Key results include four themes: R&D asymmetries between Europe and Africa; partnership expectations; failed expectations; positive impacts.
R&D asymmetries between Europe and Africa
The first theme refers to the asymmetry between R&D in Europe and Africa, reinforcing the relevance of UDI-A and justifying AMHA’s interest in the project. According to a Champion from Angola:
“The differences in terms of R&D between European Institutions and our institutions are abysmal...they can’t even be compared, but we are open to learning … and taking the first steps … We have R&D, but not as … comprehensive as yours.” (C1)
He continued to delve into this topic and provided a description of some of Angola’s structural problems:
“They [European Institutions] already have a structure … focused on scientific research … there are offices supporting research … what we have is an embryo … we don’t have an institutional effort towards scientific research …” (C1)
Mozambican and Angolan academics shared the same concern - the financial context is dire, undermining R&D:
“… our human resources are well trained and knowledgeable. But there is no equipment …” (C2)
“… we don’t have the equipment, we don’t have sufficient libraries, it’s very hard to do research … Infrastructures, equipment … affect everything, and we lack them.” (C3)
While recollecting his experience in the Netherlands, a participant emphasized how the overall conditions were so much better there:
“Laboratories are well equipped, libraries are equipped. Mediatheques, everything! We visited a library and sincerely we almost got lost there!” (C3)
One aspect mentioned by another Angolan researcher was research dissemination - this problem affects African R&D [30], and the interviewee highlighted the gap between research and publishing:
“In Africa there is research, but often it doesn’t get published. When there are conferences, researchers … present their work, but only those attending have access to that information … if I want to launch a research project, I’m clueless … that topic could even be developed by someone else in my country!” (C5)
Since research dissemination is undeveloped, researchers from the Global North frequently visit Angola to obtain empirical data, publishing articles without crediting their Angolan counterparts, a claim supported by current literature [31]:
“There is plenty of international research on a plant that is known to … cure gastric ulcers. That plant … only exists in Angola. That article was published in an international journal. But the Angolan researcher is only briefly mentioned …” (C5)
A champion from Mozambique highlighted the differences between Africa and Europe regarding research dissemination - according to him, something should change:
“There are lecturers that haven’t published in ten years! I came here and I asked how many articles they published every year … it was more than a hundred! Our department doesn’t even publish 10 … For a forty-year old University! It’s really bad …” (C6)
Another Champion from Mozambique highlighted how the lack of a strong research structure in his University limited the reach of its research:
“Many studies are only disseminated inside the Institution … not reaching our city or the world. Therefore, research … starts and dies right away … …” (C7)
Partnership expectations
AMHA were interested in improving pedagogical and research skills, and had personal expectations and an institutional mandate to enhance their Universities R&D profile through partnerships. According to a Champion from Angola:
“The main motivation to join UDI-A was to create a Center for Scientific Research … the benefits generated by UDI-A will stem from partnerships with researchers in Europe. It will allow us to develop projects, to become aware of how they are funded and so on.” (C1)
These partnerships would rely on the mobility of academics, having a positive impact in Africa:
“The main role of … partnerships, from an institutional point of view, is to promote mobility ( …) to develop skills and improve human resources. And also opportunities to develop research projects.” (C1)
According to a Champion from Mozambique, initial expectations included practical aspects:
“I wanted to know how to manage a course. How to … increase academic performance and … carry out intervention projects. Social and community intervention ( …). … I also wanted to obtain experiences from other countries on these subjects, adapting them to our reality.” (C2)
This participant highlighted that she had an institutional mandate - her stay in Europe should benefit her institution:
“My Institution has expectations that we will return with ideas of how to manage certain courses, how to help the University create that research center [CADI]. Its development will lead to new ideas and innovation, at the institutional and academic levels. ( …) They expect changes when we return …” (C2)
According to another Champion, UDI-A would generate stronger partnerships, increasing the social impact of research:
“In Angola we already have the center for educational sciences … we want to join them to make sense of all the information we’re getting here, to develop health research with a higher social impact …” (C3)
A Champion from Angola mentioned that partnerships, social entrepreneurship and pedagogical innovations were the main drivers to join the project:
“Some things that drew my attention were social entrepreneurship and pedagogical innovations. What we would learn from others – how to innovate, how to transform, and also partnerships with relevant institutions or individuals … When we return they will ask us if we established partnerships …” (C5)
The same academic reiterated that the main goal was “To create a CADI in each institution taking part in the project” (C5), reinforcing the institutional impact of UDI-A.
A Champion from Mozambique applied to join the project because it coupled pedagogical and research aspects:
“What caught my attention were two aspects: pedagogical and scientific capacity building, … my two fields of work. That’s why I applied.” (C7)
However, his main motivation was to improve research skills, as Mozambican R&D is still underdeveloped.
Failed expectations
AMHA argued that UDI-A was overly focused on social entrepreneurship, soft skills and pedagogy instead of fostering research skills, leading to some negative feedback.
According to a Champion from Angola, UDI-A was not sufficiently focused on research skills - he felt that his motivation letter was disregarded:
“In my motivation letter I mentioned that I was interested in social entrepreneurship and scientific research. However, I’m realizing the program has been changed … they included activities which were not planned …. We had … field visits … in the last days of our stay … we were expecting … … more time allocated to scientific research.” (C1)
According to a Champion from Mozambique, this could limit UDI-A’ impact:
“We had higher expectations regarding the health sector, we wanted something … more developed. There was a big disconnect [between expectations and experiences] … … Pedagogical aspects were positive, but in terms of the health field my gains are very reduced …. I believe this will have a negative impact ….” (C2)
This disconnect illustrated an asymmetry between trainers and Champions. According to an AHA from Angola, this was particularly worrying due to her institutional mandate:
“Here we do not feel listened to … we just receive information … it’s frustrating … we ask ourselves: … “everything I learned today, how am I going to apply this to my context?”. …. What my University expects is the establishment of partnerships … and so far I have nothing …. Even when it comes to social entrepreneurship … everything is too vague …” (C4)
A Champion mentioned that he expected UDI-A to focus on research skills, criticizing the emphasis on social entrepreneurship disconnected from local contexts:
“Initially I thought that UDI-A would allow us to overcome our research gap … I’m getting slightly disappointed. Regarding social entrepreneurship … if it’s a reality whose context we don’t know then what is the point? You need to take local aspects into account … If you want to solve a social problem, you need to be in that community … Social initiatives fail because people don’t understand what is happening there …” (C7)
The focus group discussion was a great opportunity to explore these issues, reinforcing some of the ideas that arose during the interviews. A Champion mentioned that UDI-A should include capacity building in research methods:
“The scientific component we are developing through occasional partnerships and individually … it’s not in the program” (C7)
Overall, the main concern was returning to Africa without formal partnerships:
“Our managers there (in Angola), when they sent us here they told us: “look, get us partnerships!”. And we’re returning with empty hands. What they wanted was someone saying “look, we’re gonna help!”. With money, information, consulting … something concrete!” (C5)
Positive impacts
AMHA recognized that they acquired relevant skills in social entrepreneurship, teaching and research, and they found PBL (Problem-Based-Learning) helpful to improve their pedagogical skills. A Champion summarized UDI-A’s positive impacts:
“The experience was positive …. PBL was very useful. Certainly we will use it in our countries … entrepreneurship … was very useful …” (C2)
Visits to research centers allowed AMHA to interact with European researchers:
“We carried out field visits according to our research interests. We visited research centers …. Some of them were willing to support our projects, attending our congresses, workshops … And there was the possibility of organizing joint academic conferences …” (C1)
A Champion from Mozambique was enthusiastic about UDI-A, dwelling into the personal and institutional significance of partnerships:
“… those partnerships will make a difference, we will have contacts with researchers in … community and public health …. From now on, any project … in my department … will be able to recognize that: “look, those in Portugal, in Lisbon, are working on this …” . (C2)
Field visits were praised, allowing AMHA to contact European counterparts, providing a hands-on approach to research:
“We visited research labs at the Medical Sciences Faculty. We met various researchers …. to understand how things work and how they are being developed. We gained some “know-how” about what they are doing, something we need urgently … we suffer from an R&D gap …” (C3)
When asked about partnerships, this participant argued for the need to develop collaborative projects between European and African researchers. This possibility was reiterated by another Champion, who mentioned that this was her first chance to travel outside Mozambique:
“The opportunity to visit different labs … it opens up our minds! Great things are happening! There are people who can help us … it’s my first chance of travelling and appreciating how things are happening outside my country … I could only resort to articles or books …” (C4)
A Champion from Angola mentioned some of the partnerships focusing on pedagogical methods established with Maastricht University that could be implemented in Africa:
“We established partnerships with people available to collaborate remotely ... Teaching us how to do it, giving us feedback, providing online support.” (C5)
Nevertheless, Champions recognized that Portuguese Speaking African institutions would need to accommodate their new experiences, which could be problematic. As put by an Angolan participant:
“The integration of our experiences must be progressive … it will imply a restructuring of the Faculty. … Facilities are not ready. They are prepared for the traditional method, the resources, libraries, … that needs to be adjusted … we also need to change people’s minds.” (C6)
Although AHA recognized that the ICP was beneficial, there was also some criticism.
A quality assurance report was applied in order to assess participants’ evaluation of the ICP through two online surveys. This involved Champions from all research fields and not exclusively Angolan and Mozambican Health Academics. Some of the positive aspects mentioned included opportunities for networking with African colleagues and the fact that the scientific topic training period was useful for the progress of personal development plans. However, only 73% respondents agreed that the scientific topic training period achieved the learning objectives set at the beginning, and the issue of how to identify the type of stakeholders to involve in local projects also raised some concerns. Our paper is exclusively focused on the qualitative protocol undertaken to analyze AMHA’s perceptions of the ICP, although some of the aspects shared by our sample confirm some of the previously mentioned concerns [32, 33].