Progress Report April 2014

Progress Report: ResearchGrantsonInnovative
ApplicationofICTsinAddressingWater‐
relatedImpactsofClimateChange Prepared by Wanjiku Nganga, Ph.D. School of Computing & Informatics, University of Nairobi [email protected] Nairobi, Kenya April 2014 1 | P a g e Executive Summary This report presents the findings and recommendations of a progress monitoring and evaluation survey of the Research Grants on Innovative Application of ICTs in Addressing Water‐related Impacts of Climate ChangeProject funded by IDRC and hosted at the University of Nairobi, Kenya. The project’s main programmatic objective is to build research capacity in different aspects of ICTs, climate change and water. The project aims to do this by awarding research grants to PhD and Masters students studying in selected universities in Africa, Asia and Latin America, thereby enabling them to carry out their field work activities. The Project has sponsored 15 PhD and 16 Masters students across the three regions. The key outcomes anticipated at the end of the project include increased capacity in the host universities to train and conduct research on climate change and water sciences and the role of ICTs; increased knowledge on issues related to ICTs and climate change, water and adaptation by graduates of the selected Universities; increased number of joint research on climate change and water science and ICTs across the three regions; improved research and analytical skills after the initial training, andimproved employment opportunities for the grantees that graduate successfully. Further, the key indicators of change to be evaluated include the number and quality of Masters graduates who successfully complete their programs; doctoral research projects successfully carried out; acceptance of publications in refereed conferences and journals; the number of doctoral research award holders who get their Ph.D. degrees a few years on; the institutionalisation of ICT and climate change and water research in the host universities, and the promotion of inter‐regional collaboration amongst interested institutions. To develop the research capacity of the grantees, the project aims to provide technical support to the grantees by organizing a research methodology and scientific writing and communication training workshop at the beginning of the awards offer to enhance the awardees’ research and writing skills. The project also seeks to facilitate supervision and mentorship of the grantees by linking them with academic supervisors. Further, the project seeks to establish a vibrant inter and intra regional research network bringing together researchers from the three regions who are working in the area of ICT and water‐related impacts of climate change. The purpose of the progress monitoring and evaluation survey was to empirically establish how the project is performing with respect to its set objectives. This evaluation uses the research capacity baseline status that was established during the earlier phase of the project to measure the extent to which the project is continuing to develop research capacity in ICTCCW at the individual, institutional and network level. Findings and Recommendations for Project Implementation The progress survey shows that the project is on course to meet its programmatic objectives. In particular, the Masters grantees have faired quite well, with 7 out of the 13 grantees (54%) having successfully completed their studies and graduated. This achievement not only impacts on the RCB status of the individual grantees, but also of their institutions and regions as they now constitute additional research capacity and expertise in the ICTCCW domain. However, the PhD RCB process 2 | P a g e needs to be stepped up so that the PhD grantees undertake the full range of RCB activities with a view to developing all‐rounded researchers and practitioners. As it stands now, the large majority of the PhD grantees have only participated in traditional research dissemination but have not given much attention to other RCB activities such as teaching, mentorship, supervision, community outreach or ‘close to practice’ research. The project has also made a major accomplishment by signing two inter‐regional MoUs that lay the foundation for inter‐regional research collaboration and knowledge exchange across the three regions. 3 | P a g e TableofContents
LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. 6 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.0 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 7 1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.3 PURPOSE OF CONTINUOUS PROGRESS MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................... 8 2.0 EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODS ............................................................................. 8 2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING RCB .............................................................................. 8 2.2 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection ............................................................................................ 9 2.3.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation ........................................................................................... 10 3.0 PROGRESS EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 11 3.1 RESEARCH CAPACITY AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL ................................................................................ 11 3.1.1 Skills and Confidence Building .......................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 ‘Close to Practice’ Research .............................................................................................. 12 3.1.3 Development of Linkages and Collaborations .................................................................. 14 3.1.4 Appropriate Dissemination ............................................................................................... 14 3.2 RESEARCH CAPACITY AT THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL ............................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Sustainability and Continuity ............................................................................................ 16 3.3 RESEARCH CAPACITY AT THE NETWORK LEVEL .................................................................................. 16 3.3.1 Existence of inter/intra regional Research Linkages and Collaborations ......................... 17 3.3.2 Appropriate Dissemination ............................................................................................... 17 4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................. 19 4.1 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 19 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................... 20 5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 21 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX A: LIST OF RESPONDENTS ................................................................................................. 22 APPENDIX B: LIST OF MASTERS GRADUATES ...................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX C: LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 24 APPENDIX D: INDIVIDUAL LEVEL RESEARCH CAPACITY – COMPOSITE EVALUATION .................................... 26 APPENDIX E: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS ................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4 | P a g e ListofAcronyms
CC Climate Change ICT Information and Communication Technology ICT/CCW Innovative application of ICT in addressing water‐related effects of climate change IDRC International Development Research Centre MoU Memorandum of Understanding R&D Research and Development RCB Research Capacity Building SCI School of Computing & Informatics UoN University of Nairobi 5 | P a g e ListofFigures
FIGURE 1: RCB PROGRESS ‐ SKILLS AND CONFIDENCE BUILDING ......................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 2: RCB PROGRESS ‐ 'CLOSE TO PRACTICE' RESEARCH ............................................................................................. 13 FIGURE 3: RCB PROGRESS ‐ DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES AND COLLABORATION ................................................................... 14 FIGURE 4: DIVERSITY OF DISSEMINATION MEDIA .............................................................................................................. 16 FIGURE 5: WEBSITE PAGE VIEWS PER COUNTRY ............................................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 6: INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH CAPACITY RATING ........................................................................................................ 19 ListofTables
TABLE 1: EVALUATION CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................................... 8 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF RESEARCH DISSEMINATION ......................................................................................................... 15 TABLE 3: WEBSITE AND SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... 17 6 | P a g e 1.0 Background 1.1 Description of the Project The Project ‐ Research Grants on Innovative Application of ICTs in Addressing Water‐related Impacts of Climate Change seeks to support research capacity development in the area of climate change (CC), with a specific focus on the innovative application of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to address water‐related impacts of CC. Climate change is considered to be one of the most serious threats to sustainable development, with adverse impacts on all developmental sectors including agriculture. A significant body of evidence points to developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America as the most vulnerable regions to climate change. Most of the economies in these developing nations rely on rain‐fed agriculture, which supports between 70 and 80 per cent of employment and contributes an average of 30 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) and at least 40 per cent of exports.Among many vulnerabilities that are intensified by the effects of climate change, the availability and management of water resources constitute one of the most critical areas of concern for nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. From the provision of basic services and sanitation, to irrigation and food production, ecosystems protection and hydropower generation, water resources are not only crucial for socio‐economic development but also a fundamental dimension of climate change adaptation.Unfortunately, universities in these regions do not have a coordinated mechanism to carry out research in ICT and climate change, which requires the collaboration of experts from various disciplines, as evidenced by the limited research activity and output on the role of ICTs in dealing with the devastating effects of climate change. The Project seeks to address this research capacity gap in these regions by running a research awards program to enable students registered in universities in Africa, Asia and Latin America to carry out research on different aspects of ICTs, climate change and water. The research grant seeks to support a total of 30 students ‐ 15 PhD and 15 Masters – to undertake fieldwork as part of their research study. The overall project duration is 36 months, within which all students, even the PhD grantees, are expected to have completed their fieldwork. The University of Nairobi administers the research grants, which are funded by IDRC. The main objective of the project is thus to strengthen the capacity of registered Masters and PhD students to more effectively engage in research on application of ICTs for water management under changing climatic conditions and the attendant policy formulation. The key expected outcomeis increased human and research capacity in the host universities in the three regions. 1.2 Project Objectives The project seeks to achieve the following objectives: (a)
(b)
Train/support graduate students (Masters and PhD levels) to conduct research on ICTs, climate change and water through research awards; Build institutional applied research capacity on ICTs and climate change adaptation strategies in the water sector in weakly funded postgraduate programs in the various universities in the three regions; and 7 | P a g e (c)
Increase inter‐regional partnerships and collaborations among the participating institutions in this emerging area of applied research. 1.3 Purpose of continuous progress monitoring and evaluation This project has set out clear objectives and expected outcomes which will be assessed at the end of the project’s lifecycle. Periodic monitoring and evaluation during the project’s lifecycle is important so as to assess whether the project remains on track to achieve its end‐term objectives. Progress evalution compares the current RCB status to the baseline status established at the beginning of the project to determine whether progress is being made. Further, it compares the current RCB status to the expected end‐term outcomes given the current stage in the project’s lifecycle to establish whether remedial action needs to be taken to hasten progress, or if the project remains on track. 2.0 Evaluation Approach and Methods 2.1 Conceptual Framework for evaluating RCB This project has been designed to develop individual as well as institutional research capacities in a specific area of ICT4D, and enhance collaboration and partnerships amongst researchers and/or their institutions within the three regions. To enable comparison of the current RCB status to the baseline status, we use the same RCB evaluation framework that was used to measure the baseline – Cooke’s (2005) Research Capacity Building framework. Cooke’s RCB framework identifies and proposes indicators for measuring research capacity development at four structural levels, taking into account six principles of research capacity building. The four structural levels include: the individual, the team, the organization, and the network (supra‐ organizational) support level, while the six principles of capacity building are skills and confidence building, close‐to‐practice research, development of linkages and collaborations, appropriate dissemination, building elements of sustainability and continuity and investments in research infrastructure. Table 1 lists the evaluation criteria 1 which are derived from Cooke’s framework and that will be used to monitor and evaluate project performance to date. Table1: Evaluation Criteria RCB Aspect Individual Criteria Skills and confidence building ‘Close to practice’ research Areas/Indicators
Professional qualifications;
Promotion or change in duties; Acquired research Skills and competencies and how acquired; Evidence of progressive skill development; Evidence of confidence building through sharing new skills with others, applying existing skills in new situations, working with other professional groups in research; Participation in RCB activities; Supervision and mentorship Research uptake evidence (Practice‐oriented outcomes, policy‐oriented outcomes); Significance of research contribution; Community outreach activities; Dissemination in national workshops 1
These criteria form the complete set of indicators that will be used to measure the project’s performance with respect to research capacity building at the end of the project’s lifecycle. 8 | P a g e Development of linkages and collaborations Appropriate dissemination Sustainability and Continuity Institution/R
egion Network Sustainability and Continuity Investments in Research Infrastructure Development of linkages and collaborations Appropriate dissemination No. of collaborative projects or research partnerships;
No. of co‐authored publications; Participation in intra‐regional and extra‐regional/International ICT/CC research networks No. of refereed publications and conference presentations; No. of seminar presentations; No. of national workshops; No. of non‐traditional dissemination activities (blog postings – both project and personal; photo journal; personal stories; newspaper articles; policy briefs; community‐level demonstrations/presentations) Professional enthusiasm; Successful grant and fellowship applications; Research project management skills; Participation in RCB activities; New research/R&D undertakings; No. of successful Masters students; No. of successful PhD students; Number of grantees working in/affiliated to a local university; No. of grantees promoted within their institutions; Nature of RCB activities undertaken by grantees and supervisors Institutionalization of ICT in CC (water) Research in the institution/region Establishment of/participation in intra‐regional networks;
Establishment of/participation in intra‐regional partnerships and collaborations; Number of Joint (intra‐regional) research proposals involving at least grantees and supervisors MoUs signed between UoN and collaborating universities Project Website (update frequency; currency of information; contribution of website content by grantees, supervisors, regional coordinators; access statistics e.g. from Google; backlinks; social media activity) 2.2 Methodology Using the evaluation criteria given in Table 1, we developed a questionnaire that was administered as an online form to the grantees. The original English survey was translated into Spanish to cater for the Latin America respondents, and both versions of the surveys were availed online. Further, for the network level indicators, we analysed the Project website www.ictwcc.or.keand its related social media channels – twitter and Facebook 2 ‐ as it is the nerve centre that links researchers in the three regions in this area of innovative use of ICTs in water‐related impacts of climate change. 2.3.1 Sampling and Data Collection The project awarded 17 masters scholarships and 14 PhD research grants, bringing the total of grantees to thirty‐one (31). We set out to survey all the 31 grantees so as to monitor their progress and comprehensively assess progress towards attaining the project’s objectives. After the data collection period lapsed, we had received 25 responses, yielding a response rate of 81% ‐ 12 PhD grantees (86%)and 13 Masters grantees (77%). 2
The project’s twitter handle is @ictwcc while the Facebook URL is https://www.facebook.com/Ictwcc 9 | P a g e 2.3.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation The data collected was derived based on the indicators and assessment areas given in Table 1. Data provided by the Latin America respondents in Spanish was translated into English prior to the analysis. Data analysis proceeded by grouping all indicators for a given assessment criteria and employing a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis techniques to ascertain the current status of RCB at the individual, institutional and network levels. The findings of the analysis are presented in the next section. By comparing the findings of this survey to the baseline RCB status, this evaluation will ascertain whether the project remains on track to achieve its set objectives, and flag any aspects of RCB that may require intervening remedial action to bring requisite activities back on track, where such need is observed. 10 | P a g e 3.0 Progress Evaluation Findings The core objective of this project is research capacity building in ICT4D, and particularly in the area of innovative application of ICTs in addressing water‐related impacts of climate change. In this section, we evaluate the current status of RCB at the individual, institutional and network levels, and report our findings on the same, organized in line with the assessment criteria given in Table 1. Further, the findings are presented in a way that allows direct comparison with the baseline RCB status. 3.1 Research Capacity at the Individual Level 3.1.1 Skills and Confidence Building
Effective RCB results in acquisition of research skills through training, mentorship and supervision, and researcher confidence, which is built gradually through practical utilisation of the acquired skills. To determine how the grantees are fairing with respect to this RCB aspect during the grant period to date, we looked at the following indicators: i.
ii.
iii.
Professional qualifications: 7 of the 13 Masters grantees(54%) have completed their studies and successfully graduated, receiving their Masters degrees in the domain of ICTCCW. The other grantees are continuing with their studies and research. The list of successful graduates is included in Appendix B. Employment Status:Of the 7Masters grantees who have graduated, we have established that one is working as an environmental consultant, specializing in development practices, watershed management and GIS.Two other graduates are now teaching at a University, with one having been a student prior to receiving the grant – marking a good progression into an ICTCCW research oriented career path, in line with the project’s objectives. Participation in RCB activities: One key outcome of increasing researcher skills and confidence is participation in RCB activities. These activities includetraining, student supervision, mentorship, proposal writing and undertaking new research work, to name a few. To gauge how the grantees are fairing in this RCB aspect, we sought to establish the nature of RCB activities undertaken by the grantees and the frequency of their participation during the grant period that has elapsed. a. Training:3 out of 13 (23%) Masters grantees had taught undergraduate courses at the university level, while only 1 (8%) PhD grantee had taught a course during the grant period. b. Supervision and Mentorship:2 of the 13 Masters grantees (15%), and 5 of the PhD grantees (42%) had supervised undergraduate students for the former, and both undergraduate and masters students for the latter. c. Undertaking new research activities:Here, we establish whether the grantees participated in new research activities such as proposal writing during the grant period. Only 1 out of the 13 Masters grantees, and 1 out of the 12 PhD grantees reported writing a research proposal. The Master’s grantee proposal was titled “Determining the impacts of regional climate change and anthropogenic changes in the ecosystem, to determine the real impact on people and ecosystems in the basin of Rio Zongo”. The PhD grantee’s proposal was targeted at the German Cooperation and was on “Multi‐temporal analysis of land use change based on satellite imagery 11 | P a g e of th
he sub‐Mayaalespara”. It is however n
not known w
whether thesse were subm
mitted or fund
ded. 1 Masters and 1 PhD grantee reported paarticipating iin on‐going research projjects during tthe grant peeriod. It is wo
orth noting that all reporrted activitie
es for this RCB
B aspect weree undertaken
n by grantee
es from the Latin Americaan region. d. Collaboration with w
other researchers and proffessionals:An
nother indicator of nifested thro
ough workin
ng with oth
her professio
onals on conffidence building is man
reseearch projectts. None of the Masterss and only 1 1 PhD granteeereported that t
they were involved in
n a collaborative project. Findingss: Figure 1 su
ummarizes tthe skills and
d confidence
e aspect of R
RCB (as meassured by con
nsidering professional qualificcations and participation
n in RCB acttivities) 3 , and
d compares this to the baseline status. As A the Figurre shows, th
here are more grantees with high skills and con
nfidence in RCB and these arre those who
o successfullyy completed their studie
es. However, the majorityy of the gran
ntees still record low l
levels of o skills and confidence building as they have not actively participated
d in RCB activities such as traaining, menttorship, supervision or research r
collaboration. TThe same is true for D grantees. This scenario is however not alarmingg given that the masterss program du
uration is the PhD
quite sh
hort and grantees would
d largely be concentrating on their individual reesearch. Tho
ough the PhD grantees were primarily co
onducting their fieldworkk during thiss period, it sseems they have h
not dedicateed time to undertake other activiities that co
ontribute to
o their overrall development as research
hers in this fiield. Figure1: R
RCB Progress ‐ SSkills and Confiidence Buildingg Low
Med
High
Masters (Baseline)
Masters (Progress)
PhD (Baseeline) PhD (P
Progress)
3.1.2 ‘ClosetoPrractice’Ressearch
mmunities, researchers r
need to purrposively enggage the For reseearch to havve an impact in the com
commun
nities that would w
benefit from theirr research an
nd disseminaate their findings with a a view to influencce practice an
nd/or policy. This is espeecially true for ICT4D ressearch such aas is the focu
us of this project. We soughtt to establish whether the t granteess had been involved in disseminating their knowled
dge and skillss with practittioners and llocal commu
unities, or en
ngaging with these constiituencies 3
See App
pendix D for the evaluation
n criteria used to determine
e this composite indicator 12 | P a g e ng knowledgge during thee grant perio
od. To evaluaate this facto
or, we consid
dered the with a view to sharin
following indicators:: i.
ii.
Community outreach an
nd awareness activities:None of thee grantees reeported having been unity outreach or sensittization/awareness activvity during the grant involved in any commu
period undeer evaluation
n. For the PhD
D grantees, tthis may not be surprisin
ng given that they are in the early stages of their fieldworkk. However, given that o
over half of tthe Masters grantees dy graduated
d (54%), there should have been some community outrreach or have alread
sensitization
n activities co
onducted based on the findings of th
heir study. Dissemination in national/practitio
oner worksh
hops: 5 of the t Masters grantees presented papers at prractitioner w
workshops th
hat are in line with the IC
CTCCW them
me. These wo
orkshops included thee Africa Clim
mate Confereence held in Arusha, Tan
nzania in Occtober 2013, and the Soil and Waater Assessm
ment Tool Intternational Workshop W
held in Colom
mbia in Augu
ust 2013, and others in Salamancca and Santiago in October 2013. 1 PhD granteee participatted in an expert’s regional meetin
ng in Bangkok, Thailand in October 20
013. Findingss: As depicteed in Figure 2 4 , more off theMasterss grantees have been acctive in this ‘close to practice’ RCB aspectt and dissem
minated their findings att practitioner meetings w
where their research would be b highly relevant to thee audience. This findingg is expected
d since over half of the Masters granteess had completed their sttudies and aas such, were
e in a positio
on to dissem
minate their research findings. The same cannot be said s
for the PhD grante
ees, whoare still in the early stagess of their fieldworrk, and as su
uch may not have concreete findings tthat are read
dy for dissem
mination at this point in their sstudy. Figure2: R
RCB Progress ‐ ''Close to Practiice' Research Low
Med
High
Masters (Baseline)
Masters (Progress)
PhD (Baseeline) PhD (P
Progress)
4
See App
pendix D for the evaluation
n criteria used to determine
e this composite indicator 13 | P a g e 3.1.3 Developme
entofLinka
agesandCo
ollaborations
ps and collab
borations is integral to ccapacity building as it en
nables the exchange, Buildingg partnership
development and enhancementt of research
h skills. Collaaborations and partnersh
hips may invvolve the grantee and other parties succh as otherr ICT4D practitioners and policy m
makers, experienced research
hers e.g. supervisors and renowned sscholars, and
d various pro
ofessional gro
oups and nettworks. For the progress monitoring, m
we sought to establish how activve the gran
ntees have been in hing linkages and particcipating in collaborative
c
projects sin
nce they recceived the grant, g
by establish
measuring the follow
wing indicato
ors: i.
ii.
iii.
Number of collaborativve projects and a research
h partnerships:As reporrted in sectio
on 3.1.1, only 1 PhD ggrantee has ttaken part in
n a collaborattive project ssince receiving the grantt. Number of cco‐authored
d publication
ns:3 of the 13
3 Masters grantees(23%)) and 7 of the 12 PhD grantees (58
8%) had co‐aauthored at least 1 publiccation. Membership
p of intra‐re
egional and/or internattional ICT/C
CC themed rresearch nettworks:7 grantees (3 Masters and
d 4 PhD) joineed ICT/CC th
hemed netwo
orks during tthe grant perriod. Findingss: As shown in Figure 3 5 , not much has changed in comparrison to the baseline staatus with respect to this RCB aspect. A feew granteess have since joined ICT/CC themed networks, extending may translatee into collabo
orative activiities in the fu
uture. networkking opportunities that m
Figure3: R
RCB Progress ‐ D
Development o
of Linkages and
d Collaboration
n Lo
ow
M
Med
H
High
M
Masters (Baseline)
Masters (Progress)
(
PhD (Baseline)
PhD (Progress)
nation
3.1.4 AppropriatteDissemin
widely accep
pted measurre of the imp
pact of RCB eefforts (Bree
en et. al., Approprriate dissemiination is a w
2004). To T monitor how h
well the grantees are fairing on o this aspect, we considered the following f
indicato
ors: 5
See App
pendix D for the evaluation
n criteria used to determine
e this composite indicator 14 | P a g e i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Number of refereed publications and conference presentations ‐ targeting the wider research community. Number of seminar presentations – targeting institutional researchers. Number of targeted workshops (these include national workshops, audience‐specific workshops or presentations etc.) – targeting a less‐academic audience that may include practitioners and policy‐makers. Social media presence and the number of non‐traditional dissemination activities e.g. publicity instruments such as social media, traditional media, Internet etc. – targeting the general public. Table2 summarizes the findings for the first three indicators, which show research dissemination within the academic and practice communities. Both groups have been active with respect to this RCB aspect, with the Masters grantees recording a marked improvement over the previously established baseline. See Appendix C for a full listing of these publications. Table2: Summary of Research Dissemination Dissemination Channel Academic dissertation/theses Books Book Chapters Journal Articles Conference Proceedings Conference Presentations University Seminars Workshops Totals PhD 0 0 0 8 1 2 0 2 13 Masters 6 0 0 4 2 4 2 5 23 Totals 6 0 0 12 3 6 2 7 36 Findings:The research output of the grantees has doubled during the grant period, compared to the baseline status. The Masters grantees have made remarkable progress in this aspect compared to the baseline where they produced only 4 research outputs compared to 23 over the grant period, with 6 of these being their final masters theses. With the exception of books and book chapters, grantees have generated diverse research outputs and participated in a cross‐section of research dissemination fora. However, as shown in Figure 4 6 , grantees have not diversified their dissemination channels and are largely disseminating in academic fora. However, a slight change is noted for the Masters grantees in comparison to the baseline status for this RCB aspect. 6
See Appendix D for the evaluation criteria used to determine this composite indicator 15 | P a g e Figure4: D
Diversity of disssemination me
edia Low
w
Meed Higgh
M
Masters (B
Baseline)
Masters (Progress)
PhD (Baseline)
PhD (Progress)
3.2 Research C
Capacity at the Instittutional Le
evel As Cookke’s framework shows, there is a lot of interaction betweeen the fourr structural levels of capacityy building, with w one leveel possibly im
mpacting on
n the others. A major ou
utcome of in
ndividual RCB is that it impaccts on the in
ndividuals’ in
nstitutionsand regions ass well. In mo
onitoring pro
ogress of oject, we sou
ught to estaablish the co
ontribution of this projeect in develloping experrtise and this pro
research
h capacity in
n ICT and water‐related
w
d aspects off climate change in insttitutions in thethree regions.We considerredthe follow
wingcriterion
n: ntinuity
3.2.1 SustainabilityandCon
Institutio
ons need to
o not only develop d
research capaccity but also
o retain thiss talent with
hin their institutio
ons for con
ntinuity and
d sustainabillity of theirr research activities. TTwo of the Masters graduatees ‐ one of whom was a student prior to recceiving the grant, g
have since been hired as lecturers and are teaching at thee university level, contributing to insstitutional caapacity in the
e field of ICTCCW. It is hoped that the oth
her graduatees, both at the Masters and PhD levvels will be m
mentored and sup
pported apprropriately so
o they can bee retained o
or absorbed within educational and research institutio
ons where th
hey can put ttheir skills an
nd expertise in ICTCCW tto practical u
use. Findingss: The baselin
ne RCB surveey showed th
hat there we
ere very few researchers and initiativves in the area of ICTs and waater‐related impacts of climate c
chan
nge in all thee three regio
ons. The six Masters graduatees produced through this project is ttherefore a ssignificant co
ontribution in
n building caapacity in ICTCCW in the threee regions, especially if they are absorbed in
nto institutio
ons where they t
can ng through reesearch or practice in thiis field. continuee contributin
3.3 Research C
Capacity at the Netw
work Level
One of the objectivves of this Project P
is to develop a strong intra‐regional research collaaboration networkk and link researchers from the diffeerent regions – Africa, A
Asia and Latin America w
with each other w
with the aim of building aa critical maass of expertts in this dom
main, sharin
ng best practtices and experien
nces, and collaborating
c
g in addresssing commo
on societal challenges. In this secttion, we determine the existeence of inter‐regional reesearch collaaboration networks in ICTT/CCW and establish o inter‐regio
onal research collaborattion and network particiipation. We
e use the the currrent status of following criteria to determine the existencee of collaboraative researcch networks:: 16 | P a g e 3.3.1 Existenceofinter/intraregionalResearchLinkagesandCollaborations
i.
Number of MoUs signed between UoN and collaborating universities: Two MoUs have been signed between the University of Nairobi and institutions in other regions. For the Asia region, UoN has signed an MoU with the Asian Management and Development Institute (AMDI) in Hanoi, Vietnam. An MoU has also been signed with the Tropical Agricultural Research and High Education Centre (CATIE) in Costa Rica for the Latin America and Caribbean region. Findings: As determined by the baseline RCB survey, linkages and collaborations in ICT/CCW at the network level – Africa, Asia and Latin America –were largely non‐existent with the exception of this project. The signing of these two inter‐regional MoUs is therefore a major accomplishment that will further strengthen research ties and knowledge exchange between the three regions. It is hoped that more MoUs will be signed, even with Africa‐based institutions, to ensure that the project establishes and continues to strengthen a vibrant network and community of practice that creates opportunities for talent identification, research collaborations and partnerships, and knowledge sharing. Such networks are vital to ensuring that researchers and communities affected by water‐
related impacts of climate change benefit from the collective knowledge and action of such a network. 3.3.2 AppropriateDissemination
The success of any network depends to a large extent on how vibrant the communication is, and how active the members are in sharing and disseminating appropriately targeted communication through the network. Online communication e.g. through a website, provides a cost‐effective way to manage communication through a network. The Project’s website is at the heart of network communication, and we assessed how effective it is as an information exchange and collaboration platform, as measured by the indicators shown in Table 3. Table3: Website and Social Media Engagement Indicator Number of Unique Visitors Number of Visits Number of Page Views Average Page View per Visit Twitter (@ictwcc) Number of Facebook likes Findings (cumulative Figures from June 2013 to February 2014) 10,022 26,537 191,488 7 Since June 2013, 5 tweets, following 5 and 8 followers 275 lifetime likes (unique users) Findings: The project’s website has attracted at least 10,000 unique visitors since June 2013, with an average page view per visit of 7 pages. This implies that the website is effective in drawing interested users and that they do find useful information on the website pages when they visit. It is interesting to note that as shown in Figure 5, the bulk of the traffic to the site originates from the USA, a country that is not a member of the three focus regions. Further, of the top 10 traffic‐
generating countries, 5 do not have any participating universities. This raises a number of issues that would need further analysis – especially in establishing the comparatively low access from partner institutions from the two English speaking regions – Africa and Asia. Also, it is important to note that the bilingual demands of the project – English and Spanish – hinders the effective use of the website and social media platforms to engage grantees, researchers and practitioners from the different 17 | P a g e med dismallyy with respecct to leveragging non‐
regions on the samee platform. TThe project has perform
tradition
nal commun
nication chaannels, speccifically social media fo
or researcheer engagem
ment and knowled
dge sharing, as the Twitteer and Faceb
book data ind
dicate. Figure5: W
Website Page V
Views per counttry USA
Kenya
France
Morocco
China
Phillipiness
Thailand
Vietnam
18 | P a g e 4.0 Summaryy of Resultts and Reccommend
dations 4.1 Summary of Evaluattion Findin
ngs As descrribed in the foregoing seection, we haave evaluate
ed the progress of this Project in line
e with its laid dow
wn objectives, and done an initial co
omparison off the key ind
dicators to th
he baseline that was establish
hed at the b
beginning of the project.. We have used Cooke’s RCB framew
work to meaasure the RCB baseline of this project at th
he individual, Institutionaal and netwo
ork levels. Th
he key findinggs of this baselinee in line with these RCB leevels is brieffly summarized: i)
ndividual levvel, we meassured the current status of research capacity in ICT/CCW At the in
by lookiing at RCB criteria inclu
uding skills and a confidence buildingg, ‘close to practice’ research
h, developm
ment of linkaages and colllaborations and approp
priate dissem
mination. The find
dings of this assessmentt show that there has beeen a modeerate increasse in RCB compareed to the baseline established by a p
previous survvey as evidenced by the increase in reseearch outpu
ut generatio
on and disssemination and slightt improvem
ments in diversification of reesearch disseemination channels – laargely by the Masters grantees. g
Howeveer, there is a a notable dismal performance with respect to participation
n in RCB activities that contrribute to deevelopment of skills and confidencce building. Figure 6 depicts the composite 7 assessm
ment of RCB at the individual level, aand contrastts this to the baseeline status established prior to ad
dministering the ICTCCW
W grants. This Figure shows significant s
prrogress in building the capacity c
of the t Masterss grantees. However, H
there’s not been much m
progreess recorded
d for the Ph
hD granteess, a scenario
o that is o the early sttage focus off their researrch work – fiieldwork – w
which is a attributeed largely to
rather issolated activvity with few
w avenues fo
or collaborattion. It is ho
oped that as the PhD granteess move into
o later stagges of theirr research i.e. i
data an
nalysis, findiings and interpreetation of fin
ndings, theyy will underttake variouss RCB activitties that will further develop
p their researrch capacity as measured
d by the selected indicato
ors. Figure6: Individual Research Capacity R
Rating Low
Meed Higgh
Masters M
(B
Baseline)
ii)
Masters ((Progress)
PhD (Baseline)
PhD (Progress)
The projject has alreeady contribu
uted to build
ding institutio
onal capacityy with the su
uccessful complettion and grad
duation of 54
4% of the Maasters granteees. 7
See App
pendix D for the evaluation
n criteria used to determine
e this composite indicator 19 | P a g e iii)
At the network level, we sought to establish the current status of inter‐regional research and collaboration networks in the three regions and to determine the vibrancy of such networks as evidenced by the number of on‐going inter‐regional collaborative projects. To date, the project has resulted in the signing of two inter‐regional collaboration MoUs, laying the foundation for more collaboration and knowledge exchange opportunities between ICTCCW researchers across the three regions. This is a milestone achievement that should be commended, and efforts should now be geared at exploring concrete collaboration opportunities and pursuing these actively. Our progress evaluation finds that there has been considerable progress made in developing RCB at the individual masters grantee level, the institutional level and the network level. However, strengthening RCB at the PhD level has not recorded as much progress as would have been expected, especially when considering typical doctoral activities such as teaching, supervision, mentorship and research dissemination. The project has however made considerable strides in laying the foundation for inter‐regional network collaboration by establishing an effective web presence and signing formal MoUs with regional partners. Supporting over half (54%) of the Masters grantees to successfully complete their studies and graduate is a major accomplishment of the project to date. Overall, we note that the project remains on track to attain its set objectives. 4.2 Recommendations for Project Implementation In this section, we highlight key recommendations that should be taken into consideration as project implementation continues, with a view to improving attainment of the project’s programmatic goals of building research capacity in ICT/CCW at the individual, institutional and network levels. i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
The PhD grantees need further support and mentorship to enable them participate in varied activities that strengthen research skills and capacity such as training, supervision and mentorship of students, preparation of research proposals and collaborating in research projects. Given that they still have some time before completing their programmes, there is still a window of opportunity to make this happen so that the grantees are well placed to participate in varied RCB activities upon completion. The slow progress with respect to PhD RCB calls for the project lead to ascertain the cause(s) of this slow progress and take remedial action to address any underlying factors that may be contributing to this slow pace. Closer supervision and mentorship of the Masters grantees who are yet to complete needs to be undertaken to ensure that they remain on track to complete their studies as scheduled. More effort has to be placed in leveraging social media and other non‐traditional media for research dissemination as well as fostering a vibrant and collaborative network, and creating global visibility in this space of ICTCCW. Further, exploring other means of advertising the project’s website and increasing traffic to the site from the three participating regions should be done. An effective Grantee tracing tool should be developed and used to keep track of all grantees post‐completion. This tracer activity will support the end‐term evaluation of overall research capacity developed by this project based on the grantees post‐completion activities. 20 | P a g e 5.0 References Breen, C. M., Jaganyi, J. J., Van Wilgen, B. W., and Van Wyk, E. (2004). Research Projects and Capacity Building. Water SA, 30(4):429‐434. Cooke, Jo. (2005). A Framework to Evaluate Research Capacity Building in Health Care. BMC Family Practice. 6 (44) Nganga, W. (2014). Baseline Survey: Research Grants on Innovative Application of ICTs in Addressing Water‐related Impacts of Climate Change. 21 | P a g e Appendices Appendix A: List of Respondents No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Name Rosephy Koskei Mekonnen Adnew Degefu Salé Abou Alemayehu Abate Daniel Murgor Fawzia Tarannum Nympha E. Branzuela Ngo Thanh Son Hua Bai Zenon Porfidio Gomel Apaza Lilliana María Piedra Castro Fernando J Mendoza Jara Manei Naanyu Mekonnen Daba John Ilima Mtisunge Mngoli Nguyen Xuan Hau Dilli Bhattarai Clifford Martinez Fabrizio Elio Uscamayta Espiritu Daniel Yabar Meoño María Carla Morales Ascarrunz Edi Efraín Bámaca López Carlos Zuleta Salmon Gabriel Rodrigues Lopes Role in Project PhD Grantee, Africa PhD Grantee, Africa PhD Grantee, Africa PhD Grantee, Africa PhD Grantee, Africa PhD Grantee, Asia PhD Grantee, Asia PhD Grantee, Asia PhD Grantee, Asia PhD Grantee, Latin America PhD Grantee, Latin America PhD Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Africa Masters Grantee, Africa Masters Grantee, Africa Masters Grantee, Africa Masters Grantee, Asia Masters Grantee, Asia Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America Masters Grantee, Latin America 22 | P a g e Appendix B: List of Masters Graduates No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Name Manei Naanyu Mekonnen Daba Daniel Yabar Meoño Edi Efraín Bámaca López Carlos Zuleta Salmon Clifford Martinez Trang Bui Thi Thu Region Africa Africa Latin America Latin America Latin America Latin America Asia Date of Graduation 06 Dec 2013 15 Nov 2013 ‐‐ 14 Feb 2014 06 Dec 2013 ‐‐ ‐‐ 23 | P a g e Appendix C: List of Publications and Dissemination Activities Implementation of Municipal Protected Areas System, La Paz, design and implementation of climate monitoring network in real time the municipality of La Paz, senior manager, The Nature Conservancy, September, 2012 to August, 2013. Daniel Kipkosgei Murgor, Christopher Kipkoech Saina, and Florence A.C Murgor. Climate Change and Food Security: in Environmental Change and Sustainability, edited by Steven Silverman and Stephen Young, InTech Publishers, May 2013– (ISBN 980‐953‐307‐806‐4). Aryal, S., Bhattarai, D.R., Devkota, R.P., (2013). Comparison of Carbon Stocks Between Mixed and Pine‐Dominated Forest Stands Within the Gwalinidaha Community Forest in Lalitpur District, Nepal. Small‐scale Forestry. 12:659–666.(Link for the publication: http://goo.gl/NmLg9u). Desarrollo Territorial Rural en Brasil y Argentina (2003‐2012).. In: XXIX Congreso Latinoamericano de Sociología, 2013, Santiado de Chile. CR‐ROM XXIX Congreso ALAS Chile. Santiado de Chile, 2013. LOPES, G. R. ; JIMENEZ, C. S. Da crítica ao conceito de desenvolvimento (rural) à construção de uma plataforma alternativa: a experiência das Zonas de Reservas Camponesas da Colômbia. In: VI Simpósio Internacional de Geografia Agrária. VII Simposio Nacional de Geografia Agrária. I Jornada de Geografia das Águas, 2013, João Pessoa. SINGA 2013. João Pessoa, 2013. BAI Hua, ZENG Si‐yu, DONG Xin, CHEN Ji‐ning. Research of Potassium Flow and Circulation Based on Substance Flow Analysis. Environmental Science,34(6):2493‐2496. (in Chinese) Degefu MA., Bewket W. Variability and trends in rainfall amount and extreme event indices in the Omo‐Ghibe River Basin, Ethiopia. Regional Environmental Change. DOI 10.1007/s10113‐013‐0538‐z. 2014. Shawul, A. A., Alamirew, T., and Dinka, M. O.: Calibration and validation of SWAT model and estimation of water balance components of Shaya mountainous watershed, Southeastern Ethiopia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 10, 13955‐13978, doi:10.5194/hessd‐10‐13955‐2013, 2013.Main author Alemayehu Abate Shawul E.C. Koskei, R.C. Koskei, M.C. Koske and H.K. Koech (2013) Effect of Socio‐economic Factors on Access to Improved Water Sources and Basic Sanitation in Bomet Municipality, Kenya. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences 5(12): 714‐719 R.C. Koskei, J.K. Langat, E.C. Koskei and M.A. Oyugi. (2013). Determinants of Agricultural Information Access by Small Holder Tea Farmers in Bureti District, Kenya. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5(5): 102‐107 Piedra, L.; Bermudez, T & Romero, M. 2013. Costa Rica. MacGregor‐Fors, I & Ortega‐Álvarez, R (eds). In: Ecología Urbana, experiencias en América Latina. BAI Hua, ZENG Si‐yu, DONG Xin, CHEN Ji‐ning. Substance flow analysis for urban drainage system of a representative hypothetical city in China. Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering, 2013,7(5): 746‐755 (SCI) 24 | P a g e BAI Hua, ZENG Si‐yu, DONG Xin, CHEN Ji‐ning. Comparative assessment of urban drainage systems in different cities based on substance flow analysis. 2013 International Conference on Civil, Materials and Environmental Sciences (EI index, Advanced Materials Research 2013,742:290‐299) Edi Efraín Bámaca López, La comunicación del cambio climático, una aproximación teórica desde la teoría del framing, Octubre 2013. LOPES, G. R. La colonialidad (re)encubierta en el Desarrollo Territorial Rural. In: XII Encuentro de Jóvenes Investigadores, 2013, Santiago del Estero. Resumenes del EJI XII, 2013. F. Elio. "Determining the impacts of regional climate change and anthropogenic changes in the ecosystem, to determine the real impact on people and ecosystems in the basin of Rio Zongo (6000‐
500 m)”.July, 2013 M. Mngoli. "Analysis of socioeconomic factors affecting utilization of rainwater harvesting and ICT technologies as adaptation tools to climate change in Isinya district, Kenya". Presented at the Africa Climate Conference, 15‐18 October 2013, Arusha Tanzania. Carlos Zuleta Salmon. "Analisis del comportamiento del recurso hídrico ante los efectos del cambio climático y el cambio del uso del suelo". Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) international workshop, CIAT, Cali ‐ Colombia, 5 ‐ 9 August 2013. ** Carlos Zuleta Salmon. Taller Internacional de uso del modelo SWAT como herramienta para la planificación de cuencas hidrográficas. CATIE, Costa Rica, 15 ‐ 30 sepember. Efectos del Cambio climático y el cambio del uso del suelo en el caudal del Río Pejibaye ‐ Cuenca alta del río Reventazón. M. Naanyu. “Integration of indigenous knowledge with modern ICTs in coping with effects of climate change and variability on agriculture”. Presented at the Africa Climate Conference, 15‐18 October 2013, Arusha Tanzania. N. E. Branzuela. “Downscaling of Climate Projections in Talomo‐Lipadas Watersheds:Davao City, Philippines. Regional Workshop. Bangkok, Thailand. Oct 17‐18, 2013. 25 | P a g e Appendix D: Individual Level Research Capacity – Composite Evaluation Aspect Skills and Confidence Building ‘Close to Practice’ Research Indicators Professional qualifications Employment status and Nature of Work Competence in key RCB skills Participation in RCB activities Community Outreach Dissemination in Practitioner Workshops Development of Number of Linkages & collaborative Collaborations research activities Number of co‐
authored publications Research Network Membership Appropriate Diversity of Dissemination Dissemination Channels used PhD/Masters
Both Low
None
Medium
Non ICT/CCW related High ICT/CCW related
Both Unemployed
Employed in a non‐Research position Employed in a Research position Both 0‐2
3
4‐5 PhD None
Teaching, Supervision or Mentorship of Graduate students; Lead of research team Masters
None
Teaching, Supervision or Mentorship of Undergraduate students; Member of research team ‐‐
PhD None
None
Masters
Team Member Both No
‐‐
Team Member;
Team Leader Yes PhD 0
0
1‐2
>2 1
>1 1‐2
>2 1
‐‐
>1 Yes 2‐3 Channels
> 3 Channels
Masters
PhD Masters
Both Both 0
0
No
0-1
Channels
‐‐
University‐level teaching, Supervision or Mentorship; Member of research team Team Leader
26 | P a g e

Download Report