Support Mechanisms for Research Generation and Application for Post–Graduate Students in Four Universities in Uganda

Abstract

BackgroundPost–graduate students world over complete a research thesis in partial fulfillment of their degree requirements. This study identified and evaluated support mechanisms for research generation and utilization for masters’ students in health institutions of higher learning in Uganda. MethodsA self administered cross–sectional survey using a modified Self Assessment Tool for Research Institutions (SATORI). Post–graduate students were requested to encircle the most appropriate response in a Likert scale from 1 where the ‘situation was unfavorable and/or there was a need for an intervention’; to 5 where the ‘situation was good or needed no intervention’. These questions were asked under four domains: the ‘research question’; ‘knowledge production’; ‘knowledge transfer’ and ‘promoting use of evidence’. Mean scores of individual questions and aggregate means under the four domains were computed; and then compared to identify areas of strengths and gaps that required action.ResultsMost of the respondents returned their questionnaires, 185 of 258 (71.7%) and only 79 (42.7%) had their theses submitted for examination. Three of the four domains scored below the mid–level domain score of 3, that is “the situation is neither favorable nor unfavorable”, table 2. Specifically, the domain of “Proposal development for post-graduate research project” had the highest mean score of 3.53 out of the maximum 5. Areas requiring substantial improvements were, priority setting during “Research question identification”, which had the least mean score of 2.12. This was followed by “promoting use of post–graduate research products”, tying at 2.28 mean scores each. The domain, “Knowledge transfer of post-graduate research products”, had an above average mean score that is 2.75.ConclusionsThis study reports that existing research support mechanisms for post–graduate students in Uganda encourage access to supervisors and mentors. Secondly, post–graduate students engagement with research users was limited, as was awareness of intellectual property rights. Views of supervisors and mentors were not captured, a subject for future research.