Sida’s global research programmes

2Section 2: ORGANISATION

International Science Programme

Uppsala University

P. O. Box 549

SE-751 21 UPPSALA

SWEDEN

Visiting address: Ångström Laboratory, Lägerhyddsvägen 1 (Polacksbacken), Uppsala

Phone: [phone] | Fax: [phone]

Email: [e-mail]

Internet: www.isp.uu.se

Sida Agreement: Contribution ID 54100006

3Section 3: Objectives, operation and relevance

3.1 ISP’s Objectives

To contribute to the development of active and sustainable environments for higher education and scientific research in developing countries, within chemistry, mathematics, and physics, with the ultimate goal to increase the production and use of results relevant for the fight against poverty by researchers in the basic sciences in developing countries.
According to ISP’s Strategic Plan 2013-2017:¹

ISP contributes to the creation of new knowledge to address development challenges.

The ISP vision is to efficiently contribute to a significant growth of scientific knowledge in low-income countries, thereby promoting social and economic wealth in those countries, and, by developing human resources, in the world as a whole.

In support of this vision, the overall goal of ISP is to contribute to the strengthening of scientific research and postgraduate education within the basic sciences, and to promote its use to address development challenges.

ISP therefore has the general objective to strengthen the domestic capacity for scientific research and postgraduate education, by long-term support to research groups and scientific networks in these fields.

The expected outcome for supported partners in low-income countries is scientifically stronger, more resourceful research environments, better qualified postgraduates, and the increased production and use of high quality scientific research results,

The expected outcome for collaborating hosts to ISP-supported partners is an expanded global perspective, an enhanced awareness and knowledge of the potentials, conditions, and relevant issues of research collaboration with low-income countries, and an increased collaboration with scientists in those countries.

To achieve its general objective, ISP defines three specific objectives, to be achieved on the level of the supported collaboration partners:

1. 
   Better planning of, and improved conditions for carrying out, scientific research and postgraduate training.
   
2. 
   Increased production of high quality research results.
   
3. 
   Increased use by society of research results and of graduates in development.
   

These objectives constitute the basis for ISP’s logical framework in the results based management (RBM) system introduced in 2013. The program logic, first published in ISP’s Strategic Plan 2013-2017, was refined in November 2013 and the current version was given in the ISP Annual Report 2013. In 2014, the monitoring and evaluation system continued to be developed correspondingly, and the data sources for the performance indicators were reviewed.

3.2 ISP’s Method of Operation

ISP provides support for the development of active, productive, and sustainable research and higher education in the basic sciences physics, chemistry, and mathematics in low-income countries. The support is collaborative and long-term, and is managed on a collegial scientist-to-scientist level with a strong local ownership. Support is provided to institutionally based research groups, and to scientific networks to facilitates cooperation and sharing of resources. The work is carried out in close cooperation with research groups at more resourceful host institutions. The program is maintained by Uppsala University, but ISP functions as a truly international program. Host institutions may be located at other Swedish universities, in other Nordic and European countries, and in the regions. This is to meet the requests from developing countries on their own terms. ISP also handles other research programs, organized by Sida.

The operation of ISP is regulated in an ordinance established by the Swedish government in 1988 (UHÄ-FS 1988:18; SFS 1992:815), through the then Office of Universities and Higher Education (Universitets- och högskoleämbetet; UHÄ).

Dr. Sopha Keoinpeng, staff member of the ISP-supported chemistry group at National University of Laos, in the ISP-facilited research laboratory. (Courtesy of ISP)

3.3 Relevance of ISP Support for Development

In 2014, the British Department for International Development (DFID) published a review,² attempting to appraise and summarise the evidence regarding the developmental impacts of publicly funded investment in research. In the review, it is observed that governments and other international donors are increasing their funding to research based on four assumptions on how research will contribute to development:

1. 
   Investment in research will drive economic growth
   
2. 
   Investment in research will increase human capital
   
3. 
   Investment in research will lead to the development of pro-poor products and technologies
   
4. 
   Investment in research will provide evidence to inform policies and practice
   

In all areas the reviewers find evidence of positive impact of investment in research, but they find less support for assumptions mainly regarding economic growth.

Economic growth. Although it is found that it is unlikely that investment in research will lead to substantial levels of direct commercialization and that new innovations is unlikely to be a vital driver of growth in low-income countries, the review accounts for evidence that informal academic engagement with industry, in terms of, for instance, research collaboration, contract research, and networking, may be more economically important than the commercialization itself. The review also point to that the absorptive capacity of the industry will be a vital driver of growth and that interventions targeting to increase this absorptive capacity in terms of strengthening tertiary education are likely to have large impact. In addition, the reviewers conclude that public investment in research is a crucial contributor to the private sector absorptive capacity, since it is related to the building up of human capital.
Human capital. On the negative side, evidence from high-income countries suggests that there is almost no link between research quality and the quality of teaching, which is an assumption that many governments and donor agencies and organisations make. Little evidence is also found for the creation of critical thinking through research capacity building programs, mainly due to the fact that it is hard to overcome this on the tertiary level when little critical thinking has been included during the previous years in school.
There are, however, positive effects with respect to human capital. The reviewers find evidence that research capacity building will create individuals with deep understanding. These experts may go on to draw on their expertise to contribute to socioeconomic development, or go to work within policy-making institutions.
The review also points to that there is no best practice for research capacity building programs but that the strongest evidence available are guidelines found in the literature based on experiences of effective capacity building programs. Several of the points listed are consistent with ISP’s mode of operation; e.g. long term support, ownership of programs, and understanding the context.
Guidelines for effective research capacity building, as compiled by the reviewers

• 
  Implementers need to understand the context and in particular what capacity exists and what capacity needs are priorities.
  
• 
  It is important that local actors have ownership of capacity building program.
  
• 
  Since capacity building is about learning, implementers need to make sure those who are delivering the program are able to effectively facilitate learning. In some cases they need to build capacity to build capacity.
  
• 
  Implementers need to think broadly about individual capacities. Good capacity-building it is not just about imparting new knowledge and skills but supporting people to become adaptive, self-driven learners.
  
• 
  It is important to select participants who have the necessary base level of skills to benefit from the capacity building; are motivated to develop and will have the opportunity to put their new learning into use.
  
• 
  It is important to consider whether and how capacity can be built at organizational and environmental level as well. In particular, consider whether individuals have viable career structures, which will allow them to make use of their skills.
  
• 
  Organizational level research capacity building programs may need to include strand focusing on support structures including finance and management.
  
• 
  Making use of local networks and partnerships can improve sustainability.
  
• 
  Capacity building efforts need to be long-term but it is also important for implementers to plan for ‘withdrawal’ from the outset.
  
• 
  A clear monitoring and evaluation procedure, built in from the outset, will enable implementers to check if capacity is ‘being built’ and adapt plans if it is not.
  

Pro-poor products and technologies. Here, the review findings are mainly positive. There are many examples of new products and technologies developed through publically funded research, which have had direct positive impact on poor people. The reviewers find that Public Private Partnerships as well as Product Development Partnerships are found to be effective mechanisms for development of products and technologies. The reviewers find some evidence that low- and middle-income countries may be best fit to develop solutions, which respond to the particular challenges they encounter locally.
Evidenced informed policy and practices. The reviewers find that knowledge generated from public investment in research can and does feed into policy and practice decisions. It is stressed that there is a multitude of documented examples of research evidence influencing decisions on specific interventions. There is also evidence that research can influence decision makers understanding of context, which in turn can have significant impacts on policy and programs.
On the negative side however, the pathways in which evidence informs policy are often indirect and difficult to track. The reviewers conclude that funders who wish to fund research to improve ‘evidence-informed policy’ need to be realistic in that direct, attributable policy impacts are relatively rare. Scientific evidence can and does, however, make important contributions to how decision makers frame issues and select interventions that have higher chance of success. The reviewers also find that the capacity to access, evaluate and use research evidence amongst low-income country policy makers is low. Policy makers and practitioners in low-income countries often lack the necessary skills to understand and to use research evidence, which is a major barrier to evidence informed policy and practice.
Over the later years, ISP has continued to improve its monitoring and evaluation system, and intensified its efforts to systematically record – in addition to scientific results, graduations and dessimination – also evidence of use of research results, and of influence on policy and practices, including by serving in government committees and in ministries. Several examples of such records can be found in this annual report.