Dynamics in implementing the Good Financial Grant Practice standard across three African universities: an Indigenous realist evaluation
Abstract Background Research institutions must demonstrate the capability to efficiently and effectively manage external funding. The Good Financial Grant Practice (GFGP) was developed and operationalized as a capacity assessment and improvement tool and has been used by funding partners to assess a...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Health Research Policy and Systems |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01343-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Background Research institutions must demonstrate the capability to efficiently and effectively manage external funding. The Good Financial Grant Practice (GFGP) was developed and operationalized as a capacity assessment and improvement tool and has been used by funding partners to assess and improve grantee institutions’ financial and grants management capacity. However, little is known about the effectiveness of the GFGP process. We conducted an Indigenous realist evaluation to examine how the GFGP works, why, for whom and under what circumstances to strengthen African institutional finance and grants management capacity. Methods A multicase realist evaluation study design was employed. In total, three African universities (cases) of varying sizes were studied; 15 realist-informed qualitative interviews were conducted with research support staff, finance and grants personnel, principal investigators (PIs) and programme-level staff to test an initial programme theory. To test the theory, we applied retroductive theorizing and the context–mechanism–outcome (CMOs) framework. A realist-informed thematic analysis was employed to identify experiential, inferential and dispositional themes necessary for generating CMOs. Results We found mechanisms that can enhance (commitment, motivation, awareness and empowerment) or limit (fear, frustration and resentment) the adoption of GFGP in different institutional contexts. Where an institution has an inefficient grants management system, fear of losing funding results in the nondisclosure of the inefficiency of the grants management system, and consequently, the inefficiency remains unresolved. Where the institution has a small external funding base but has an efficient centralized finance and grants management system, the staff are motivated and better aware of the grant processes, leading to the completion of the GFGP process and thus resulting in the review and update of the institution’s grants management policies. Where the institution has a large external funding base and has undergone participatory due diligence and audits by other international funders, the staff may feel frustrated and resent, causing the team to push back on the so-called unrealistic recommendations and expectations. Conclusions A participatory/consultative approach to the GFGP process can ensure context-sensitive engagements and recommendations and promote stakeholder buy-in. Additional resources should be provided to address the identified financial and grants management capacity gaps as necessary. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1478-4505 |