Rationale for offering a GGWW

Following the PhD, many early career scholars experience difficulty transitioning into their role as an independent researcher. Often graduates experience periods without research positions or funding that will support investigator-driven research led by the young scholar. Some graduates lack confidence in pursuing research funding for research of their own design. Early career researchers also benefit from mentorship from experienced scholars who have achieved success in securing research funding, and who also have experience on the other side of the review process – i.e., from serving as peer reviewers, and as members of grant-review panels.

The process of writing grant applications takes considerable time, effort and motivation, but does become more efficient and effective through practice. Like all forms of academic writing, workshops and similar programs can be beneficial in terms of learning how to approach the behaviour effectively. The GGWW also provides structure to ensure participants are able to pursue the work to completion through deadlines, requirements for periods dedicated to writing, and through encouragement and modeling of the behaviours of feedback, reflection and revision.

Position of the GGWW in the CARTA curriculum

The position of the GGWW, in CARTA’s training continuum, is following the PhD and in the early post-PhD period. The GGWW will not repeat CARTA PhD training but encourage participants to use all CARTA (and other research training and reference materials) for self-directed study and as resources. GGWW participants are to be independent scholars and take personal responsibility for their critical scholarship. Facilitators are not instructors but serve more as mentors encouraging critical thinking and modelling collaboration. Everyone involved will engage in peer-to-peer constructive critique and mutual support.

The GGWW also is part of the larger trajectory of CARTA activities working toward expanding and strengthening the African research community at large. A long-term intended outcome of the GGWW is that African research graduates submit more applications for funding, submit stronger applications, and collaborate to develop more research grants among themselves, and with other early career and senior researchers around the world. It follows that these outcomes increase the likelihood of enhanced research resources for African scholars and institutes and that a greater number of African PhD graduates attain research positions. Evaluation of the GGWW will include active follow-up surveys of participants regarding their confidence, intentions and actual grant submissions, as well as passive follow-up of their career trajectories.

Characteristics of GGWW participants

Description: PhD Graduates with CARTA or comparable training, who are dedicated to a career in research in the African context and seeking a post-doctoral fellowship, first independent research grant, post-PhD.

Eligibility:

• PhD graduate of CARTA or comparable training
• Completed the PhD within the past two years (precise eligibility may vary with call)
• Early career graduates who have not yet secured ongoing independent scientist faculty positions or secured independent research support as principal investigator
• Eligible for post-doctoral positions or CARTA re-entry grants

Requirements for attendance:

• Application submitted for the GGWW that is complete, and has identified one or more appropriate calls for funding and to which the candidate and proposed research area are eligible
• Completed required background preparation, pre-workshop as required, at the assigned timeline (approximately 2 weeks prior to residential workshop)

Learning outcomes

By the end of the GGWW course, the participants will be able to:

1. Identify a research gap and develop answerable research questions in the participant’s area of expertise and interests
2. Identify funding opportunities appropriate for the research area, the applicant, and proposed research context
3. Develop plans for dissemination and stakeholder engagement
4. Prepare a research budget proposal including identifying funding sources, tailoring proposal to funding sources, drawing on expertise, developing a budget
5. Develop study and data management plans
6. Critique research ideas and plans and integrate feedback into a proposal
7. Demonstrate time management and productive writing behaviours by meeting all deadlines
8. Demonstrate critical thinking and critical scholarship through self-reflection, use of feedback, and provision of constructive critique to other participants’ work

Overview of GGWW activities from perspective of participants

Application and review process

• Applicants respond to the call to participate and submit the application on time
• These are reviewed by the organizing committee and participants notified

Online review and preparation

• In a hybrid version of the GGWW, participants are required to complete an asynchronous online course which encourages a high-level review of knowledge and skills acquired in the PhD program
• The review covers the following lessons:
  • An overall orientation to the approach to learning and scholarship at the residential GGWW including expectations and roles of the facilitators and participants
  • A high-level review of the skills and effort required to identify the research gap and develop a literature review to motivate the research
  • A reminder that scholars must recognize the breadth of research approaches available and must make critical decisions about the research approach that will be best aligned with the specific research objectives
  • A reflection on their experience with the proposed research approach, particularly if this approach is different from that used in their PhD
  • Engagement with external resources on research methods to ensure that the proposed research is of high quality and minimizes risk of flaws and bias
  • Review of skills for finding opportunities for research support and development of the application
• At the end of the online course, participants submit a more detailed reflection on the work they have completed in preparation for grant writing

Residential writing retreat

This is the heart of GGWW. It is a five-day residential retreat with periods of facilitated group activities and independent writing. An in-person, residential workshop is recommended because of the advantages of having protected time for writing while separated from other responsibilities.

The writing intensive incorporates the external peer review process and additional sessions on grant sponsorship and leading one’s own research.

Cross-reference to appendix: Schedule of week-long workshop

Cross-reference to section focused on international review as ‘key feature’ below

Evaluation of the GGWW and follow-up

Participants spend the final half-day of the residential workshop providing feedback and reflection on the workshop to the organizers.

Following the workshop, participants should receive follow-up surveys to assess their perception of the value of the workshop about a month following attendance and ideally over a longer period of follow-up (e.g., six months). Participants should also be asked about plans to submit the application developed, or whether they have submitted this or other applications.

Various modes of delivery are possible: in-person residential, virtual, blended, over a single week or over a longer period. However, CARTA recommends a core week of activity completed in an intensive residential model, because:

• Writing requires separation from other distractions and commitments.
• The on-site model allows for a more natural model of mentorship and consultation, which is often brief, graduate-initiated bursts of conversation. In the in-person mode, participants can connect with facilitators and each other without delay.
• For co-facilitators, on-site mode enables vicarious modelling and shared experience, as each facilitator gets to watch others struggle, find solutions, and gain confidence.
• On-site presents the greatest flexibility in modes of communication (presentation, body language of reaction, graphic and written presentations).
• On-site permits rapid shifts from full group to one-on-one or small break-out groups. The same modes may be achieved online, but require far more scripting and coordination.
• In person, there is greater sense of cohort camaraderie among participants and with facilitators who are also academic peers.
• In person, there is greater opportunity for contact to lead to collaboration between participants and between participants and facilitators both during and beyond the workshop.

The CARTA approach is problem-posing and participatory, acknowledging the skills, and experience that people bring into the workshop. Each session presents situations and poses problems. Participants work with each other and with inputs from the facilitator to find solutions. Problem-posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection along with action on reality (Freire, 2020). It is different from the transfer or transmission of knowledge or facts to the passive learner, where the trainer is seen as possessing all essential information, and trainees as ‘empty vessels’ needing to be filled with knowledge.

The choice of participatory method is deliberate: there is a coherence between values and the approach to sharing them. From the beginning, this curriculum recognizes all participants as thinking, creative people with the capacity for action. Each person is a contributor, bringing different perceptions based on their own experiences. This requires that you, as facilitator, make a conscious effort to use participatory methods to enable participants to grow in awareness.

Watch this video for more insight into CARTA’s approach.

Some people assume that facilitating a workshop will be an easy process, until they try doing it. The participatory method means that you and your co-facilitators guide the workshop while appreciating that the participants are in charge. Your responsibility is to create an enabling environment that allows participants to learn from each other, come to an understanding, and pool their collective wisdom in resolving issues.

A good co-facilitator works as an ally to help you ensure that meetings, seminars, planning sessions and workshops, deliver the intended and desired outcomes. It is very difficult to facilitate a meeting yourself, when you also want to participate in it as an equal. But not all facilitators are alike. Identify co-facilitators who have the personality and aptitude to understand the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of this curriculum. CARTA recommends you look for co-facilitators with these attributes.

Lead coordinator/s
Lead co-ordinator(s) of a Graduate Workshop must be accomplished academic leaders and demonstrate leadership abilities to:

• Ensure the recruitment of graduate participants is effective and equitable.
• Recruit and retain qualified and motivated facilitators.
• Recruit a large list of international external peer-reviewers from across a broad range of methodologies and subject areas reflecting the diversity of research areas of the participants.
• Work with administrative staff to ensure effective coordination.
• Evaluate the impact of the workshop on individual participants, on a graduate’s early-scientist career, and on the larger research community in Africa and globally.

Co-facilitators
Recruit facilitators with:

• Experience with the peer-review process.
• Experience with student-centred teaching models including methods of active learning and delivery models designed to develop independence and critical thinking. Examples include case-based learning, dialogic teaching or other models.
• Flexibility to work with graduates across a range of specific research areas.
• Methodological training and ability to critically appraise research proposals.
• Availability and willingness to participate fully in the workshop, beyond their responsibility for specific sessions. Facilitators should prepare to engage in the workshop over multiple days allowing them to follow the progress of multiple participants over the course of the workshop.
• Commitment to the tasks of evaluating the impact of the workshop on individual participants at the end of the workshop, on a graduate’s early-scientist career, and on the larger research community in Africa and globally.

As a team, the facilitators must include a range of disciplines, areas of research, and methodological expertise (including qualitative, quantitative research and mixed methods; descriptive research and implementation sciences; and laboratory and basic sciences).

At least three weeks before the in-person workshop (or sessions), hold a series of conversations with the group of participants and ask them to complete some tasks and submit the results. This ensures that instructions are clear, that the graduates are able to identify opportunities for research funds and early career placements, and that the time for writing and revision will be is well spent.

Outcomes
By the end of the pre-workshop activities, participants have:

• Identified one or more appropriate calls for funding or opportunities for research-focused post-doctoral fellowships or comparable early-career placements.
• Identified potential supervisors and locations for early research appointments.
• Familiarised themselves with eligibility requirements with respect to applicant, subject area, context of proposed work, and methods.
• Created a summary of the eligibility criteria and instructions to peer reviewers.
• Identified relevant methodology resources to refer to as they develop a research plan.
• Begun the literature review.

Preparation
Establish a learning management platform for document delivery, uploading of tasks, online annotation and feedback, live webinar collaboration, and break-out rooms.

Assessment
Review participants’ materials and provide feedback and support where necessary to complete the tasks.

Individual writing.
Table-top work in small groups
Flip-chart pin-up presentation with peer-to-peer comments and questions.
Brief pop-up presentations by facilitators.