, while almost half the respondents to both surveys said they intended to seek funding, only 50 to 60 applications were received. Thus, intention did not always translate into action.

The slight difference between the two surveys in response to the question of whether there were sufficient incentives to do research suggests that incentives are not yet convincing to inactive staff. On the other hand, staff were clearly more aware of the research policies and incentives, indicating that the methods used to promote these were having an effect.

The reasons given for engaging in research should be treated with caution. Although the results suggest that financial incentives are not a significant factor, this may not be accurate; in internal meetings it has been suggested that this result was largely due to a sense that this would be an "inappropriate" response to the question. Alternatively, the high level of negative responses suggests that financial rewards could be less important to staff than both management and academics assume in general conversation.

The high level of unfunded research reported suggests that financial indicators should not be considered the sole gauge of research activity. This may be related to the specific research discipline. However, it is also possible that staff could be undertaking both funded and unfunded projects at the same time, or the unfunded projects could be minor studies undertaken on an irregular basis, Nevertheless, it is clear that unfunded research activity should not be ignored altogether.

It is also clear that time is felt to be a major constraint on research activity. Staff believe they would be able to undertake more research if they had fewer teaching responsibilities.