Data Loading...
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya Flipbook PDF
Delivered as part of the Strengthening Research Institutions in Africa (SRIA) project: A rapid assessment of best practi
130 Views
140 Downloads
FLIP PDF 1.19MB
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya
Report for the SRIA Programme October 2019
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
“Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.”
Report commissioned by: The UK Department for International Development http://www.dfid.gov.uk Contact: Dr Tom Drake Research and Evidence Division [email protected] Report authors: Mattia Fosci, Lucia Loffreda, Andrew Chamberlain, Nelisha Naidoo www.research-consulting.com Contact: [email protected]
Report dated: October 2019
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Executive Summary This report provides a high-level assessment of Kenya’s research and innovation system and key research organisations. It seeks to identify the main challenges to research capacity strengthening and some priority areas for intervention in order to support decision-making at DFID and among Kenyan partners. The study does not seek to explore issues such as the historical causes of the current situation or the role of the media and other political actors which, albeit important, fall outside the scope of this investigation. Findings in this report are based on quantitative and qualitative data collected through desk-based research and informant interviews. Over 100 indicators are used to assess the country’s research environment and political economy context, research production and research diffusion performance. Some of the qualitative findings are based on the views of a small but balanced number of stakeholders and should be verified through further research. A. Needs Assessment for Kenya Political economy context. Kenya is a lower-medium income country with high levels of poverty and a large rural population (World Bank). According to the World Bank, the country has high political instability and low levels of government effectiveness. Regulatory quality is higher than other countries considered in this study, but it suffers from high levels of perceived corruption according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Despite these challenges, Kenya’s research system is deficient but not undeveloped. The review found that the country has welldeveloped national strategies on science, technology and innovation (STI) but it only has a draft STI policy and no dedicated research policy. Its institutional framework for research relies on the role of the National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI), the National Research Fund (NRF) and the Kenya Innovation Agency (KENIA). Similarly, the consultation found that national institutions have clear mandates but often lack the financial capacity to implement these effectively. Kenya also hosts many international research organisations and intermediary organisations that are well integrated in the national context and make the country a major hub for research in East Africa. Research production. Kenya has a higher proportion of researchers per million of population than all other countries considered in this study, but a much lower share of these have doctoral qualifications according to UNESCO. The government spends 0.8% of GDP in research and development (R&D), higher than any other country in this study but still shy of its own 1% target. Moreover, international sources contribute to 47% of the domestic R&D expenditure (UNESCO). However, informant interviews reveal that lack of funding is reportedly a major challenge across the system, affecting the capacity of national actors, the effectiveness of policy implementation, the performance of research organisations and the options available to individual researchers. Kenya also has a large network of research organisations performing internationally recognised research, and it has almost tripled the number of universities since 2012. The consultation process suggests there is margin to improve research production by improving research training at universities, increasing incentives to perform high-quality research and improving the research infrastructure which remains, overall, severely deficient.
| i |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Research diffusion. In contrast with consultees’ perceptions, Kenya performs better on research diffusion, with international collaborations playing a key role in the international dissemination of local research. Over 80% of papers reported by Scimago have been produced as a result of international research collaborations, and Kenyan research is highly cited (the country ranks in the top quartile globally for number of citations per paper). Despite the lack of an overarching strategy for knowledge exchange, Kenya also has good knowledge transfer practices and a good system for intellectual property protection, with over 120 resident patent applications each year (WIPO). However, the consultation revealed that, outside of a handful of research-intensive organisations, most universities lack the capacity or incentive to perform knowledge exchange activities and research uptake by government and other actors is still very limited. B. Options for research capacity strengthening Being further ahead than other African countries considered in this study, Kenya’s research environment would benefit from initiatives that support national capacity in a way that may not be possible elsewhere. Three areas appear important: •
•
•
Support implementation capacity across national institutions. Improving government effectiveness appears to be a key opportunity to push the research agenda. Building national capacity not just among funding councils (NRF) but also policymakers (NACOSTI) and intermediaries (KENIA) is crucial. Support should be targeted and focus on implementation problems identified by the beneficiaries, including the clear challenges emerging around measuring, monitoring and enforcing policy. Promote research quality. Creating national mechanisms for research quality evaluation and increasing NACOSTI’s capacity to monitor research quality in the country is also important. The consultation revealed that research is not valued for its contribution to the economy and society, but instead is promoted as a vehicle for leveraging external funding. By focusing on research quality, interventions can be tied to the impact agenda of Vision 2030 and be aligned with government priorities. To achieve that, ‘research quality’ should be defined by national stakeholders, perhaps with stronger links to development objectives over publication or citation-based notions of scientific excellence. Strengthen the role of national intermediaries. The needs assessment revealed an important role played by national stakeholders such as KEMRI in bridging the gap between research and policymakers. Government-funded think-tanks play a much more central role in Kenya than they do in high-income countries, but they are often limited by lack of funding and capacity. These actors can help create a platform for research to influence policy and practice, and their work has the potential to elevate the importance of research among policymakers. Moreover, they could be made even more central in disseminating bodies of evidence rather than promoting their own research.
| ii |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... i Contents ................................................................................................................................. iii Glossary .................................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Structure of the report ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3. Limitations........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Political economy ........................................................................................................... 2 2.1. Social and political context ................................................................................................. 2 2.2. Economic context ................................................................................................................ 3 3. Institutions ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.1. National policy for research ................................................................................................ 3 3.2. National institutions for research ....................................................................................... 4 4. Agents ............................................................................................................................ 5 4.1. Stakeholder mapping .......................................................................................................... 5 4.2. Relations and interdependencies ........................................................................................ 5 5. Research production ....................................................................................................... 6 5.1. Research inputs ................................................................................................................... 7 5.2. Research culture and support services ................................................................................ 9 5.3. Research output and evaluation ....................................................................................... 11 6. Research diffusion ........................................................................................................ 12 6.1. Actors and networks ......................................................................................................... 12 6.2. Knowledge exchange practices ......................................................................................... 13 7. Needs assessment ........................................................................................................ 14 8. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 16 8.1. Identification of priorities.................................................................................................. 16 8.2. Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 17 Appendix A – Full list of indicators and scores .................................................................................... 18 Appendix B – Kenya stakeholder table................................................................................................ 25 Appendix C - Interviewees ................................................................................................................... 27 Appendix D – Key data sources............................................................................................................ 29
| iii |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Glossary Organisations AAS ACBF AIRC ARC ARIPO CAPREx CARTA KARLO KEFRI KEMRI KENIA KIPI KIPPRA KIRDI NACOSTI ReMPro
African Academy of Sciences African Capacity Building Foundation Agricultural Information Resource Centre Advisory Research Committee African Regional Intellectual Property Organisation Cambridge-Africa Partnership for Research Excellence Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization Kenya Forestry Research Institute Kenya Medical Research Institute Kenya Innovation Agency Kenya Intellectual Property Institute Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis Kenya Industrial Research and Development Institute National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation Research Management Programme
Other acronyms GDP GERD ICT KE LMIC NRF PCT PPP R&D R&I RCS STI
Gross Domestic Product Gross domestic Expenditure in Research and Development Information and communication technology Knowledge exchange Low- medium income country National Research Fund Patent Cooperation Treaty Purchasing power parity Research and development Research and innovation Research capacity strengthening Science, technology and innovation
| iv |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
1. Introduction This report presents the results of an assessment of Kenya’s research needs and it is part of a broader needs assessment of the seven countries in the ‘Strengthening Research Institutions in Africa’ (SRIA) programme: Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda.
1.1. Structure of the report The document is divided into two parts. The first part presents a political economy analysis of the country, building on DFID’s guidance. Section 2 discusses the country’s ‘structures’, or long-term contextual factors that have a direct or indirect effect on the research system. Section 3 looks at the legal and policy framework for research, while section 4 analyses relevant political economy dynamics within the country, specifically looking at relations between public sector bodies, research organisations and individual researchers. The second part of the document assesses research performance in the country. Section 5 explores research production by assessing research inputs, research culture and support, and research outputs. Section 6 assesses research diffusion by looking at actors and networks working on knowledge exchange (KE), and existing KE practices. The last part of the document focuses on the main bottlenecks or constraints affecting the research system and discusses opportunities to strengthen research capacity. It builds on the performance indicators explored in the previous section and considers the overall impact of each indicator on the research system. A full list of indicators and their relative score is contained in Appendix A.
1.2. Methodology The evidence presented here has been obtained through desk research and informant interviews. Desk research gathered quantitative data from 16 sources (see Appendix E), while qualitative data was gathered from interviews with 16 informants, working for the government, think tanks, research organisations and intermediary organisations based in Kenya (see Appendix C). Interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed and analysed using a consistent methodology. Qualitative findings reflect the perceptions of more than one stakeholder, and they have been compared, wherever possible, with available data from published sources. This report has been peer reviewed by the individuals listed in Appendix D and circulated with interviewees for comments and clarifications. Previous versions have been significantly improved in response to the constructive feedback provided by Dr Tom Drake and Dr Alba Smeriglio (DFID), as well as input from DFID staff located in relevant country offices.
1.3. Limitations The study provides a high-level assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the Kenyan research system and research organisations. It paints a broad picture of the current situation to inform understanding and action by DFID and others; it does not seek to explore issues such as the historical
| 1 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
causes of the current situation or the role of the media and other political actors which, albeit important, fall outside the scope of this investigation. Some of the qualitative findings are based on the views of a few stakeholders and should be further verified in subsequent iterations of this study.
2. Political economy This section provides an overview of the country’s demography and of key political-economic parameters.
2.1. Social and political context Kenya is a country of over 51 million people, mostly living in rural communities (73%). The country’s official languages are English and Swahili, and the literacy rate is 79%, which is lower than the global average but close to the average for low- and medium-income countries (LMICs). Kenya is a democracy affected by political instability. President Kenyatta was re-elected in October 2017 in a disputed election characterised by violence and intimidation. The World Bank places the country near the bottom in a ranking by political stability (percentile score of 13, where 0 is least stable and 100 is most stable). Kenya scores slightly better with regards to the rule of law (41/100), however it is perceived to be affected by high levels of corruption. The country ranks 144 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2018, with corruption perceived to affect both national and county governments. State institutions tasked with combating corruption have not yet managed to effectively curb corruption, which is thought to be on the rise. The World Bank ranks Kenya 43/100 for its regulatory quality but only 30/100 for government effectiveness. This mirrors findings from this study that the main barrier to an effective national research policy lies less with policy formulation and more with their implementation (see section 3). Elaborate rules govern public finance in Kenya, but enforcement is often lacking. Kenya performs below average (40/100) with regards to voice and accountability, or the extent to which its citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media. The judiciary is generally considered to be independent, but judicial procedures are inefficient. The charity Freedom House ranks Kenya as ‘partly free’ overall, and has given Kenya a score of 10/16 for freedom of expression. Academic freedom is considered traditionally robust (3 out of 4) and scores better than most other indicators, including media freedom (2/4): however, this appears increasingly threatened by political interference, ethnic divisions, and violence. In particular, Freedom House cites evidence that “ethnic considerations have influenced university hiring, leaving the staff of some institutions with significant ethnic imbalances”.
| 2 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
2.2.
Economic context
With a GDP per capita of USD1,710, Kenya is a lower-middle income country using the current World Bank classification.a This puts the country in line with the Sub-Saharan Africa average but below the average for lower-middle income countries. Kenya has a predominantly service-based economy (42% of GDP). Agricultural activities also contribute a significant portion of national income (34% of GDP), and 73% of the population live outside of urban centres. Industry accounts for 16% of GDP, with manufacturing accounting for 11% alone. Despite the growing service and industrial sectors of the economy, 36.8% of the country population lives below the poverty line (calculated as USD1.90 a day) and Kenya is ranked 142 in the world in the composite Human Development Index. Kenya was ranked 91st out of 137 countries in the Global Competitiveness Index, and the country was scored lowly for its current technology readiness and level of innovation. However, it was given an average score (4.3/7) for its capacity to innovate, indicating a relatively high economic dynamism and a positive outlook for growth.
3. Institutions This section looks at the strength of the national policy framework for research. Specifically, it looks at the national research policy and capacity of national research institutions.
3.1.
National policy for research
Kenya’s research policy has three pillars. The first is Vision 2030 and the related Sector Plan for Science and Technology, launched in 2008. Vision 2030 sets out the country's development programme from 2008 to 2030, which aims to address the country’s development problems and necessary strategies to achieve the 2030 goals. Through Vision 2030 Kenya wants to create a competitive country with a high quality of life through innovation. While the Vision advocates for a strong science, technology and innovation (STI) policy and performance management frameworks, Kenya only published a draft STI policy in 2008. A review of the STI policy by the National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) is currently taking place but no firm date has been set for its completion. The second pillar is the 2013 National Science, Technology and Innovation Act, which establishes the national research institutions tasked with implementing Vision 2030 and the STI plan (see section 3.2). Finally, the third pillar is the Universities Act of 2012, which regulates the accreditation and governance of both public and private universities while also establishing the Commission for
a
Low income countries = $995 or less; Lower-middle income countries = $995 - $3,895; Upper-middle income countries = $3,896 - $12,055; high-income countries = $12,056 or more. In addition, the World Bank identifies further groupings based on their average GDP per capita, which are useful reference points for this analysis: Low income = average $787; Least developed countries = average $1,072; Lower middle countries = average $2,209; Middle income = average $5,282; Upper middle = average $8,610; OECD countries = average GDP $45,721; High income = average $47,892.
| 3 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
University Education, the Universities Funding Board and the Kenya University and Colleges Central Placement Services Board. The Universities Act legislates that production and dissemination of scholarly research and the promotion of innovation are two key objectives of universities, but it is unclear how research policy and university policy interact with each other. Overall, Kenya has a relatively mature policy framework and ambitious objectives for research and innovation, although the policy implementation appears limited. Stakeholders voiced concerns about the lack of an implementation roadmap, the lack of resources dedicated to implementation and the lack of clear goals and performance indicators. The most significant advancements have come from the creation of a national institutional framework for research in 2013 (see below). However, insufficient knowledge of and expertise in knowledge exchange (KE), technology transfer, contract management and industry engagement among government officials, alongside a widespread lack of staffing and funding, appear to be major barriers to the implementation of research and innovation policy. The consultation indicated that the Government focuses on the design of policy but few “tools” exist to support its implementation, monitoring, enforcement or evaluation.
3.2.
National institutions for research
The National Science, Technology and Innovation Act established the national institutional framework for research. Four organisations established by the Act are particularly relevant: •
•
•
•
National Commission for Science Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI): NACOSTI develops the national STI priorities, leads inter-agency efforts to implement the policy, accredits research institutes and grants licenses to undertake research, decides on funding priorities, develops and enforces relevant regulations, and monitors progress in STI. Advisory Research Committees (ARCs): ARCs advise NACOSTI on the programmes and projects required to implement the priorities identified in the national STI policy and maintain a database of existing research programmes, projects and facilities. Kenya Innovation Agency (KENIA): among others, KENIA is tasked with institutionalising relationships among research actors and between those and non-research actors, designating centres of excellence, disseminating scientific knowledge or technology, and developing the national capacity and infrastructure to protect and exploit research IP. National Research Fund (NRF): NRF awards research contracts, grants and scholarships, finances the acquisition or establishment of research facilities, and supports research capacity building across the country.
Kenya’s national framework for research, as established by law, appears well developed. The law assigns clear competences to national actors, and these cover the research process from production to diffusion. However, the research system faces clear challenges – as evidenced by both the analysis of publicly-available data and the stakeholder interviews. Firstly, the system is highly centralised, lacking autonomous (e.g. non-governmental) national research funders. Secondly, there seems to be some confusion and overlaps between the roles and responsibilities of national actors, with limited and insufficient coordination among government bodies: for instance, NACOSTI and KENIA share competencies on research coordination and priority-setting, while NACOSTI and the NRF share
| 4 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
competencies on research funding decisions. Thirdly, the consultation highlighted that national institutions have been poorly resourced: for instance, the NRF was given an initial budget of KSN 3 billion in 2013 to distribute as grant funding but did not have the physical staffing capacity to do so and therefore the annual budget has diminished to KSN 1.8 billion for 2019-20. Finally, tools and processes for monitoring research quality, standards and ethics appear inadequate.
4. Agents 4.1.
Stakeholder mapping
Kenya has a fairly large number of active research stakeholders, both public and private (see Appendix B). Nationally, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology sets and implements the research policy, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and Irrigation, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Industrial Innovation also play a role in commissioning specific research projects and have a direct relationship with NACOSTI. Kenya has a mixed university system comprising of 31 public universities and 30 private institutions. The country also has a relatively high number of think tanks undertaking research on: agricultural policy and technology (the Agricultural Information Resource Centre (AIRC) and the Kenya Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization (KARLO)); forestry (the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI) economic management and development (Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA)); industrial policy and technology (the Kenya Industrial Research And Development Institute (KIRDI)); and medicine (the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)). In addition, several private research institutes are also active in the country in the areas of agriculture, health and technology. Kenya is also home to a large number of international stakeholders, positioning the country as the predominant research hub in East Africa. This research revealed that at least 14 international public research funders and four private research funders are active in the country. Building on its historically strong connections, the UK has a dominant presence in the country with nine active funders (see Appendix B). Several influential research intermediaries are also active, among which the African Academy of Sciences (AAS), the Inter-University Council for East Africa and the African Capacity Building Foundation (ACBF) are considered the most influential. The African Development Bank was singled out as a potential delivery partner in supporting capacity development given the importance R&D plays towards the Bank’s goal of spurring sustainable economic development and social progress in its member countries. Finally, Kenya also hosts the headquarters of international research organisations and think tanks such as the Royal African Society, the Pan-African University (public), the African Population Health Research Centre, the Africa Institute for Capacity Development, and the African Economic Research Consortium (private).
4.2.
Relations and interdependencies
One of the main concerns highlighted by stakeholders is that the various research stakeholders within Kenya’s national system do not seem to operate in a coordinated fashion. In particular, there seems
| 5 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
to be some disconnect between the national research policy and the research policies of universities, which is attributed to the lack of an implementation roadmap at the national level (see above). Interviewees reported a lack of coordination between NACOSTI (which sets the national research agenda), the NRF (which funds research at universities) and KENIA, which does not have sufficient funding to implement its plan. Efforts to promote coordination and alignment are underway as NRF, NACOSTI and KENIA each sit on each other’s Boards, but stakeholders indicated that this has not yet resulted in meaningful coordination - especially around financial controls, consideration and monitoring of research ethics, and the processes for ensuring quality and standards. Think tanks try to bridge gaps in research policy by acting as an intermediary between government, the research sector and industry, and by creating a platform that research organisations can use to advise policymakers. The consultation highlighted views that international collaborations can also play an important role in the national research system, but that building such relationships requires better mechanisms for both South-South and pan-African networking. Enhanced cross-border, interdisciplinary and/or discipline-focused networks counter these issues when they allow LMICs to take the lead in developing collaborative proposals. This does, however, require adequate and sustained investment in research management and infrastructure. Figure 1. Stakeholder relationships in Kenya’s research system
5. Research production This section discusses the factors necessary for research production within a national system. It considers three components of a research system: 1. Research inputs, or the tangible assets that are directly connected with research production: human resources, financial resources and infrastructure.
| 6 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
2. Research culture and support, or the enabling environment for research. 3. Research outputs, including the products of research and the incentives for producing research.
5.1.
Research inputs
A. Human capital Kenya hosts 225 full-time researchers per million inhabitants, lower than South Africa (493 per million) but much higher than the other countries considered in this study (e.g. Tanzania has 26.5 researchers per million inhabitants). However, a very low number of Kenyan researchers have PhD-level qualifications or equivalent: this is 32% considering only academic staff, but only 6.1% considering all R&D personnel working in government, private sector, non-profits and academia. By contrast, the proportion of all R&D personnel with doctoral qualifications across the other countries considered in this study is above 30%. Overall, 60% of researchers are employed in higher education, 20% in government and the remainder are split between private non-profit and commercial sectors. A 2014 directive issued by the Commission for University Education, which regulates the higher education sector, stipulated that lecturers had to obtain a PhD qualification November 2018 (then pushed back to October 2019) if they were to continue in their jobs. The initiative has faced criticism due to its extremely tight timeframe and it is unclear what impact it has had on the number of PhD qualifications awarded in the past few years, or indeed whether the deadline will be further postponed. Only 1 in 5 researchers are female. This compares favourably to countries like Ethiopia (13% of researchers), but still lags considerably behind the African average of 31.6% female researchers. In Sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa is the only major country with a proportion of female researchers comparable to high-income countries (44.6%). By contrast, Kenya lacks human capital in other research-related roles and national research institutions appear under-resourced. For instance, the NRF has five staff members and KENIA has only two. Staff are employed by the Directorate of Research, Science and Technology under the Ministry for Education, and complex hiring procedures have reportedly impacted these organisations’ ability to hire more staff to implement their mandate. Similarly, research support staffing at universities is very limited (see section 5.2). B. Research funding Kenya’s Gross domestic Expenditure in Research and Development (GERD) is almost 0.8% of the GDP, which is 95% higher than the average for Sub-Saharan Africa and four times the average for low income countries. However, in 2014, the Government committed to spend 1% of GDP on R&D (aligned with the wider commitment of African Union members). In 2010, Kenya spent USD85 per full-time researcher in current parity purchasing prices (000 PPP), considerably lower than the average for SubSaharan Africa in 2010 (USD150, 000 PPP). This may be connected to the finding that many Kenyan researchers are more numerous and less qualified (see above) compared to colleagues in other African countries, and therefore receive lower salaries on average.
| 7 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
NACOSTI expects every institution to spend at least 2% of turnover on research, with the objective of leveraging these funds to create partnerships, develop research collaborations and attract external funding. In reality, NACOSTI estimates that even the most research-intensive institutions are only spending circa 1% of government funding to leverage additional research income. 47% of Kenya’s national GERD comes from international funders, revealing, on the one hand, Kenya’s position as a regional hub for international research funding and, on the other hand, the large influence that international donors and funders have on the national research landscape. The high GERD from international donors is partly explained by the fact that the country is home to several international and regional research funding and research performing organisations, such as the African Academy of Science, the African Population Health Research Centre and the Pan-African University, among others. Despite the significant investment of external funding, some interviewees noted that there is a lack of confidence amongst funders to fund LMIC researchers directly. International donors therefore continue to fund Northern institutions on the basis that they involve LMIC partners, but little or no financial benefit is realised by those Southern partners. According to OECD, more than 60% of R&D in scientific and technical fields is performed by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government in the OECD area. The distribution of R&D expenditure is generally different in LMICs, with the government broadly playing a larger role. However, high R&D expenditures from higher education and the private sector are generally seen as positive (Table 3 in Appendix A proposes an adjusted GERD distribution for LMICs). In Kenya, GERD by business enterprise is 8.7% of the total, which is much lower than the figure for South Africa (41%) but still considerably higher than the other countries considered in this study. The lion’s share of GERD comes from governmental sources (40.6%) and higher education (39.1%), but non-profit organisations also contribute a significant amount (11.6%). The consultation revealed that industry-led R&D is very limited, despite pharma, oil, energy, tobacco and agriculture multi-nationals having a major presence in the country and, indeed, across the continent. This may suggest that both multinationals and local companies see Africa as a market or a continent for low-cost production, but do not yet see it as an R&I hub. Overall, stakeholder interviews consistently opined that research suffers from under investment from national governments across the continent, who are not fully recognising the value research and innovation can provide to the economy, albeit many have published national economic strategies which reference R&D as a central component of development. Moreover, they highlighted the need to increase NRF’s ability to manage national research funding and to make the case for increased investment in research among government leaders. It was suggested that external funding could be used to demonstrate the benefits of R&D investment to national governments. C. Research organisations Kenya has a large network of research organisations, comprising 31 public universities (i.e. established and maintained out of public funds) and 30 private universities (which are established and largely funded by a private sponsor). Before introduction of the Universities Act 2012, the country had only 22 universities. Every university is expected to have some research activity, but capacity is limited, especially in those organisations which focus on learning and teaching. The World Economic Forum ranked Kenyan scientific institutions 45 in the world (out of 137 countries), only behind South Africa
| 8 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
(42) and Senegal (44) in Sub-Saharan Africa. Kenya was rated 4.3 in a range from 1 (extremely poor) to 7 (extremely good) in this area. Kenya also compares favourably against other Sub-Saharan African countries for the quality of its top institutions. Nine of Kenya’s research organisations are included in the first 1000 globally according to Scimago’s institutional rankings, a composite raking that combines indicators on research performance, innovation outputs and societal impact. Of these, five are universities: the University of Nairobi, Moi University, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and technology, and Egerton University (all ranked 719th globally and 26th out of 84 institutions in Africa). Kenyatta University ranks considerably lower at 41st out of 84 African institutions. The research environment is strengthened by the presence of a large number of specialised think tanks and research institutes, both private and public, national and international (see Appendix B). Interviewees indicated that these specialised centres are responsible for the most impactful research generated in the country, which in part is because of their better links with Government. These institutes produce research in a variety of fields, with critical concentrations in the areas of agriculture, health and technology. Think tanks and research institutes are both government-funded and internationally sponsored.
5.2.
Research culture and support services
A. Research culture The consultation has consistently indicated that the government is yet to fully understand how to realise the socio-economic value of R&D and harness the impact of innovation, despite the recent (significant) policy advances. Consultees called for the government to be a more convinced user of research as a way to stimulate demand for impactful research and drive the agenda (see section 6.2). The perceived lack of mechanisms to promote accountability in policy implementation, e.g. via data collection and review of research performance, quality, standards, ethics, etc., appears to be key challenge. At university level, the lack of accountability mechanisms for the use of research funding appears to have undermined incentives for research production and maintained universities’ focus on teaching. As a result, while research institutions have become adept at negotiating with their funders in top-slicing their grants to cover overheads and establish research facilities, they have not been as resourceful in using research funds to create specialist research support functions or to invest in adequate research governance. In Kenya, effective incentives for research production would improve research quality. However, expectations of research production are seen as unrealistic and unfair on academics considering the inadequate research infrastructure and the competing demands from the education agenda. Similarly, there does not seem to be a system of incentives for universities and social actors to engage in knowledge exchange activities (see section 6.2). The lack of both push and pull factors for research appears to be hampering the development of a national research agenda for sustainable development and limiting its positive impact on the Kenyan society.
| 9 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
B. Capacity building The consultation process highlighted no national research capacity strengthening (RCS) activities. However, a number of international RCS initiatives are active in the country. For instance, the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa’s CARTA programme is an influential programme for strengthening doctoral training in Africa, which has been running for 10 years and provides an effective approach to strengthening capacity in specific areas. The ReMPro initiative has been mentioned as an example of activities designed to address gaps in institutional leadership, sustainability of the research management function (financial and people), establishment of research/research management standards and self-assessment tools for institutions, and capacity building and training. C. Research support and administration The consultation indicated that university-level processes, systems and governance structures for supporting research are rarely in place and that the autonomous structure of university departments fragments the limited existing research support capacity. Stakeholders mentioned that research support roles and funding are embedded in research projects and they do not exist as a standalone activity. For instance, the CARTA programme focuses mainly on strengthening academics’ skillsets in research management more than strengthening the skills of staff in administration, library and ICT – thus reflecting a reality in which researchers often end up managing grants and projects with little or no support from their institution. Scarce research support across Kenyan universities is a consequence of the limited importance given to research by institutional leaders. This has also led to a widespread lack of research management expertise amongst academic and support staff across all areas. The consultation revealed skills gaps in identifying funding, developing proposals, financial management and research uptake and innovation. There are pockets of good practice but these invariably were driven by funder intervention, for example the Carnegie-funded CAPRex initiative, the CARTA scheme, the Good Financial Grant Practice project and ReMPro, where were mentioned several times by stakeholders. Consultees pointed out that skills development will require far broader and more consistent intervention by the national government as well as research donors, and that may take a generation to create the necessary critical mass. D. Infrastructure and data The quality of the research infrastructure is poor outside of research-intensive institution. The consultation revealed that the physical infrastructure (laboratories, libraries, IT systems, etc) is often not fit-for-purpose and not conducive to a sustainable research environment. Poor research infrastructure is one of the factors contributing to the brain-drain from Africa to the western hemisphere, with many postgraduates continuing their studies overseas, where they have access to better resources for research. The digital infrastructure of Kenya’s research organisations should be seen within the broader national context. ICT is managed by the ICT Authority, a state entity that supports the development and deployment of ICT infrastructure in the country and its use for innovation. In the country at large, 26% of the population had access to the internet in 2017, just above the Sub-Saharan average of 22% but
| 10 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
far below the access rates of South Africa (56%), which is Sub-Saharan Africa’s research powerhouse. Where an internet connection is accessible, average broadband speed of 69 kilobytes per second (kb/s) place Kenya far above neighbouring countries but far below South Africa (147kb/s) and highincome countries. Advances in mobile technology (4G and 5G networks) and the higher penetration of mobile devices are likely to reduce the digital divide, but investments in digital infrastructure will be needed to allow data-intensive research to be carried out across the country. New universities, which are expected to have research activity, have virtually no research infrastructure in place. A 2018 NRF call for enhancing research infrastructure received 100 applications but only four were supported due to insufficient funding. Critical gaps in research infrastructure identified by consultees also concern research diffusion, with a publishing landscape dominated by western journals and publishers and a lack of infrastructure for Open Access in Africa.
5.3.
Research output and evaluation
A. Research publications Kenya has a relatively high production of academic literature, compared to other Sub-Saharan countries, as Scimago shows 3,209 scholarly papers were published in Kenya in 2018. This equates to 64 publications per million people - the second highest figure of all countries considered in this study – placing Kenya after only Ghana which had 104. In 2018, Kenyan publication contributed to 0.1% of the total global output. On average, almost 50% of the papers published in the last five years were open access. With regards to the quality of the scientific publications produced in Kenya, the average publication received 18.59 citations in the 1996-2018 period, ranking Kenya 51 out of 236 countries by the number of citations per publication. Similarly, Kenya’s h-index (which measures both the productivity and citation impact of scientific publications) ranks Kenya 54 out of 236 countries. This has to be seen in the context of a broader pattern of international collaboration, which account for over 80% of all publications recorded on Scimago. While both productivity and citation of Kenyan authors’ scientific publications is connected to the large number of international collaborations and international research funding in the country, the relationship is not linear. Informant interviews suggest that Northern research tend to be cited as lead authors because they are the main funding recipients, and therefore those researchers and institutions benefit from more visibility than research partners in LMICs. B. Research ethics and evaluation The Directorate of Research, Accreditation and Quality Assurance is responsible for registration of research institutions, accreditation and quality assurance, licensing, monitoring and evaluation of research programmes and projects. NACOSTI’s research priorities document states that monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the identified research priorities will be conducted by NACOSTI through collection and analysis of administrative data and periodical R&D reviews. However, it is unclear to what extent the evaluation of research projects takes place in practice. NACOSTI’s strategic plan recognises monitoring and evaluation reporting systems as a weak point and aims to address this. Interviewees suggest that NACOSTI performs no meaningful quality assurance due to financial constraints and that universities encourage academics to publish – prioritising quantity over quality.
| 11 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Moreover, there does not seem to be any incentive for academics to demonstrate that their research has a material impact on society. Research licences are based on ethical clearance given by institution-based ethics committees, but resource constraints mean they cannot fulfil their QA role.
6. Research diffusion This section focuses on the stakeholders and practices underpinning the dissemination of scientific research and its use by different stakeholder groups within the country and internationally.
6.1.
Actors and networks
A. National users of research The consultation indicated that neither the government nor the business community are habitual users of research. Data from the World Economic Forum show that the Kenyan government’s purchasing decisions have an average impact in fostering technological innovation, and the score has been steadily increasing over the past five years. However, interviews revealed that the Government has shown an interest only in some areas of research, prioritising ICT and software in recent years but neglecting other areas of science. Kenyan businesses have a relatively high capacity to absorb cutting-edge technology in their production systems which are more readily available than in other African countries. These indicators do not prove firms’ connection with the national research system, as technology absorption often comes through internal practices and technology transfers within multinational companies and not straight from the lab bench. However, Kenya also has a relatively high performance for universitybusiness collaborations. This partly contradicts perceptions from interviewees who stressed that the practicalities, costs and value of the commercialisation/spin-out reinvestment model, and the actions required to create and maintain sustainable business systems, are yet to be understood by both the government and the commercial sector. They also suggested that, in order prove the value of research for innovation and economic development and generate higher level of awareness, Kenya needs some success stories – promising technologies and profitable spin offs emerging from its research system.
| 12 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
B. International exposure
International collaborations (% of total)
As seen above, almost half of Kenya’s research budget comes from international sources. However, the proportion of publications that are based on an international collaboration is much higher. Scimago data shows that in 2009 Figure 2. International collaborations in scientific publications (% just under 64% of the total number of total) of publications were linked to an 100.0 international collaboration, and this 90.0 went up to almost 81% in 2018. 80.9 78.6 77.5 78.2 78.6 Kenya’s main research partners are 74.7 74.6 74.6 80.0 the US, the UK, South Africa, 67.1 70.0 63.7 Germany and the Netherlands. 60.0 While international partnerships have a positive influence on Kenya’s 50.0 research visibility, such a high 40.0 volume casts further doubts about 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 the visibility of Kenya’s locally-led Year research. The citation data in section 5.3 should also be seen in this light.
6.2.
Knowledge exchange practices
A. Intellectual property
Number of patents filed
Kenya has a national body for the protection of intellectual property, the Kenya Intellectual Property Institute (KIPI). Moreover, the country Figure 3. Number of patents filed in Kenya is a member of the African Regional 160 Intellectual Property Organisation 140 (ARIPO). Kenya filed only 0.2 patents 120 per million inhabitants under the 100 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). The 80 total number of patents registered in 60 the country from residents has been 40 increasing over the past few years and 20 totals 1121 between 2008 and 2017 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (see Figure 3). By contrast, only 302 Year patents were filed by Kenyan nationals abroad. This compares well with other Resident Non-Resident Abroad SRIA countries but still places Kenya towards the bottom of global rankings (90th among 119 countries).Within the African context, Kenya is currently ranked 6th out of 21 Sub-Saharan countries, andalmost all of the countries ranked lower globally come from Africa. Kenya’s number of patent applications also compares unfavourably with South Africa (5.8 per million inhabitants).
| 13 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
B. Knowledge exchange support and administration Kenya is comparatively active in knowledge exchange (KE). At the policy level, the Sector plan for STI sets a goal to “establish an effective and efficient system for innovation connecting all actors in the STI chain”. In order to achieve that goal, the plan seeks to, among other things: -
Establish a Knowledge Information Management System to provide research-related information to STI institutions; Promote innovative technology transfer practices to enhance and generate new ideas through advances in technologies and innovativeness of the fundamental component of STI; Incentivise research actors to publish and present to stakeholders and policy makers relevant reports and policy briefs and to reference information available on STI. Moreover, under the Universities Act of 2012, universities have the objective to promote privatepublic partnerships in education and development, while representatives from the private sector have an active role in selecting the members of the Commission for Universities, which regulates the sector at the national level. The World Economic Forum gives Kenya a score of 4.3 out of 7 for universityindustry collaborations, ranking the country 32nd worldwide and 3rd in Africa. However, these encouraging results seem at odds with stakeholder perceptions, which report a lack of KE support in research organisations. Interviews with NACOSTI and the NRF revealed that, outside of a small group of research-intensive universities, Kenyan research organisations do not have a KE or technology transfer office, lack knowledge and capacity to perform KE activities and struggle to build connections with non-academic actors. Moreover, no system of incentives is in place for academics to engage in KE activities whilst the private sector has a limited appetite for university-industry collaborations. It is possible that KE collaborations happen largely in the context of international research programmes as opposed to domestic dynamics. However, we have not been able to collect sufficient information to prove or disprove this hypothesis and the state of knowledge diffusion and university-industry collaborations in the country remains unclear. The research dissemination and utilisation/uptake process however is not yet working except for a limited number of think tanks.
7. Needs assessment This section summarises the overall score of each component of the research system using a 7-point scale (see Appendix A). Research system component scores are calculated as an average of all indicator scores within it (see Table 4). All research system components are assigned a component ID (see Table 1). The aim of this exercise is to show which components are most deficient. However, there is no exact equivalence between a low score for one component and identification of needs since different components have a different impact on the system. Section 8 discusses other considerations that influence the choice of priorities for action, such as the feasibility of interventions. Kenya’s political economy presents critical challenges for research, which are both political (governmental instability and perceived corruption) and economic (poverty and non-competitive digital infrastructure). Looking at individual indicators in isolation, the areas in which Kenya struggles the most are all related to the political and economic context of the country rather than the aspects more directly related to research. The importance of research is acknowledged at the highest level,
| 14 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
and the country’s national policy and institutional frameworks appear strong on the surface. This suggests that Kenya’s research system is performing well relative to the political-economic context and the country is, in fact, among the best in Sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, the country hosts a good number of research organisation performing internationally recognised research and innovation (RCS8, score 5.5/7). Kenya does have considerable unmet needs, however, and an overall deficient research system. Averaging scores of 3.3/7, improving policy implementation and monitoring, and better resourcing institutions (RSC4) is a key need, reflecting problems of government ineffectiveness. Moreover, highlevel policy ambitions are undermined by under-investment in the research sector (RCS7, score 3.7/7). As a result, research production is overall uncompetitive. Kenya has a high number of R&D staff and researchers compared to other SRIA countries, yet a very low proportion of those are qualified at PhD level. Kenya relies on international funding for about half of its national research expenditures, which encourages the production of knowledge for audiences in far off distant countries. Most critically, averaging 2.7/7, universities are neither incentivised nor equipped to perform high-quality research (RSC11), and the burden is left to individual academics to design, fund and manage their own research projects (RSC9, 3/7). In contrast with stakeholder perceptions, Kenya appears to perform better on research diffusion. In particular, research benefits from considerable international exposure from collaborations (RSC16, 6/7), and a high number of publications and citations (RSC13, 4.8/7). Kenya also scores slightly above average (4.3/7) on indicators concerning the transfer of knowledge to non-academic actors (RSC15) and the protection of intellectual property (RSC17, 5/7), despite there being a lack of an overarching KE strategy or approach. However, scoring just 4/7, the country’s research evaluation system shows room for improvement (RSC14). Table 1. Scoring of research system components
Section
Research system component
National context
Social and political context Economic context Section average National policy for research National institutions for research Stakeholder composition & relationships Section average Human capital Research funding Research organisations Section average Research culture Capacity building Research support Infrastructure and data
Policy and institutional framework
Research inputs
Research culture and support
| 15 |
Score Component ID 3.2 RSC1 3.3 RSC2 3.3 4.2 RSC3 3.3 RSC4 3.7 RSC5 3.7 3.8 3.7 5.5 4.3 3 4 2.7 3.5
RSC6 RSC7 RSC8 RSC9 RSC10 RSC11 RSC12
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Research outputs and evaluation
Knowledge exchange (KE) actors and networks KE practices
Section average Research publications Research evaluation Section average National users of research International exposure Section average Intellectual property KE support and administration Section average
3.3 4.8 4 4.4 4.3 6 5.1 5 3.4 4.2
RSC13 RSC14 RSC15 RSC16 RSC17 RSC18 -
8. Recommendations 8.1.
Identification of priorities
This section identifies options for research capacity strengthening in Kenya by looking at the lowscoring indicators and considering their overall impact on the research system and their tractability, or the feasibility of external interventions in that area. Three areas appear important: - Support implementation capacity across national institutions. Improving government ineffectiveness appears to be a key opportunity to push the research agenda. Building national capacity not just among funding councils (NRF) but also policymakers (NACOSTI) and intermediaries (KENIA) is crucial. Support should be targeted and focus on implementation problems identified by the beneficiaries, including the clear challenges emerging around measuring, monitoring and enforcing policy. - Promote research quality. Creating national mechanisms for research quality evaluation and increasing NACOSTI’s capacity to monitor research quality in the country is also important. The consultation revealed that research is not valued for its contribution to the economy and society, but instead is promoted as a vehicle for leveraging external funding. By focusing on research quality, interventions can be tied with the impact agenda of Vision 2030 and be aligned with government priorities. To achieve that, ‘research quality’ should be defined by national stakeholders, perhaps with stronger links to development objectives over publication or citation-based notions of scientific excellence. - Strengthen the role of national intermediaries. The needs assessment revealed an important role played by national stakeholders such as KEMRI in bridging the gap between research and policymakers. Government-funded think-tanks play a much more central role in Kenya than they do in high-income countries, but they are often limited by lack of funding and capacity. These actors can help create a platform for research to influence policy and practice, and their work has the potential to elevate the importance of research among policymakers. Moreover, they could be made even more central in disseminating bodies of evidence rather than promoting their own research.
| 16 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
8.2. Conclusions Kenya’s research system is deficient but not undeveloped. The country has a large number of established international players with existing long-standing relationships with local stakeholders, ranging from non-governmental organisations such as the AAS to intergovernmental organisations like the African Development Bank. It also has an established layer of national policies and institutions that, whilst under-resourced, are significant actors domestically. In order to achieve systemic impact on the research system, Kenya therefore offers development donors the possibility of working with national institutions. The review showed a gap in research support capacity across Kenya’s universities, which highlights the importance of initiatives like ReMPro. However, three factors would seem to undermine the longterm impact of capacity strengthening in research organisations. First, the lack of clear incentives to invest in research and to prioritise research quality at institutional level (which affects the sustainability of interventions); second, the disparity in research capacity among Kenyan universities, most of which have no capacity for research (which affects the reach of such interventions); finally, there is a risk that institutions join capacity strengthening programmes in order to attract international funding (which is a stated goal of NACOSTI) and not with the purpose of creating a support system for high-quality research. For these reasons, initiatives that support national-level capacity and commitment to research are likely to have a more systemic impact on research in Kenya, and they are ideally placed to complement organisation-level interventions. In sum, organisation-level interventions without system-level changes to policy, incentives and capacity seem unlikely to produce long-term impacts. We recommend assessing whether capacity-strengthening should be delivered across the national institutional landscape, particularly considering the role of policymakers (NACOSTI) and intermediaries tasked with translating research into policy and practice (such as public think tanks).
| 17 |
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Appendix A – Full list of indicators and scores Table 2. How to read the scales Score
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Qualitative indicators
Very poor
Poor
Somewhat poor
Neither poor nor good
Somewhat good
Good
Very good
Quantitative indicators
Very low
Low
Below average
Average
Above average
High
Very high
Table 3. Score conversion table Data type
Description
Score conversion
Absolute country rank Country scores (1-7) Country score (1-16)
Country ranks are converted to scores by dividing the total number of countries ranked in seven groups of equal size and then positioning the country in one of the seven groups. A number of indicators have already been scored on a 1-7 scale. Decimal numbers will be rounded up or down to their closer whole number. Freedom House (FH) scores freedom of expression and belief from 1 to 16. We convert the score to 7, but consider performance of the sub-rating “academic freedom” when rounding up the overall score for freedom of expression. This scale uses a 1-100 score, generally with 0 indicating the lowest score and 100 the highest (in a few cases, 0 is the best score and 100 the worst). Scores are divided in 7 groups, and the score is given depending on what group a country falls under. Note that percentile score is expressed differently from the percentage value (%) which indicates quantity. A score is assigned based on the position in the combined position on the global rankings of the country’s top three universities (sum of individual rankings divided by three). Indicators such as literacy rates, access to internet etc are measured with percentage values (%). For percentage values, scores are given based on a country’s performance relative to other countries.
Variable based on number of ranked countries
Percentile score / percentile rank (1-100) University rankings Percentage values
| 18 |
Maintained (rounded) FH score 1-2 = Needs Assessment score 1; 3-5 =2; 6-7 =4; 8 =5; 9-10 =6; 11-16 =7 Original score 1-14 = Needs Assessment score 1; 15-28 = 2; 29-43 = 3; 44 – 58 = 4; 59-72 = 5; 73-86 = 6; 87-100 = 7. 1-500= 7; 501-1000= 6; 1001-2000= 5; 20013000= 4; 3001-5000= 3; 5001 -8000 =2; 8001+ =1 Relative to other countries’ performance
Assessing the needs of the research system in Kenya. Report for the SRIA programme.
Data type
Description
Score conversion
Yes/No
Some indicators are scored using a binary system, e.g. whether a country has a or has not a research strategy. Where additional qualitative evidence is available, this will be reflected in the score. Where no additional evidence is available, Yes is equated with the median point of the high rating (6) and No is scored with the median of the low range (2). We use the 1% African Union target as best outcome (score 7), and modify the score based on the actual GERD. GERD higher than 1% is scored 7. The extent to which external funding in R&D is seen positively or negatively depends on many factors. For instance, foreign investment in business R&D is seen as a positive tech transfer opportunity, whilst excessive dependence on foreign funding in HE R&D is rated negatively. Based on existing studies, we take 35% as an optimal value for GERD from abroad for LMICs. Deviation from optimal value is rated negatively. We use the following GERD distribution as optimal (based on a slightly modified distribution from the OECD estimate to take into account LMICs unique circumstances): business enterprise = 50%; HE = 25%; government = 15%; non-profit = 10%. Deviation from this distribution is rated negatively. A high number of local journals is positively correlated with research diffusion.
When no additional qualitative evidence is available: Yes = 6; No = 2
We consider internet speeds of around 2MB per second sufficient to browse the net for research, considering download and upload times for documents (score 4). Lower speeds are insufficient for any research activities, higher speeds are necessary for data-intensive research. The World Bank identifies further groupings based on their average GDP per capita: Low income = average $787; Least developed countries = average $1,072; Lower middle countries = average $2,209; Middle income = average $5,282; Upper middle = average $8,610; OECD countries = average GDP $45,721; High income = average $47,892. The score is based on the percentage of population living with less than $1.9/day, using World Bank estimates. We assume that there is a positive correlation between the proportion of people living in cities and research. We see a proportion of urban v rural dwellers above 50% as optimal, while lower proportions are rated negatively. Low literacy is negatively correlated with research. Given the international standards of literacy, we weight low literacy more heavily than relatively high literacy and only give full score to those countries where almost all the population is literate.
0-500kb/s =1; 501-1MB/s =2;