IFS responded to challenges with scientific equipment in Africa by conducting an audit of equipment at 15 universities. They developed the PRISM tool to improve equipment procurement, installation, and maintenance, piloting it at 5 universities. IFS then convened representatives from across Africa to discuss effective equipment provision. This included country studies and policy workshops, developing recommendations to influence national scientific equipment policies. IFS facilitated an advocacy approach to build consensus around proposed changes. The initiative was handed over to the African Academy of Sciences to pursue advocacy and policy development at the continental level.

1. Scientific Equipment Policy Change
through Facilitated Advocacy
April 2017
Nighisty Ghezae

2. The presentation will
 Provide an explanation of IFS and its Contributing
Innovation Approach
 Present a project on Scientific Equipment Policy Change
using a facilitated advocacy approach
 What was the nature and scope of challenge and degree of
complexity?
 What was the nature and scope of innovation?
 Description of critical event, triggers, tipping points, etc.
 Who was involved and the role of partnership?
 Objective evidence from evaluations
 A description of what is different to when started; what has changed?
 Summary

3. IFS
2010
Envisioning and developing 10-year strategy
2016
8000 grants
in 105 countries
Individual Research Grants
Capability Enhancing Support
Collaborative Research Grants
Contributing Innovation
IFS and its 10-year strategy: 2011-20
2012 2013
Approach
2
Approach
3
Approach
1
2011

4. Involves orientating early-career scientists in the context in which research is shared
and used and to work with like-minded partners in building capability and encouraging
networking
Contributing Innovation

5. Facilitated Advocacy
 The term facilitation literally means “to make the process
easier”. We are not aiming to speak for people but
 to make the process easier for them to speak for themselves,
 to give potential recipients of service provision a voice in shaping
development processes from which practical support could flow.
The purpose of the work was to encourage scientific policy-
makers and influencers to consider issues of importance
along each stage of the scientific equipment life-cycle, from
the perspectives of people actually using and benefiting
from the equipment.

6. Scientific Equipment Challenge
 The issue of equipment is but one of the challenges faced by
African and other scientists, and where IFS aims to be helpful.
 Scientific equipment is essential for performing research.
Equipment should be functional and well maintained, and
users should be trained on how to operate and care for it.
 Scientific progress in Africa is held back by, among other
things, problems associated with the Needs Assessment,
Procurement, Installation, Use, Service and Maintenance, and
Disposal of scientific equipment in universities, laboratories
and other research institutions.
 As an external facilitator, IFS’s role was to create a process
within which a wide range of views and experiences could be
heard and learned from.

7. The pathway at institutional level
 In 2005 with the support of MacArthur Foundation, we
started a project “Scientific equipment in Africa: auditing
of scientific equipment resources”
 Auditing of 15 universities in Africa
 The aim was to fill gaps of scientific resources available to
researchers at the universities by making available core,
state-of-the art equipment and research tools.
 A concluding report indicated that a significant amount of
equipment present in the laboratories was not
functioning properly and reasons for that were identified

8. The pathway at institutional level
 Based on the results of the study, a tool for Procurement,
Installation, Service and Maintenance of Scientific
Equipment (PRISM) was developed and implemented in
five universities
 Training on Good Laboratory Practice and Training on Use
and Applications of Equipment was conducted for
researchers and technicians
 An institutional framework for a PRISM partnership and a
steering committee with members from the five
universities was created

9. The pathway at continental level
 To have a deeper and broader understanding of the efficacy of various
approaches to scientific equipment provision, and to share more widely
with other research institutions and funding organizations:
 A continental-level conference on scientific equipment was organized with a
wide range of participants from across Africa. Participants engaged with each
other on issues to do with effectively providing equipment.
 Learned about issues of equipment provision from the MacArthur Foundation-
funded project PRISM “Procurement, Installation, Service, Maintenance and Use
of Scientific Equipment”
 Considered two other approaches to scientific equipment provision, one from
IFS, with particular reference to early-career scientists and collaborative teams,
and another from BecA (Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa), which provides
opportunities in Africa for scientists to utilize well-equipped laboratory facilities
 Discussed widely and made recommendations on how to effectively provide
scientific equipment for universities and research institutions in Africa

10. The pathway at continental level:
Scientific Equipment Policy Development and Change
 IFS and AAS continued their work along with partner
organisations in Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya.
 Country studies with national co-facilitators in Ethiopia,
Ghana and Kenya to review the effectiveness of science
equipment policies of key organisations in relation to
structures and systems; and to map the national and
regional research and policy landscapes
 National Scientific Equipment Policy Workshops in
Ethiopia, Ghana and Kenya
 Preparation and sharing of the briefing document entitled
Toward an Enabling Scientific Equipment Policy in Africa

11. IFS-AAS: Developing an Enabling Equipment Policy in
Africa
 Consultative Meeting on Scientific Equipment Policy in Africa:
42 participants included representatives of academies of
sciences and research institutions in Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya
and South Africa; ANAFE; BecA; CEMASTEA; icipe; IOCD; KNEC,
NACOSTI, the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and
Technology, several universities, institutes and education
organizations in Kenya; NEPAD agencies; Seeding Labs;
UNESCO; and IFS alumni from six African countries.
 The meeting’s purpose was to raise Pan-African awareness of
how the identification and resolution of scientific equipment
issues are critical for scientific development in Africa, and to
identify national and regional channels to share learned
experiences and to influence policy on scientific equipment.

12. IFS-AAS: Developing an Enabling Equipment Policy in
Africa
 The meeting concluded with each participant making informal
or formal commitments to take forward efforts at scientific
equipment policy change.
 These ranged from broad intentions to raise awareness about
these issues at institutional, national and regional levels, to
specific commitments of collaboration and funding.
 Prof Berhanu Abegaz said, “AAS will pursue an advocacy role
to persuade governments and institutions to develop clearly
articulated guidelines for the procurement, manufacture,
installation, shared use, operation and maintenance of
scientific equipment, including microscience equipment.
 I see our reference to ‘equipment policy’ as guidelines for
equipment within national STI and procurement policies

13. The Innovation
 Gathered wide representation and diverse viewpoints: researchers,
research institutions, policy makers and donors
 Identified problems and built consensus among all representatives and
viewpoints
 Started from a knowledge base created through the auditing of 15
universities
 Developed a method and applied it in five of universities
 Shared this experience with others who are concerned with the provision
and use of scientific equipment
 Refined the information and method as the interactions progressed
 Arranged country, sub-regional and regional meetings
 Used a facilitated advocacy approach wherein an external agent (IFS) could
act to “even out” power relations and vested interests to arrive at a set of
recommendations built by all parties, and useful to them
 Handed over the initiative to a reputable, recognized body at a continental
level

14. Evidence
 The most important evidence of the efficacy of the
approach are documented processes for change – and
actual changes – in scientific equipment policy at
institutional and national levels.
 Also important is the degree to which the issue of
scientific equipment is taken up by sub-regional, regional
and continental bodies.

15. Changes
 An initiative that was started to identify the gaps in the
advanced scientific equipment available to researchers at
selected universities in Africa, with a view to identifying cost-
effective solutions to assist universities to access core, state-
of-the art equipment and research tools and to make
recommendations for maintenance programmes to keep
equipment functioning over the long-term.
 Developing tools for having equipment functioning properly
(PRISM concept)
 Upscale the initiative from institutions to country and
continental levels
 Developed policy framework for intervention
 Created local ownership of the initiative. The project is now
run by the AAS.

16. SUMMARY
IFS …
 … responded to an identified problem (inadequate
scientific equipment and processes)
 … learned from in-depth information-gathering (audit)
 ... piloted a concept in practice (PRISM)
 ... convened and facilitated wide-ranging representatives
and viewpoints
 ... shared, learned and expanded on the issues of concern
 … documented a set of specific, broadly agreed policy
change recommendations
 ... turned over the initiative to local actors for expanded
dissemination of outcomes

17. Please go to www.IFS.se
... and have a look around!