L. p. bur. x3153}? .. .0 A . n.35au...uaumniuw- ‘ ...->.“.4. . z u {1 . 3...}; 5!. imam: LOO"? LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Assessing the Impact of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP Graduate Degree Training presented by Melissa Vibar Jamora has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MS. degree in Agricultural Economics Bow l/l EMT“... Major Professor’s Signature 4lrlo'1 ., , Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution h..--o-u-r--n---o---------.---o--I- - ..._.-.-.-------.—.-.-.- —.._....-..-.- -... .. _.- - PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 c:/CIRC/DateDue.lndd—p.15 ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE BEAN/COWPEA CRSP GRADUATE DEGREE TRAINING By Nelissa Vibar Jamora A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 2007 ABSTRACT ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF THE BEAN/COWPEA CRSP GRADUATE DEGREE TRAINING By Nelissa Vibar Jamora The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (B/C CRSP) was established in 1980 to address constraints to increasing bean/cowpea production, consumption, and utilization. To this end, the CRSP has allocated a substantial share of its resources to training scientists/researchers in order to strengthen agricultural research capacity in Africa, Latin America, and the US. This study evaluated the impacts of the graduate degree training (GDT) component of the CRSP. The results were drawn from a survey of 76 former trainees and 25 former and current US. principal investigators (PIs), supplemented by face-to-face interviews with bean scientists and administrators at universities with faculty trained by the CRSP. One of the important findings was that over 86 percent of host country (HC) trainees returned to their home countries (or at another developing country). In their enhanced capacity, trainees were making contributions to the advancement of bean/cowpea research that can be attributed to their GDT and CRSP research. Trainees felt that that their GDT was necessary for their professional development (100%) and was highly relevant to their current work/job responsibility (92%). Moreover, the study found that there were higher rates of collaboration and continuous bean/cowpea research for HC trainees (versus U.S. trainees), for trainees in the plant sciences, and for PhD. trainees (versus M.S. trainees). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With sincere thanks and appreciation, I am grateful for the support of my major professor and thesis adviser, Dr. Richard Bemsten, who has been a mentor and a friend for the past two years. I also would like to thank the following faculty who made this study possible: Dr. Mywish Maredia (Deputy Director, B/C CRSP), Dr. Irvin Widders (Director, B/C CRSP), and Dr. Eric Crawford from Michigan State University (MSU). Many thanks go to: Dr. Susan Nchimbi-Msolla from Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania, Dr. James Kelly from MSU, and to all former and current U.S. and HC principal investigators and collaborators who helped us in many ways. I am thankful for my professors and colleagues in the Department of Agricultural Economics at MSU, including Debbie Conway; my associates from the Social Sciences Division at the International Rice Research Institute, especially to Dr. David Dawe (now, at FAO); the Estrada and Javier families; Dr. Jan Bemsten, Christine Lasco, Ernalyn Lising and Lara de Villa; and my friends from the MSU Filipino Club and PACGL for their support and encouragement. I am grateful for the financial support I received from the Philippine Fulbright Agriculture Scholarship Program, from the Department of Agricultural Economics at MSU, and from the B/C CRSP (Grant No. GDG-G-OO-OZ-OOOIZ-OO). I also like to acknowledge my family in the Philippines, my husband, JJ, and our son, Jelo, for the constant love and encouragement and for the unwavering support to my aspirations. Most importantly, I thank God for giving me the ‘KSAs’ to accomplish this endeavor. I leave MSU with wonderful friends and experiences that I will always cherish. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. Chapter I. Introduction ............................................................................................ Chapter II. Review of related studies on impact assessment .................................. A. ATLAS/AFGRAD Programs ...................................................................... B. Fulbright Student Program .......................................................................... C. ILRI: Kenya-Ethiopia ................................................................................. D. E. CGIAR ........................................................................................................ IRRI’s Training Program ............................................................................ Chapter H1. The B/C CRSP Training Program ....................................................... A. The B/C CRSP U.S.-based graduate degree training model ........................ B. B/C CRSP Training Outputs ........................................................................ C. Collaboration between U.S. and host country institutions ........................... Chapter IV. Methodology ....................................................................................... A. Analytical Framework .................................................................................. B. Research Objectives ..................................................................................... C. Research Questions ...................................................................................... D. Approaches and Methods ............................................................................. B. Data Collection ............................................................................................. F. Limitations of the Study ............................................................................... Chapter V. Results: Trainee .................................................................................... A. Internet Search ............................................................................................ B. Descriptive analysis of respondents ............................................................ C. Decision to pursue the CRSP-funded graduate degree in the U.S. ............. D. E. Acquisition of KSAs .................................................................................. Trainee assessment of graduate program and their CRSP research ............ iv vi viii ix OO\liJl-l>~ ll l3 14 18 24 27 27 30 31 32 36 39 42 42 43 46 47 49 F. Employment Details .................................................................................... 51 1. Current Employment ............................................................................ 52 2. Employment after receiving highest degree ......................................... 53 3. Employment before starting graduate program .................................... 53 4. Employment trends ............................................................................... 54 G. Significance of degree level ........................................................................ 54 H. Gender considerations of training ............................................................... 58 1. Significance of field of study ...................................................................... 60 J. Significance of participant location ............................................................ 63 K. Significance of type of employer ................................................................ 65 L. Monetary and Non—Monetary Impacts of Training on Participants ............ 65 1. Monetary Impacts ................................................................................... 65 2. Non-Monetary Impacts ........................................................................... 71 3. Achievements/Contributions ................................................................... 74 4. Significance of time/grant period on impacts ......................................... 76 M. Returned to home country ........................................................................... 77 N. Continued collaboration with B/C CRSP ................................................... 81 Chapter VI. Results: Principal Investigators ........................................................... 83 Chapter VII. Results: Case Study at SUA .............................................................. 90 Chapter VH1. Overview, Key Findings, Recommendations, and Future Research. ........ 103 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 115 Appendix 1. Number of trainees who received M.S./Ph.D. degrees from U.S. universities, by country and gender ............................................. 116 Appendix 2. Host Country Partner Institutions ................................................. 117 Appendix 3. Number of Trainees by U.S. Training Location .......................... 118 Appendix 4. Trainee Survey Questionnaire ...................................................... 119 Appendix 5. US-PI Survey Questionnaire ........................................................ 126 Appendix 6. US-PI and HC Collaboration ....................................................... 130 Appendix 7. List of B/C CRSP Trainees from Tanzania .................................. 131 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 132 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Comparison of Training Program Assessment Studies ........................... Table 2. Comparing salient features of the BIG CRSP degree training with other training programs (Fulbright, ATLAS/AFGRAD, CGIAR, IRRI, ILRI) ..... Table 3. Overview of the B/C CRSP degree training, 1980 to 2005 ..................... Table 4. B/C CRSP Training Budget (in nominal US$), 1981 to 2005 ................. Table 5. Training Budget and Outputs, by regional project (in nominal US$), 1997 to 2005 ............................................................................................ Table 6. Results of Internet Search Impact for trainees ........................................ Table 7. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents ..................................... Table 8. Most important KSAs acquired during graduate degree training ............ Table 9. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by highest degree ........ Table 10. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by gender .................. Table 11. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by field of study ........ Table 12. Salary levels (in US$), by period and by location (HC/U.S.) ................. Table 13. Average salary by academic degree (in US$) ......................................... Table 14 Trainees’ estimate of entry level annual salaries paid to U.S. and local graduates, by region and by degree (approximate in current US$) ...... Table 15. Selected changes/impacts on personal life reported by CRSP trainees ............ Table 16. Selected changes/impacts on professional life reported by CRSP trainees ..... Table 17. Selected professional accomplishments reported by CRSP trainees ...... Table 18. Impacts by grant period .......................................................................... Table 19. Overview of HC trainee respondents who returned/did not return to their home country after completing their GDT ................................... Table 20. Overview of HC trainee respondents who continued/did not continue to collaborate with the CRSP after their GDT ...................................... vi 17 19 21 23 42 50 56 59 61 67 69 70 72 73 75 77 79 82 Table 21. Major constraints to institutional capacity building and suggestions for relaxing these constraints, as cited by PIs ............................................. Table 22. Selected problems encountered while sponsoring students and suggestions for the B/C CRSP Training Program, as cited by PIs ....... Table 23. Selected strengths of the B/C CRSP Graduate Degree Training, as cited by Pls ............................................................................................ Table 24. Selected trainees' achievements, as cited by Pls ..................................... Table 25. Staff Profile at the Faculty of Agriculture, SUA, Tanzania, by highest degree attained, 2006 ............................................................................ Table 26. B/C CRSP research projects in Tanzania ............................................... Table 27. Bean varieties developed by SUA in collaboration with the CRSP ............. Table 28. Examples of the achievements/contributions of SUA’s CRSP-funded trainees ................................................................................................. vii 85 86 87 89 93 96 97 101 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. B/C CRSP’s U.S.-based graduate degree training model ........................ Figure 2. Training Evaluation Framework .............................................................. Figure 3. Training Evaluation Approach ................................................................ Figure 4. Question: How important was each of the following in your decision to pursue this CRSP-funded graduate degree in the U.S.? ........................ Figure 5. Question: How have you shared your knowledge, skills, and attitudes with others? ........................................................................................... Figure 6. Annual Basic Salary (in US$) at the Faculty of Agriculture, SUA- Tanzania, by position/job title, 2006 ..................................................... Figure 7. Regional map of Tanzania ....................................................................... viii 16 27 33 47 52 94 95 AFGRAD ARI ATLAS B/C CRSP BIOEARN-S IDA CGIAR CIAT CRSP DAN IDA DRD ECAB REN ESA FAO FS GDT GF HC HC-PI IITA ILRI IRRI LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS African Graduate Fellowship Program Agricultural Research Institute Advanced Training for Leadership and Skills Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program Biotechnology Research and Policy Development for Eastern Africa Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Centro Intemacional de Agricultura Tropical; also, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture Collaborative Research Support Program Danish International Development Agency Directorate of Research and Development Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network East/Southem Africa Food and Agricultural Organization Food Science Graduate Degree Training Graduate fellows Host Country Host Country Principal Investigator International Institute of Tropical Agriculture International Livestock Research Institute International Rice Research Institute ix KSAs LAC MO MSU NARS OSU PABRA PI PS SABRN SS SUA TPRI UMN USAID USDA-ARS US-PI WA WSU Knowledge, skills, and attitudes Latin America and the Caribbean Management Office Michigan State University National Agricultural Research Systems Oregon State University Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance Principal Investigator Plant Science Southern Africa Bean Research Network Social Science Sokoine University of Agriculture Tropical Pesticide Research Institute University of Minnesota U.S. Agency for International Development U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service U.S. Principal Investigator West Africa Washington State University CHAPTER I Introduction The Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (B/C CRSP) was established in 1980 to address the problems of food insecurity in developing countries by enhancing the knowledge base necessary to achieve substantial improvements in addressing the constraints to bean and cowpea production, consumption, and utilization. This was to be achieved by enhancing the capabilities of host country (HC) scientists and research institutions to solve problems related to bean and cowpea production and consumption. Thus, the CRSP has allocated a major part of its resources to training scientists and researchers at selected universities and national agricultural research organizations in Africa and Latin America. The CRSP represents one of the models of university engagement in long-term degree training. Trainees usually conduct research under the guidance of the CRSP scientist while studying at a university and many continue to collaborate after returning to their home country. During 1980 to 2005, the CRSP has fully, partially or indirectly supported 496 trainees for undergraduate or graduate degrees in the U.S. and in developing-country universities. Degree training has direct impacts on the trainees by advancing their professional careers, as well as indirect impacts on building capacity at the institution they join after completing the training. The interactions between CRSP scientists and training participants, after receiving their graduate degrees, help ensure that they continue to make professional contributions in their home country or elsewhere. To date, the contribution of these trainees and the impact of the CRSP training model on institutional capacity building have not been systematically documented. Thus, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the impacts of the graduate degree training (GDT) on trainees and on universities/research institutions in host countries from both the perspective of U.S. scientists who mentored the trainees and the individuals who received graduate degrees with CRSP funding. In doing this assessment, the study adopted the modified Kirkpatrick framework as a guide in evaluating training impacts from four different perspectives: Reaction (whether trainees like the training), Learning (whether they learned something from the training), Performance (whether trainees applied what they have learned), and Results (what are the impacts). Impact on trainees can be any changes in their personal and professional lives as a result of their GDT. Institutional capacity building involves improvements in the ability of an organization to perform its teaching and research mandate effectively, efficiently and sustainably. Other commonly used terms and their working definitions which are used in this study are defined, as follows:1 0 Degree Training: Any program at a college or university leading to a degree (e.g., License/Associate of Arts/Science, Bachelor of Arts/Sciences, Masters of Arts/Sciences, or Ph.D.). 0 Graduate Degree Training (GDT): Masters of Arts/Sciences and Ph.D. programs at a college or university 0 Host Country (HC): The country in which a USAID-funded activity takes place. 0 Principal Investigator (PI): A scientist who is responsible for a bean/cowpea research component 0 Research: A systematic investigation, including basic or applied, designed to develop or contribute to general knowledge. l Adapted from the “Amended Training Policy of the B/C CRSP”, approved on June 20, 2005 by the Board of Directors of the B/C CRSP 0 Trainee: All students fully, partially or indirectly supported by the CRSP to undertake degree training. 0 Training: A learning activity taking place in the U.S., a host country, or a third country, in a setting predominantly intended for teaching or imparting certain knowledge and information to the participants with formally designated instructors or lead persons, learning objectives, and outcomes, which maybe conducted full-time or intermittently. Chapter 11 reviews relevant studies on training assessment. Chapter 111 describes the structural organization of the CRSP and provides details of its graduate degree training (GDT) and some trainee-specific information. From this, an analytical framework is built to evaluate the training program. Chapter IV outlines the methodology used to examine the impacts of GDT on trainees and on universities and research institutions in host countries and presents the research objectives. Chapter V describes the impacts of GDT and B/C CRSP research on the trainees’ personal and professional lives. Chapter VI presents the Pls’ assessment of the training program. Chapter VII presents a case study on institutional capacity building. Finally, Chapter VIII summarizes key findings and recommendations of this study. CHAPTER II Review of related studies on impact assessment This study is influenced and motivated by five recent assessments of graduate training programs, which were sponsored by the CGIAR (2006), ATLAS/AFGRAD (2004), the Fulbright Student Program (2005), ILRI in Kenya and Ethiopia (2001), and IRRI (1996).2 These studies varied greatly in terms of the time period covered and methodology (Table 1). In terms of magnitude, the ATLAS/AFGRAD and the Visiting Fulbright Program studies were impressive in that they obtained responses from 1,921 (60% response rate) and 1,609 (70% response rate) of the former trainees, respectively. The ILRI study was unique in that it extended the analysis to include trainees’ supervisors to gain a more comprehensive picture on the impact of training. Both studies adopted a modified Kirkpatrick model as a methodological framework to maintain focus on the objectives and to enhance analysis of the data. The CGIAR study was especially comprehensive as it looked beyond the impacts of training on the individual to include also the capacity building impacts on national research institutions. The Fulbright program, of which the Fulbright Student program is one component, is remarkable in that it is funded by the U.S. government for more than US$200 million a year. Key findings of these studies included the importance of non-technical competence and non-monetary benefits that trainees gained, including critical thinking and research skills, as well as increased prestige, self-confidence, and changes in their attitude towards work. 2This review also acknowledges the study by Howcs in 1992 on the B/C CRSP Training Program in Malawi and Tanzania. Table 1. Comparison of Training Program Assessment Studies P o r m Year Of No. Of Pro ram Period r g a Study Respondents g ATLAS/AFGRAD 2004 1,921 1963-2003 Visiting Fulbright 2005 1,609 1980-2000 ILRI: Kenya-Ethiopia 2001 60 1978-1997 IRRI 1996 374 1974-1987 CGIAR 2006 359 1990-2004 A. ATLAS/AFGRAD Programs Established at the time of independence for many African nations, the USAID- funded AFGRAD Program (African Graduate Fellowship Program, 1963-1990) and its successor, the ATLAS Program (Advanced Training for Leadership and Skills, 1991- 2003) came to a close in April 2003. This assessment study analyzed the development impact of investing US$182 million over a span of four decades for the U.S.-based graduate training of more than 3,000 African professionals. While the evaluators used the Kirkpatrick Framework to guide the impact assessment, they modified the model to expand the areas where impact might occur, by adding a “top level” which included sectoral, community, regional, national and international impacts in order to capture impact outside of an institution. A major strength of the study is that the assessment team was able to solicit responses from 1,921 participants, or 60 percent of the actual universe of 3,219 graduates. The evaluators also visited seven of the largest “sending countries” which led to discoveries of instances where the U.S. training made a critical difference in an institution, sector or community. The evaluators also searched the internet to obtain relevant information about former participants that could not be found in traditional media. Of the many findings of this study, the main conclusion was that the USAID’s monetary investment in this long-term training produced significant and sustained changes that enhanced development in African countries in measurable ways. Over 95 percent of the trainees reported making changes at their institutions and a majority believed that long-term degree training at U.S. institution was critical in creating the necessary foundations for significant impact to occur. Many respondents also reported that changes in institutional performance were attributable to U.S. training and that these impacts were unlikely to have occurred without the long-term academic program. Moreover, because participants that were selected for ATLAS/AFGRAD generally had some work experience, it promoted closer linkages between the academic program that the participant undertook and the development needs of their home country or institution. The respondents considered competence in critical thinking and research skills as more relevant to achieving impact than improvement in technical and scientific knowledge. Changes in trainees’ attitudes towards work consistently appeared as one of the perceived benefits. Many participants developed a strong commitment for their work and credit this aspect to their ability to implement change. One of the most important findings was that almost all of the participants (90%) returned to their home country after their U.S. training. Thus, long-term U.S.-based training did not contribute to a brain-drain of African professionals. B. Fulbright Student Program The Fulbright Student Program -- one of the several programs administered under the J. William Fulbright Program -- provides awards to non-U.S. citizens to pursue non- degree graduate and graduate degrees (MS. and PhD.) in the U.S. Grantees are selected in an open and merit-based competition, either through bi-national Fulbright Commissions/Foundations or through the U.S. Embassies. The principal goal of the program is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries. What sets the Fulbright Program apart from the other training programs is the extremely large budget allocated to this endeavor. The U.S. Congress, alone, allocates more than US$100 million a year for the Fulbright Program. In 2004, the U.S. Department of State, through its Congressional allocation, apportioned an additional US$148 million. This was supplemented by nearly US$13 million by the U.S. Department of Education and almost US$80 million from foreign governments and private donors. 3 Under the Fulbright Student Program, 2,125 foreign students studied at a U.S. university in 2004. The study focused on assessing the impacts of the Fulbright Student Program through four indicators: (1) Satisfaction (the over-all satisfaction with the grant); (2) Educational/professional and cultural learning (personal and professional activities at the host institutions and learning about the U.S. culture and society); (3) Effects on behavior (personal and professional enhancement/attainment; professional contributions to home or host institutions; and sharing new knowledge/skills); and (4) Linkages, ties, and institutional change (development and maintenance of personal, professional, and 3 J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. Annual Report 2004-2005. http://exchangesstate.gov/education/t‘ulbright/fl'sb/annualreport/2004/Fulbright12005.pdf. (Last accessed August 2006) institutional linkages and ties; and participatory activities designed to foster international cooperation and/or educational exchange). Although more than 100 countries around the world are represented in the Fulbright Student Program, the assessment study focused only on a sample of 14 countries. Survey questionnaires were sent through e-mail to alumni who received their grants between 1980 and 2004. E-mail addresses were obtained for 2,310 of the 4,943 participants (47%) from the 14 study countries in the 1980-2004 period. Out of the 2,310 alumni with valid contact information, 1,609 respondents returned the survey — a 70 percent response rate. Grantees (92%) expressed a high level of satisfaction with their grant experiences. Many respondents felt that their “Fulbright experience” was the most important personal and professional experience of their lives. Almost all (95%) said it gave them greater insight into their professional fields and contributed to their subsequent educational or career decisions. Most (64%) reported that as a result of participating in the program their view of the world has become more internationally focused. The study also found that more than 81 percent of the respondents have maintained active personal and professional relationships that they established during their study in the U.S. C. ILRI: Kenya-Ethiopia The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) sponsors a graduate fellowship program for scientists from developing and developed countries; in partnership with universities in African and Asian countries, Europe, Australia and North America. To assess the value of this training, ILRI conducted an impact study of 60 graduate fellows from Kenya and Ethiopia who undertook the research component of their degrees at ILRI between 1978 and 1997. Graduate fellows (GF) were staff members of national agricultural research systems (NARS), who registered for a graduate degree. The GF undertook a major part of the research component of their degree at ILRI, where they worked in an ILRI research project and were supervised by an ILRI staff member. The major goal of ILRI’s training program was to increase research capacity within the NARS. In the graduate degree training context, the training of existing or future NARS researchers increases this capacity. ILRI emphasized the importance of graduate study as part of its research program, as it directly benefits ILRI through the contribution of the student’s research towards its own research outputs, and subsequently through the creation of partnerships with the former trainees and their NARS. The ILRI impact assessment study stands out in its attempt to interview the GF’s academic and work supervisors to gain a broader picture of the impact of training on the individual and his/her work environment. Specifically, the survey developed six separate questionnaires which were designed for different respondents, including 1) the training participants, 2) representatives from ILRI and universities who supervised the trainees, and 3) potential beneficiaries of the training, i.e. the users or clients of the graduate fellows’ knowledge and skills. Through a combination of both questionnaires and face- to-face-interviews, data were collected from all 60 trainees from Kenya and Ethiopia. The preliminary results indicated that the graduate training program contributed to capacity- building in NARS and that ILRI provided a high quality environment for graduate students. D. IRRI’s Training Program The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has pursued a dual but complementary mandate that includes rice-related agricultural research and training since its establishment in 1960. Candidates accepted into IRRI’s graduate degree training programs complete their coursework in one of the many universities throughout the world with which IRRI has a formalized memorandum of agreement. Trainees receiving full scholarships tend to come from countries with relatively less developed educational systems and they generally attend the University of the Philippines Los Bafios for their coursework. In addition, a “thesis only” scholarship is available to students who are interested only in thesis supervision. However, IRRI’s evaluation of its training program was not as concerned as much about the “why” of impact as it was with determining if impact has taken place. The evaluators’ main interest was to see if IRRI alumni were making a difference and whether or not this could be attributed in some degree to their participation in IRRI’s training program. All IRRI scholars are required to conduct and write up a piece of original scientific research that is of interest to IRRI and to the student. This requirement directly contributes to the global knowledge base of rice science, which is a primary objective of IRRI’s degree training program. Outstandingly, a majority of the alumni felt that the IRRI training program influenced their subsequent achievements and had introduced specific innovations and changes in their jobs and research, which provided evidence of institutional impact. Nearly 7,000 individuals, about 90 percent from Asia, were trained under the IRRI training program. Thus, many of the national rice programs in the world, 10 particularly in Asia, are staffed with IRRI-trained scientists and researchers. In addition, a survey of more than 1,000 group training alumni revealed that more than 85 percent of these individuals were still working in rice or rice-based research activities one year after returning home and about 80 percent maintained this association with rice some years later after completing their training at IRRI. Overall, this evaluation indicated that alumni are playing significant roles in shaping the future of domestic and international rice research. E. CGIAR The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Training evaluation differs from the previously discussed studies, as it focused on assessing the effectiveness of investments in training on capacity building in national research institutions that had collaborated with CGIAR Centers. However, it also used training information gathered from the IRRI and ILRI studies, since both Centers are members of the CGIAR system. The scale of the study was remarkable. The evaluators conducted seven country-based studies covering Latin America, Asia Pacific and Sub- Saharan Africa and surveyed ex-trainees, research collaborators, center researchers, and center training officers. The evaluators defined training as both learning within the CGIAR and other learning opportunities such as their work experience. Thus, their definition of training incorporated a very broad expression of learning in different settings. Due to the difficulty in getting concrete data on impacts, the CGIAR study was innovative in identifying observable indicators of impacts on institutions, such as: (l) 11 new research networks established, (2) existing networks becoming more effective, (3) knowledge and techniques more widely available, (4) knowledge that was not previously applied that is now being applied, (5) new research priorities that have been identified by researchers, and (6) new courses/curricula that have been established. The study also documented initiatives in strengthening capacity building, which resulted in (1) the transfer of existing technologies, (2) the introduction of new crop varieties, (3) more effective means of crop protection, (4) sustainable agricultural practices, (5) increases in farmers’ incomes, and (6) increases in productivity. l2 CHAPTER III The BIC CRSP Training Program The CRSP, which is now completing its twenty-sixth year, has been funded through three major grants. The first grant extended from 1980 to 1986, the second one extended from 1986 to 2002. In mid-2002, the CRSP began a new five-year grant entitled, “Regional Partnerships to Enhance Bean/Cowpea Production and Consumption in Africa and Latin America”. The fundamental vision for the CRSP was to generate new knowledge and technological outputs through collaborative research and training by U.S. and HC scientists, with the ultimate goals of enhancing bean and COWpea production, consumption, and utilization in Africa, Latin America and the U.S.4 Specifically, the global program for grant period 2002-2007 envisions the “development of the human and institutional capacity of agricultural universities and national research systems through training and collaborative research so that institutional programs can be self-sustaining and contribute to the long-term development of bean and cowpea sub- sectors in both the U.S. and Host Countries” (B/C CRSP, 2002a). The goal was to develop a research and training program of worldwide scope, which enabled U.S. and developing country scientists to address constraints to the production, consumption and utilization of beans and cowpeas. This was to be achieved through graduate training of men and women from the U.S. and host countries and by providing financial support to scientists in both the U.S. and developing countries to conduct both basic and applied research. Prior to 1997, the CRSP was implemented as bilateral projects (U.S.-HC) between U.S. university scientists and host country scientists. In 1997, these bilateral projects 4 http://www.isp.msu.cdu/crsp/homehtm. (Last accessed August 2006) 13 were integrated into regional projects [i.e., West Africa (WA), East and Southern Africa (BSA), and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)] for the formulation and implementation of research and training activities (B/C CRSP, 20020). In each region, the value-chain approach, which was implemented in 2002, has facilitated the alignment of global program strategy with demand-driven research. It begins by first identifying consumer needs and desires, then designing research to relax constraints in key components of the value chain, including retail and wholesale marketing, processing, packaging, handling and storage, and production of beans or cowpeas by small-scale farmers. The motto of the CRSP, “Applying Cutting-edge Science, Developing Value Chains, Building Human Resources ”, represents the three pillar priorities which guide the program’s global mission and strategy for prioritizing research and training activities (B/C CRSP, 2004b). The CRSP has allocated a significant share of its budget to building human resources in developing countries. Recognizing limited expertise and research capacity in the beans and cowpeas sectors in Africa and Latin America, the CRSP has sought to address this constraint by supporting 496 trainees from the U.S. and host countries in 554 academic degrees from 1980 to 2005.5 A. The B/C CRSP U.S.-based graduate degree training model The CRSP graduate degree training model is depicted in Figure 1.6 All degree training is closely linked to research activities and aligned with the research objectives of 5 Some trainees were supported for more than one academic degree. 6 As the study focused only on the graduate degree training (M.S.lPh.D.) component that occurred in the U.S., this model is only a subset of the over-all CRSP training program. In addition to U.S.-based graduate training, the CRSP also supports short-term. BS, MS, and Ph.D. training in host countries. 14 the CRSP research projects. Collaborators identify the trainees based on the HC training needs and university admissibility criteria. Training occurs under the direct supervision of CRSP Principal Investigators (PI), which ensures that the training activity directly contributes to CRSP research goals and objectives, as well as to institutional capacity building in partner host countries. Involvement in the CRSP research program also fosters the student-mentor relationship between the trainee and the university professor, which leads to a continued collaborative research relationship between the U.S. and the HC institution after the formal training program is completed. In many cases, the integration of training with a professor’s on-going research program leads to cost- leveraging (e.g., reduced tuition costs, reduction in overhead costs and/or partial support from other sources to fund the trainee’s thesis research costs). The CRSP takes pride in its training program. Table 2 illustrates the salient features of the CRSP training model, which is significantly different than the training programs discussed in the previous section. By recruiting trainees based on the demand of CRSP projects, the training program provides internal synergies and support for accelerating changes in targeted research institutions. Also, the CRSP realizes that targeting individuals from collaborative institutions increases impact and help sustain capacity-building. Program participants are usually working on a bean/cowpea-related topic prior to training. This training strategy enhances continued collaboration with CRSP scientists after trainees complete their CRSP-funded degree training. Moreover, the value-chain approach, which the CRSP has adopted as a guide in formulating and implementing research and training activities, facilitates the alignment of the program strategy with the selection of trainees and in planning of their respective programs of 15 study. Thus, trainees are usually recruited based on the recommendations of U.S. and HC principal investigators and collaborators who are involved in CRSP research projects. Figure l. B/C CRSP’s U.S.—based graduate degree training model 1' ----------------- | : Ex. Strengthening bean/cowpea l l production. consumption and utilization : : Ex. Work Plan: Productivity, : , I Sustarnabrlrtyand Marketing I I CRSP Objective I I CRSP Project I & l- I U.S. Institution |—‘" RESEARCH .. l g. l 1 1 : Ex. M.S.lPhD. DegreeTraining j : Ex. M.S.IPhD. Research/Thesis J HC Institution I l CRSP HOP! CRSP US-Pl Trainees typically carry out research that will contribute to meeting the objectives described in the work plan. Note: As the study focused only on the graduate degree training (M.S.lPh.D.) component that occurred in the U.S., this model only depicts a subset of the over-all CRSP training program. In addition to U.S.- based graduate training. the CRSP also supports short-term, BS, MS, and PhD. training in host countries. 16 Table 2. Comparing salient features of the B/C CRSP degree training with other training programs (Fulbright, ATLAS/AFGRAD, CGIAR, IRRI, ILRI) B/C CRSP vs Fulbright / ATLAS/AFGRAD vs CGIAR/IRRI/ILRI 0 Trainees are usually recruited from collaborating U.S. and host country institutions. 0 Trainees attend universities with CRSP-funded projects. 0 Trainees’ research is related to beans/cowpeas. 0 Trainees are selected and supervised by CRSP PIS, usually university professors, who ensure that the training/research directly contributes to CRSP research goals and objectives. 0 Trainees work on CRSP-related topics for their thesis/dissertation. 0 Targeted are selected from targeted institutions (ATLAS- AFGRAD). Trainees are selected competitively at the national level. (Fulbright). Trainees may attend any U.S. university. Trainees’ research is not sector-specific. Trainees are selected by the sponsors and are supervised by a U.S. university professor. Trainees identify the focus of their thesis/dissertation. Trainees are selected competitively at the international level. Trainees may attend any university, but usually conduct their thesis/dissertation research at IRRI/ILRI. Trainees’ research is related to the rice/livestock sector. Trainees are selected and supervised by IRRI/ILRI scientists who ensure that the research directly contributes to IRRI/ILRI research goals and objectives. Trainees work on rice/livestock-related topics for their thesis/dissertation. One of the hallmarks of the ATLAS/AFGRAD project was its commitment to restrain the brain-drain — a criticism of some scholarship programs -- by targeting African institutions, rather than qualified individuals, for capacity building. However, ATLAS/AFGRAD only managed the administrative aspect of the scholarship grant. 17 Under the CRSP, the US-PI serves as both the trainee’s academic advisor and thesis/dissertation research supervisor. Taking on this dual role ensures that the total training experience is geared towards the attainment of CRSP objectives. In contrast, under IRRI’s and ILRI’s training program, institute scientists only supervise the trainee’s research. B. B/C CRSP Training Outputs To date, the CRSP has supported a total of 496 students who earned 554 academic degrees (an average of 22 degrees per year from 1981 to 2005) at universities in the U.S. and host countries (Table 3). The CRSP emphasized training students from the developing world. About 81 percent of the trainees were non-U.S. students - mostly from Latin America (33%), West Africa (30%), and East/Southem Africa (11%). Most trainees specialized in plant science (50%), followed by food science (42%), and social science (8%). The largest share of trainees earned M.S. degrees (41%), followed by B.S.lLic. (32%) and Ph.D. (27%) degrees. Almost all BS. degrees were earned in a host country, while almost all MS. and PhD. degrees were earned in the U.S. About 23 percent of the trainees were fully supported (i.e., commitment from the CRSP for the entire duration of a degree program, including thesis research), 57 percent were partially supported (i.e., for one or more semesters to complete field thesis research or partial support throughout the program) from CRSP resources, and 21 percent were supported through indirect funding (i.e., through leveraged funding from other sources). About 56 percent of the trainees were male and 44 percent were female. 18 Table 3. Overview of the B/C CRSP degree training, 1980 to 2005 Region N a‘ Percent n1“ Percent Latin America 183 33% 56 30% East and South Africa 62 11% 25 13% West Africa 163 30% 17 9% U.S. 101 18% 89 48% Other 45 8% n.a. n.a. Discipline N‘” Percent nbi Percent Food Science 231 42% 39 21% Plant Science 280 50% 123 66% Social Science 43 8% 25 13% Highest CRSP Degree N 8‘ Percent n” Percent Ph.D. 152 27% 95 51% MS. 225 41% 92 49% B.S.lLic. 177 32% n.a. n.a. Funding N‘“ Percent nb\ Percent Indirect l 16 21 % 35 19% Partial 312 57% 80 43% Full 126 23% 72 39% Gender N‘“ Percent nb\ Percent Female 244 44% 78 42% Male 310 56% 109 58% Total 554 187 a\ N=population; total number of CRSP supported degrees, including BS, MS, and Ph.D. degrees earned in host countries b\ n=target population; only includes U.S. and HC nationals who received their M.S. and/or Ph.D. degrees from U.S. universities c\ n.a. — data not available However, for the purpose of this study, the target population includes only trainees from both the U.S. and HC who pursued graduate level education, i.e. MS. or Ph.D., at U.S. universities. This reduces the population to 187 trainees from 18 different 19 countries (see Appendix 1). The study focused on MS. and Ph.D. graduates from U.S. universities because of their potential to conduct agricultural commodity research in developing countries. The ATLAS/AGRAD study emphasized the importance of graduate degree training in the U.S. in establishing the scientific and research capacity for significant impacts to occur. Although the CRSP has supported students and trainees since its inception in 1980, the budget for training was not reported separately until the beginning of the second grant in mid-1986. During the last two decades, the CRSP allocated nearly US$7 million on both degree and non-degree training activities (Table 4). This funding supported 377 (68%) graduate and 177 (32%) undergraduate degrees for trainees around the world. Since 1980, the annual budget (in nominal US$) for the CRSP has greatly decreased -- from an all-time high of US$46 million in 1984 to US$29 million in 2005.7 This pales in comparison with the $182 million budget of ATLAS/AFGRAD and the US$100 million per year for the Fulbright Program. Despite this trend, the CRSP has sustained its commitment to education and training, as indicated by the fact that budget allocated to training activities increased more than three times since the mid-19808" from US$129,000 in 1986 to US$608,000 in 2005. In percentage terms, total budget allocated to training steadily increased from 10 percent in the period between 1987 to 1997, to 15 percent between 1998 to 2002, and about 20 percent in the third grant period (2003- 2006). However, this marked increase in the training budget can be partially explained by the rising costs of university education. For instance, in-state tuition at Michigan 7 Converted to 2005 dollars, the budget has declined by 63%, from US$77 million (1984) to US$29 million (2005) 20 Table 4. B/C CRSP Training Budget (in nominal US$), 1981 to 2005 Years £23235 3:52:32" “1‘0““ Budget Tgilé’ém Piifiiiiéf 1980-1981 n.a. n.a. 470,531 0 0% _ 1981-1982 m m 1,833,792 2 0% 3 1982—1983 98- n.a. 2,743,329 10 2% [3‘5 1983-1984 n.a. n.a. 4,191,717 17 3% 1984-1985 M. M 4,647,231 27 5% 1985-1986 n.a. n.a. 2,736,275 42 8% Sub-total $16,622,874 98 18% 1986-1987 128,958 13% 980,141 30 5% 1987-1988 318,330 12% 2,578,864 33 6% 1988-1989 199,846 8% 2,613,661 30 5% 1989-1990 25,861 8% 2,597,569 29 5% (‘3 1990—1991 169,428 6% 2,849,053 20 4% *5? 1991-1992 228,782 8% 2,856,990 20 4% 5 1992-1993 221,846 8% 2,851,731 18 3% 1993-1994 189,768 7% 2,819,542 22 4% 1994—1995 278,122 10% 2,770,552 26 5% 1995-1996 289,686 13% 2,210,466 26 5% 1996—1997 281,637 12% 2,352,430 24 4% Sub-total $2,522,265 9% $27,480,998 278 50% 1997-1998 647,593 27% 2,414,228 19 3% 3 1998—1999 397,139 14% 2,800,555 12 2% 5 1999—2000 299,254 11% 2,799,061 38 7% 65 2000-2001 310,690 11% 2,754,967 22 4% 2001—2002 245,119 1 1% 2,213,585 27 5% Sub-total $1,899,795 15% $12,982,395 118 21% m 2002—2003 655,433 18% 3,694,828 11 2% 3 2003-2004 638,680 22% 2,900,000 21 4% S- 2004-2005 644,376 22% 2,900,000 15 3% 2005—2006 607,873 21% 2,900,000 13 2% Sub-total $2,546,362 21% $12,394,828 60 11% Grand Total $6,968,422 10% $69,481,095 554 100% a\ Training budget not reported separately until beginning of second grant (May 1986); includes both degree and non-degree training in the U.S. and host countries b\ Number of trainees completing their degrees by the corresponding year, 1981 to 2005. c\ n.a. - data not available 21 State University increased from US$28 per credit in 1980 to US$233 in 2005.8 Consequently, the number of trainees who graduated annually declined from an average of 20 to 25 trainees per year in the first and second grant period to 15 trainees per year in the third grant period. The decrease in the number of trainees supported was inevitable, given the waning financial support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Beginning in 1997, the CRSP reported budget data for both degree and non- degree training activities in each regional project (Table 5). From 1997 to date, the CRSP has supported 178 degrees through full (21%), partial (56%) or indirect (22%) support. The LAC regional project received the largest budget allocation (US$7.77 million, 41%), followed by WA (US$7.29 million, 39%), and BSA (US$44 million, 19%). Both the LAC and WA regional projects allocated 24 percent of their total budget to training (compared to 20% for ESA) and, correspondingly, have trained more trainees than the ESA regional project. ESA spent roughly US$50,000 per trainee, more than twice the average costs of training for the LAC. This difference is partly because LAC was able to lower the costs of degree training by getting leveraged funds — which either indirectly or partially supported for more than 80 percent of its trainees. The CRSP Management Office (MO) often highlights this unique aspect of the CRSP — by obtaining leveraged funds, PIs have been able to support additional trainees. On the other hand, ESA fully supported 65 percent of its trainees and focused 100 percent of its training budget on supporting graduate degree training (MS. and PhD.), which partly explains why its cost per trainee was much higher than for the other regional projects. 8 PIs typically appoint trainees as a research assistant which makes them eligible for in-state tuition. Source: History of MSU's tuition per credit amounts (Undergraduate Instate Lower Division) http://wwwctlr.rgsucdu/studrec/historvhtm (Last accessed July 2006) 22 Table 5. Training Budget and Outputs, by regional project (in nominal US$), 1997 to 2005 a“ LAC ESA WA Total Total Regional Budget $7,772,460 $4,357,497 $7,290,070 $19,420,028 Traininmdgerb‘ $1,8£,505 41% $856,294 19% $1,746,358 39% $4,446,157 100% % Spent on Training 24% 20% 24% 23% Number of Trainees 105 17 56 178 Average Cost per Trainee $17557 $50570 ””85 $24378 By Degree 3.3- 26 25% 0 0% 27 48% 53 30% Lic. 16 15% 0 0% 0 0% 16 9% M-5- 41 39% 10 59% 13 23% 64 36% Ph-D- 22 21% 7 41% 16 29% 45 25% By Discipline code FOOd Selence 24 23% 2 12% 41 73% 67 38% Plant SCience 68 65% 9 53% 8 14% 85 48% Social Science IS 12% 6 35% 7 13% 26 15% By CRSP Support F0" 17 16% 11 65% 10 18% 38 21% IndireC‘ 33 31% 5 29% 2 4% 40 22% Partial 55 52% 1 6% 44 79% 100 56% By Training Location In Host Country 45 43% 7 41% 41 73% 93 52% In US- 60 57% 10 59% 15 27% 85 48% By Origin of Student H081 COUNTY 53 50% 10 59% 52 93% 1 15 65% Non-host country 26 25% 4 24% 2 4% 32 18% U-S- 26 25% 3 18% 2 4% 31 17% By Gender Female 55 52% 4 24% 22 39% 81 46% Male 50 48% 13 76% 34 61% 97 54% a\ LAC=Latin America and the Caribbean, ESA=EastlSouthem Africa, WA=Westem Africa b\ includes both degree and non-degree training in the U.S. and host countries 23 Most of the LAC and BSA trainees specialized in plant science (65% and 53%, respectively), while about 73 percent of the trainees supported by the WA regional project pursued degrees in the food science discipline. This is an interesting finding as it reflects research priority setting in the region -- LAC and BSA focused more on plant science fields such as plant breeding, while WA focused on food science fields such as food processing. About 93 percent of WA project-supported trainees were HC nationals, compared to 59 percent for BSA and 50 percent for LAC. Most of the WA trainees pursued their degrees at HC universities (73%), while 59 percent of BSA and 57 percent of LAC project-supported trainees pursued their degrees at U.S. universities. In both the BSA and WA regional projects, more degrees were earned by men (76% and 61%, respectively) than women. In contrast, the gender distribution for LAC was 52 percent females and 48 percent males, 8 ratio that has steadily increased during the past 25 years. C. Collaboration between U.S. and host country institutions A special issue of the Field Crops Research (2003:82) highlighted the research contributions of the CRSP. The introduction section emphasized the collaborative efforts of U.S. and HC scientists in building U.S. and national bean/cowpea research programs. The importance of ‘collaboration’ was stressed when the CRSP was conceptualized -- emphasizing that the initiative should benefit both the U.S. and host countries. For U.S. scientists, this means having opportunities to become involved in international research and development in host countries which are aligned to their U.S. research programs and educational goals of their respective universities (Hall, 2003). In particular, having access to the diverse sets of bean and cowpea germplasm in Africa and Latin America is a 24 distinct advantage for U.S. scientists. For host-country scientists, CRSP projects complemented and sometimes dominated bean/cowpea national research programs in host countries (Adams, 2003). In 1981, Hall (2003) observed that solving agricultural problems in the developing world requires long—term research programs conducted by HC scientists and enhanced by CRSP and other International Agricultural Research Centers that have long term commitment to support such programs. Moreover, the CRSP model fosters collaboration among different scientific disciplines (i.e., plant science, food science, and social science). In an article by Murdock (2005) from Purdue University, he describes the “collaboration, cooperation and complementarity” between the CRSP and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nigeria. As a result of this institutional linkage, both organizations were able to help farmers in Africa increase cowpea production in the region. Moreover, the CRSP and IITA have worked together in sponsoring three World Cowpea Conferences which were held in 1985, 1996 and 2000. Furthermore, an internal B/C CRSP MO (2003) document also noted the complementarity between the CRSP and CIAT (in bean research) and the inherent differences, in terms of strengths and focus. The CRSP, in addition to collaborating with national agricultural research institutions (NARS), has worked closely with local universities in an effort to strengthen higher educational institutions and provide degree training for professionals. In contrast, CIAT has largely collaborated with NARS. Also, a key strength of CIAT is its gene bank, with more than 30,000 accessions of wild and cultivated beans. Furthermore, the CRSP takes a broader multi-disciplinary approach to bean and cowpea research, drawing on a wide range of experts in different disciplines, who are based in both the U.S. and host countries. The CRSP long-term collaborative, 25 inter-country, and inter-disciplinary efforts have contributed to achieving significant progress in bean and cowpea research (see Appendix 2 for a list of collaborating institutions in host countries). While training per se does not automatically lead to institutional capacity building, it is one of the cornerstones of organizational capacity development.9 Horton, et al. (2003), who conducted research on capacity development in Bangladesh, Cuba, Ghana, Nicaragua, Philippines and Vietnam, referred to organizational capacity as the “resources, knowledge and processes employed by the organization to achieve its goals,” Horton, et al. broadly categorized factors associated with institutional capacity into two groups: (1) Resources (which includes the staffing, physical infrastructure, technology and financial resources) and (2) Management (which includes strategic leadership, program and process management, and networking and linkages). In this typology, graduate degree training contributes to capacity development by recruiting highly qualified individuals (human resources) and through the application of their knowledge, skills and attitudes (management). Individuals who receive graduate degree training may possess capacities in the form of knowledge, skills and attitudes. However, if trainees do not return to their organization, they do not contribute to institutional capacity building. Thus, it is important to look at impacts of the training program on host country institutions. 9 In this study, ‘Capacity development’ is used interchangeably with ‘institutional development’ and ‘organizational development’, although many studies have used those three terms distinctively. 26 CHAPTER IV Methodology A. Analytical Framework Evaluation is the means used to determine the worth or value of a training program. It serves a guide for deciding how to improve a training process or in deciding whether or not to continue it. This assessment study mainly employs Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework, which is one of the most widely used models for evaluating training. First published by Donald Kirkpatrick in 1959 as part of his dissertation, Kirkpatrick later redefined and updated his training evaluation model -- reaction, learning, behavior, results — in his 1998 book, “Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels”. The four levels actually refer to different perspectives, not levels, and are not hierarchical. Rather, each level evaluates a different aspect of training and answers different questions. Figure 2 depicts the analytical framework used to evaluate the B/C CRSP graduate degree training program. Figure 2. Training Evaluation Framework Individual: Institutions: Training Participants Research Institutions, Universities B/C CRSP Reaction: Performance: Did they like the training? Did they apply what they have learned? Learning: Results Evaluation: Did they learn from the training? What are the impacts? 27 0 REACTION Reaction refers to the participants' opinions about the training program. However, because this level only measures how the participants react to the training, it does not reveal what new skills and knowledge the trainees have acquired or what they have learned that they will apply to their work environment. Nevertheless, the interest and motivation of the trainees are important to the success of any training program. This level seeks to determine the trainees’ general satisfaction with the training program and the perceived relevance of their training on their personal and professional lives. 0 LEARNING Learning refers to knowledge (principles, facts, and techniques), skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that the participants gained from the training program. This evaluation component looks into participants’ change of attitudes, improvement in knowledge, and increase in skill as a result of attending the program. Measuring the learning that takes place in a training program is important in order to validate the learning objectives. 0 PERFORMANCE This refers to changes in the participants' work performance that could be attributed to the training program. This is the link between leaming and workplace performance. In Kirkpatrick's original four-levels of evaluation, he names this level "behavior." However, behavior is the action that is performed, while the final result of the behavior is performance. Gilbert (1998) noted that performance has two aspects -- behavior being the means and its consequence being the end. The consequence of the 28 behavior (performance) is what evaluation is really attempting to measure. This criterion assesses the trainees’ capabilities to perform acquired KSA in a work environment. It is important to measure performance because the primary purpose of training is to improve results by having the students learn new KSA and then actually applying them to the job. Since level three measurements (Performance) must take place after the trainees have returned to their jobs, the actual evaluation will typically involve assessment by someone closely involved with the trainee, such as his/her supervisor. 0 RESULTS EVALUATION Results evaluation refers to the impact of the training program on the performance of the organization. It measures the program's effectiveness, as it seeks to answer what impacts have the training achieved. In this study, impact provides information about returns to the individual trainee, to the research and/or academic institutions, and to the bean/cowpea sector as a result of training. This study looks at impact from two perspectives: qualitative and quantitative. Hard results are usually reported in quantitative terms (e.g., monetary return or improvement in wages), while soft results are more qualitative in nature (e.g., non-monetary return or trainees’ perceived impacts of training). 29 B. Research Objectives Specific Objectives: Following the Kirkpatrick’s Evaluation Model, the specific objectives of this study are arranged based on the four evaluation categories: Reaction, Learning, Performance and Results Evaluation. a) Reaction 1. To determine the trainees’ general satisfaction with their GDT 2. To assess the relevance of GDT on trainees’ personal and professional lives b) Learning 1. To identify knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSA) that trainees acquired during their GDT 2. To determine problems that trainees encountered during their GDT c) Performance: 1. To evaluate whether trainees were able to apply acquired KSA in their profession 2. To identify noticeable and measurable changes in the trainees’ work performance that can be attributed to the GDT 3. To determine factors that may have contributed to and/or limited the trainees’ effectiveness as bean/cowpea scientists after completing their GDT 30 (I) Results Evaluation: 1. To identify monetary and non-monetary benefits of the GDT on trainees’ personal and professional lives To identify trainees’ contributions in the advancement of the bean/cowpea sectors To determine if the GDT enhanced research capacity building at the HC research institutions, particularly at SUA (case study) To assess if the GDT strengthened research collaboration between CRSP scientists in the U.S. and scientists working at HC research institutions, particularly at SUA Research Questions To maintain the focus on the objectives of the study, the following research questions were explored, following the adapted training evaluation model. a) Reaction 1. What aspects of the GDT did trainees like and enjoy? 2. What aspects of the GDT did trainees consider relevant/useful? b) Learning 1. What knowledge did trainees acquire? 2. What skills did trainees develop or enhance? 3. What changes occurred in trainees’ attitudes? 4. What major problems did trainees encounter during their GDT? 31 c) Performance: 1. Did trainees utilize their learning and newly acquired KSA when they retuned to work after completing the GDT? 2. Were there noticeable and measurable changes in the trainees’ activity and performance when they retuned to work after completing the GDT? 3. What factors have contributed to and/or limited trainees’ effectiveness as bean/cowpea scientists after completing their GDT? d) Results Evaluation: 1. As a result of the GDT, what monetary and non—monetary benefits did trainees gain that improved their personal and professional lives? 2. Did trainees contribute to the advancement of the bean/cowpea sectors? 3. Did the GDT enhance research capacity building at the trainees’ HC research institution (SUA)? 4. Did the GDT strengthen research collaboration between CRSP scientists in the U.S. and scientists working at HC research institutions (SUA)? D. Approaches and Methods This study was undertaken to assess the impact of the CRSP’s U.S. based graduate degree training program, which the CRSP has supported since 1980. A four- pronged approach is adapted to evaluate impacts of training (Figure 3). Aside from the records and reports from the CRSP MO, this study gathered data from four sources to assess impacts of training: (1) the trainees, (2) the US-PIs involved in the CRSP GDT 32 program, (3) via an intemet search, and (4) individuals at a collaborating university in a host country (as a case study). Figure 3. Training Evaluation Approach Institutional Assessment PIs’ Assessment Trainees’ Impacts of Assessment TRAINING Internet Search X. ...... Assessment ...... l. Trainee survey The target population for the trainee survey included all of the 187 trainees who completed their GDT in the U.S. during the period 1981-2005. Given a population of 187 trainees, a sample of 126 respondents is required to obtain a 5 percent margin of error in the construction of a 95 percent confidence. However, it was not possible to obtain contact information for all of the target population. Although the CRSP MO maintains a database of trainee-related information, contact information was out of date, especially for trainees who graduated in the early years of the program. While the MO’s database included 42 (22%) e-mail addresses and 122 (64%) mailing addresses, most of these contact information had not been recently verified. Thus, to aid the process of contacting trainees, PIs, affiliated with 18 U.S. academic institutions where the GDT took place, were contacted (see Appendix 3 for the list of U.S. institutions). 33 All trainees, for whom an e-mail address was found, were e-mailed the trainee questionnaire, which solicited information regarding their assessment of the impacts of GDT on their personal and professional lives (Reaction and Learning) and on the institutions where they are working (Performance and Results Evaluation). Moreover, the questionnaire solicited information regarding (1) their assessment of their graduate training program, (2) their professional history (i.e., current employment, employment before and after graduate training), (3) their reasons for returning (or not returning) to their home country, and (4) constraints to and suggestions for building institutional capacity in their home country (see Appendix 4 for a copy of the trainee survey). 2. US-PI survey In addition, a key—informant questionnaire was e-mailed to all CRSP supervisors (or US-Pls directly in-charge of the trainees) to validate and supplement trainees’ answers to questions on Performance and Results Evaluation. Although including the trainees’ supervisors in evaluating training is not a widely-used methodology, recent work in the area of training impact assessment emphasizes the need for and importance of this type of feedback (Abernathy, 1999). It was anticipated that the trainee’s supervisor and/or adviser would reveal a complementary perspective on training impacts. The US-PI questionnaire solicited information regarding the supervisor’s (1) role in the CRSP, (2) assessment of the strengths/weaknesses of the CRSP graduate training program, (3) rationale for selecting trainees, (4) assessment of the trainees’ outstanding contributions to bean/cowpea research, (5) collaborative research activities (i.e., between the trainee and the CRSP supervisor), and (6) assessment of constraints faced and suggestions for 34 building institutional capacity in countries where he/she had worked (see Appendix 5 for a copy of the US-PI survey). 3. Internet Search An intemet search was conducted to supplement other methods used to locate former trainees. This strategy, recommended by the ATLAS/AFGRAD study, was also used to look for significant contributions that the trainees or their supervisor may not have reported. Information found on the intemet was compared with information found in the CRSP database (e.g., current employer, university affiliation, etc.) to determine if the hit referred to the actual trainee. These three search engines were used for this activity ~- Google (www.google.com), Dogpile (www.dogpile.com), and Altavista (www.altavista.com). 4. Case Study Finally, an institutional case study was conducted at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Tanzania to document the capacity-building impacts of the CRSP- funded training. In addition to interviewing former trainees and collaborators at SUA, interviews were conducted with key institutional administrators to obtain an independent assessment of the contribution of CRSP-supported training to capacity building at the university. 35 E. Data Collection 1. Preliminary US-PI Survey To confirm the name of each trainee’s adviser, an e-mail inquiry was sent to all former and current US-Pls from December 2005 to May 2006. This step was crucial because the CRSP trainee database did not have information that matched all ,trainees with their corresponding supervisor. The e-mail inquiry, which successfully matched 160 students (84%) with their respective CRSP supervisor, significantly augmented the database of information associating US—Pls with their former students. 2. Pre-testing the Questionnaire In December 2005, two questionnaires were pre-tested, one for the former trainees and another for the US-Pls. For the draft trainee questionnaire, constructive comments were received from seven randomly selected respondents. The final e-mail surveys were sent out in April 2006, and reminders were continuously sent to non- respondents until the last week of July 2006. The US-PI questionnaire was sent to two active US-Pls for pre-testing and the final PI survey was sent out in April 2006. 3. Survey Methods a. Trainee Survey The study attempted a complete census of the target trainee population (N=187). However, because of difficulty in getting contact information for all trainees, the population frame was redefined as all trainees with valid e-mail addresses (N=126) for the following reasons. First, for trainees without e-mail addresses, no mailing address 36 was available. Second, since all of the population earned graduate degrees in the U.S., it was assumed that they were computer literate and had access to the intemet. Many studies have confirmed individuals with college degrees or higher are highly likely to have intemet access (NTIA, 1999). Third, e-mail correspondence is the quickest, cheapest, and the easiest way to administer a survey. Administering the trainee survey involved several stages. First, the MO’s database was reviewed to obtain trainees’ e-mail addresses. Second, the intemet was used to search for e—mail addresses of missing trainees. Third, US-PIs were sent a preliminary survey to solicit information on the whereabouts of their former trainees. Fourth, former trainees (who responded) and current collaborators in the U.S. and HC institutions were requested to help locate their missing colleagues. Fifth, some trainees were contacted by telephone and asked to participate in the e-mail survey. Finally, to solicit greater participation, Dr. Richard Bemstenl0 sent an introductory e-mail to the trainees. When an e-mail address was verified, the researcher sent the questionnaire to the trainee as an e- mail attachment. The frame population (N=126), individuals with valid e-mail addresses, represented 67 percent of the target population (N=187). Out of the 126, 76 trainees returned the survey. This translates to a remarkable 60 percent response rate. In contrast, while the CGIAR training study reported a 49 percent response rate for current NARS researchers, the response rate for all former trainees was only 13 percent. With 76 ’0 Dr. Richard Bemsten is the lead US—PI for the B/C CRSP Training Evaluation. 37 respondents, the results reported in this study have a margin of error of +/- 7.11 percent in the construction of a 95 percent confidence level.11 b. US-PI Survey The study attempted a complete census of the target US-PI population (N=3l), based from the results of the preliminary US-PI survey. The target population was defined as all current and former US-Pls who played a role in the GDT of a CRSP trainee -- either as major professor, thesis/dissertation adviser, or as member of thesis/dissertation committee. To solicit greater participation, Dr. Irvin Widders12 sent an introductory e-mail message to the US-Pls. After an e-mail address was verified, the researcher sent the questionnaire to each US-PI, as an e-mail attachment. Twenty-eight of the 31 US-PIs returned the questionnaire — a remarkable 90 percent response rate.13 However, three questionnaires were discarded because these US- PI respondents reported that they did not play a role in a trainee’s GDT program. This reduced the target population to 28 and the sample size to 25. With 25 respondents, the results reported in this study have a margin of error of +/- 6.53 percent in the construction of a 95 percent confidence interval. ‘4 ” For the frame population = 126, confidence interval = +/- 7.11 was computed for 95% confidence level. For the target population = 187, confidence interval = +/- 8.68 was computed for 95% confidence level. See http://www.survevsystem.com/sscalc.htm. '2 Dr. Irvin Widders is the current Director of the B/C CRSP (2002-2007). 13 This high response rate was made possible through the help of the CRSP MO, particularly Dr. Irvin Widders, who sent out e-mails to P15 to explain the purpose of the study. ‘4 Confidence interval = +/-6.53 computed for 95% confidence level, population=28, sample=25, percentage=50. See http://wwwsurvevsvstem.com/sscalc.htm. 38 c. Case Study The main purpose of the case study was to collect information about impact to supplement the questionnaire-based trainee and US-PI surveys. An institutional visit to Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) in Morogoro, Tanzania was made to interview former trainees and HC-PIs, both in group and individual settings, from July 11 to 15, 2006.15 This visit was carried out to solicit anecdotal information and qualitative information that would enrich the impact information that trainees reported in the participant survey. Meetings were also held with other university administrators to solicit the perspective of outsiders regarding the CRSP’s impact on strengthening research and teaching capacity at SUA. Further, face-to-face interviews with ‘second-generation trainees’ were held on July 17, 2006 at Selian Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) and at the Tropical Pesticide Research Institute (TPRI) in Arusha, Tanzania to determine multiplier impacts of the CRSP training investment.16 F. Limitations of the Study In assessing the impact of training, the study acknowledged several issues and problems that inherently limit the analysis. First, because the lags involved in observing the impacts of training on final outcomes are substantial, it takes many years for the true quality and value of training to become evident. Second, it is difficult to attribute outcome ‘effects’ to a particular training ‘cause’. This is because there are many unaccounted external factors that affect impact, including '5 See Appendix 6 for a complete list of participants. ’6 Second-generation trainees refer to students directly trained or supervised by former B/C CRSP trainees. 39 the quality of training and the extent to which the trainees apply their KSAs to generate impacts. Moreover, it is difficult to isolate the contribution of GDT sponsored by the CRSP from training received elsewhere. Third, this study also anticipated the problem of separating training outputs and research outputs, since the CRSP sees training as an inherent component of the research program. For the sake of simplicity, this study assumed that training prepares individuals to utilize enhanced research methods. Therefore, enhanced research capacity can be attributed to improved individual capacity, as a result of training. Fourth, the study recognizes that identical sets of indicators may not be applicable for all disciplines. Thus, the linkages between outputs and impacts may well differ across academic fields and discipline. Finally, the study anticipated several sources of survey errors. These errors can be grouped into three major categories — coverage, non-response, and measurement (Couper, 2000). Coverage error is considered one of the biggest problems in doing a web survey, as it represents the divergence between the target population and the frame population. The target population is the ideal set to which the study wants to make an inference; a frame population refers to the “materials or devices which delimit, identify and allow access to the elements of the target population” (Wright & Tsao, 1983). In this study, the target population is the 187 former CRSP trainees who completed their graduate study in the U.S. However, our frame population was limited to 126 trainees (67% of the target population) for which valid e-mail addresses were obtained. Individuals who were not contacted included trainees without e-mail addresses. Further, because trainees from the 40 U.S. usually have better access to intemet than their counterparts from developing countries, the sample population may not be fully representative of the target population. Non-response error, sometimes considered a selection bias, is expected when certain groups of individuals return the survey and other groups do not. This leads to problems with statistical inference and with the robustness of results. For example, trainees who do not want to divulge their income status may choose to ignore the survey, despite guarantees of strict confidentiality. The study also anticipates a positive response bias from Michigan State University (MSU) alumni. As the e-mail was sent using MSU e-mail address of the researcher, MSU alumni are more likely to respond to an e-mail message from MSU. A positive bias is also expected for trainees who are still active with the CRSP. Measurement error refers to the deviation of the respondent’s answers from their true values (Couper, 2000). This could arise from the respondent’s lack of motivation, problem in comprehension, or deliberate distortion of answer. It could also arise from the survey questionnaire’s poor wording or design or from technical problems encountered while answering the survey. 41 CHAPTER V Results: Trainees A. Internet Search The intemet search confirmed probable matches for 136 (73 %) of the 187 trainees (Table 6). Thirty (16%) cases were inconclusive, as the information obtained was insufficient to confirm a correct match. For another 21 (11%) trainees, no positive matches were found. For these matched individuals, the intemet search found information such as the trainees’ names referred to in research papers; journal articles or books written or co-authored by trainees (34%); and their names listed in national or international conferences programs (25%), institutional directories or personal web pages (69%), and in news articles (38%) citing or reporting trainees’ activities and accomplishments. Table 6. Results of Internet Search Impact for Trainees Internet Search Result Female Male Total Percent No hit 10 11 21 11% Positive hit 53 83 136 73% Inconclusive 15 15 30 16% Number of trainees (with at least one hit) Publication 23 41 64 34% Award 3 6 9 5% Conference papers/programs 16 31 47 25% News articles 22 49 71 38% Directory/Has personal webpage 50 79 129 69% 42 B. Descriptive analysis of respondents Seventy-six trainees (60%) returned the e-mail survey. From this total, 73 sent their completed questionnaires by e-mail, one returned it by regular post mail, one returned it by fax, and another personally gave the researcher a hard copy of the completed questionnaire. Table 7 provides an overview of the sample, based on those who responded to the survey. More than one-half of the respondents were male (66%), from host countries (55%), and had specialized in plant science discipline (61%). About 62 percent of the respondents were supported for Ph.D. degrees, while 46 percent were fully funded by the CRSP during their graduate study. Although a higher response rate was expected from U.S. citizens, with the assumption that they had better access to the intemet, the response rate did not differ much between U.S. trainees (62% response rate) and host country nationals (59% response rate). As expected, the response rate was highest for trainees who were fully funded (74% response rate) for the duration of their graduate study, compared to trainees who were partially (59% response rate) or indirectly (39% response rate) supported by the CRSP. More than 75 percent (17 out of 22) of the social science trainees responded to the survey. Furthermore, 11 out of these 17 received their degrees from Michigan State University, all in the Department of Agricultural Economics. A major reason for this high response rate was because the study was supervised by a professor from the Department of Agricultural Economics. While more males (62%) responded to the survey, there appears no large difference in the response rates by gender. Finally, almost all trainees (17 out of 19, 89%) who finished their degrees in the last three years returned the questionnaire. 43 Table 7. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents - Target Frame Respon— Response Regron population % population 0 dents Rateb/ Latin America 56 30% 41 33% 23 30% 56% East/South Africa 25 13% 18 14% 10 13% 56% West Africa 17 9% 12 10% 9 12% 75% U.S. 89 48% 55 44% 34 45% 62% Discipline Food Science 39 21 % 21 17% 13 17% 62% Plant Science 123 66% 83 66% 46 61 % 55% Social Science 25 13% 22 17% 17 22% 77% Highest B/C CRSP-supported degree pl”). 95 51% 71 56% 44*” 58% 62% MS. 92 49% 55 44% 32 42% 58% Funding Indirect 35 19% 28 22% 11 14% 39% Partial 80 43% 51 40% 30 39% 59% Full 72 39% 47 37% 35 46% 74% Gender Female 78 42% 45 36% 26 34% 58% Male 109 58% 81 64% 50 66% 62% Grant Period 1 (1981-1986) 46 25% 22 17% 14 18% 64% 2a (1987-1997) 93 50% 62 49% 30 39% 48% 2b (1998-2002) 28 15% 23 18% 15 20% 65% 3 (2003-2005) 20 l 1% 19 15% 17 22% 89% Total 187 126 76 60% a/ This number represents the trainees’ highest CRSP-supported degree. Many trainees who were supported for their M.S. degrees had gone on to continue studying for their Ph.D. degrees with financial support from other sources. Considering the highest degree received by trainees, regardless of funding source, 58 (76%) respondents have Ph.D. degrees and 18 (24%) have M.S. degrees. b/Percent of frame population who returned the questionnaire. 44 Given the divergence between the target population (N=187), frame population (N=126) and the trainees who returned the survey (N=76), an effort was made to see how the characteristics of the sample respondents differed from the characteristics of the target and frame population. Such an assessment is needed in order to determine if the respondents were representative of the target population — a requirement for making meaningful inferences about the target population. The percentage of trainees who responded by region was very similar compared to the target and frame population. However, a higher percentage of trainees from the social science trainees (77%) returned the survey, compared to the target (13%) and frame (17%) populations. Although the percentage of male respondents (66%) closely represents the frame population (64%), men were over represented compared to the target population (58%). Also, a greater percentage of trainees who were fully supported (74%) during their CRSP training returned the survey, compared to the target (39%) and frame (37%) populations. The percentage of respondents supported for their Ph.D. degrees (62%) closely matched the frame population (56%), but was slightly higher compared to the target population (51%). While the make-up of the frame population by grant period mirrored the target population, trainees who finished their degrees recently (2003-2005) were slightly more represented among trainees who returned the questionnaire. These results were not surprising and confirmed a priori. Trainees who were fully supported would be more likely to respond to a request coming from the CRSP than those who were indirectly or partially supported. Also, trainees with higher degrees would be more likely to return the survey because a higher degree correlates to other factors such as possibly greater knowledge, greater appreciation of the importance of studies like this, 45 higher income, and better access to the intemet. Further, trainees who finished their degrees recently would be more likely to participate because of their recent affiliation with the CRSP. Thus, while the characteristics of the respondents diverged slightly from the target and frame populations, the respondents are generally representative of the CRSP graduate degree training participants. Despite the above described limitations, the survey provided valuable information about CRSP trainees GDT experience. C. Decision to pursue the CRSP-funded graduate degree in the U.S. The questionnaire asked respondents to rank factors that influenced their decision to pursue a CRSP-funded graduate degree. For this question, several possible reasons were listed and the respondent was asked to rank each factors on a scale from 1 (very important) to 4 (not important). Most trainees -- both male (91%) and female (88%) -- felt that that graduate degree training (GDT) was necessary for their professional development. Also high on the list was the opportunity to study at a specific university (78%) (usually at the home university of the recruiting US-PI), as well as the desire to gain an international perspective (78%). Other factors that respondents considered important in their decision to take advantage of the CRSP training opportunity are presented in Figure 4. The factor ranked lowest by women respondents (68%) was ‘being encouraged by employers’, while more male respondents (58%) ranked the “desire to secure a job with an international organization” as least important. 46 Figure 4. Question: How important was each of the following in your decision to pursue this CRSP-funded graduate degree in the U.S.? Desire to secure ajob in the future with an international organization Desire to earn higher income in the future Felt necessary for professional development Opportunity to travel abroad Desire to gain an international perspective I Encouraged by CRSP scientists Encouraged by employer Opportunity to study at a specific university l Desire to collaborate with specific scientists l 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Responses who said the factor is IMPORTANT in their decision to pursue graduate studies D. Trainee assessment of graduate program and their CRSP research Following Kirkpatrick’s model, questions were included to determine trainees’ general satisfaction with their GDT (Reaction). Separate questions were included to allow trainees to assess the relevance of the trainees’ graduate degree program coursework and their CRSP research on both their personal and professional lives. Almost all respondents considered their graduate program (97%) and CRSP research (99%) as interesting and challenging, that they receive sufficient professional guidance from their CRSP supervisors (86%) and major professors (95%), that their graduate program (92%) and CRSP research (83%) was relevant to their current work/job responsibility, and that their graduate program (100%) and CRSP research (97%) provided excellent preparation for their future work. 47 Overall, more men “agreed” or “highly agreed” to the list of positive statements about their academic program and CRSP research. All male respondents (100%) felt that: (1) the graduate program provided excellent preparation for their future professional work; (2) the CRSP research provided an opportunity to gain valuable professional expertise and experience; (3) the CRSP research was interesting and challenging; (4) the work requirements of the CRSP research were reasonable; (5) and that the CRSP research provided excellent preparation for their future professional work. This high satisfaction rate was comparable to several studies on graduate degree evaluation. In a survey by the Graduate Division of the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), 92 percent of respondents were “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with their UCSB over-all graduate experience”. Among Ph.D. recipients, 95 percent were “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with their overall academic experience. In the Fulbright Student study, 92 percent of the respondents were “mostly” or “very satisfied” with their grant experiences and almost 95 percent said their experiences gave them greater insight into their professional fields and contributed to their subsequent educational or career choices and decisions. Only 11 respondents (14%) reported having had some academic-related problems during their GDT. Out of the 11, five respondents felt that they did not have a good working relationship with their adviser or major professor. Over one-half (59%) of the respondents were married during their CRSP-funded GDT and 33 (43%) respondents had at least one child. Moreover, majority of the respondents had their spouses (32 out of 45, 71%) and their children (24 of 33, 73%) living with them during their training. Having children was positively correlated with experiencing non-academic problems during their ‘7 http://www.graddivucsb.edu/study/climate/gashtm) Last accessed: October 2006) 48 graduate study (1 % significance level). Thus, it was not surprising that about one quarter of the respondents (29%) reported non-academic related problems -- usually involving family or financial matters. Further, a correlation analysis indicated that trainees who reported non-academic problems also reported academic problems (1% significance level). E. Acquisition of KSAs Trainees must first acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) from the training program before any impacts can occur. This section looks into the second level or the learning stage of the Kirkpatrick’s model. The goal was to identify the KSAs acquired during training and determine any problems encountered by trainees during their training. To meet this goal, respondents were asked to identify the three most important KSAs that they acquired during their GDT. Seventy-five out of 76 respondents identified at least one KSA acquired during their GDT. Because the question presented some concrete examples of KSAs, most of the answers revolve around them.18 While this format possibly introduced some bias, it helped respondents to better understand the question, as the pre-test found that it was difficult for respondents to identify a specific KSA. Only two additional categories were identified by the respondents -- the ability to do statistical analysis and an increased international focus. Also, because it is difficult to attribute a KSA to a specific graduate '8 Sample KSAs -- e.g., designing/conducting/analyzing scientific research, scientific methods/tools, attitude towards work, computer skills, critical thinking, time management, language fluency, communication skills -- were based on previous studies on impact assessment. These were the KSAs most commonly reported by respondents. 49 degree (MS. or Ph.D.), respondents were asked to consider the KSAs acquired from the highest degree they attained, regardless of funding source. Important KSAs which respondents reported that they acquired during GDT are reported in Table 8. Overwhelmingly, trainees considered the ability to “design/ conduct/analyze scientific research” (87%) as the most important KSA acquired from their GDT. About one-half (51%) reported “analytical/critical thinking” in solving problems, followed by “scientific methods and tools” (47%). Nearly one-third of the respondents cited “language fluency and communication skills”. This is not surprising, since about one-half of the respondents were from Africa and Latin America. Similarly, about one-third of the trainees identified “attitude towards work/collaborative wor ” as an important KSA. This was likely due to their exposure to the CRSP model of research collaboration. These acquired KSAs were reaffirmed during the visit (case study) at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA). Table 8. Most important KSAs acquired during graduate degree training‘“ Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes Number Percent l designing/conducting/analyzing scientific research 66 87% 2 anal ytical/critical thinking 39 51% 3 scientific methods/tools 36 47% 4 language fluency/communication skills 27 36% 5 attitude towards work, collaborative work 25 33% a\ According to frequency of mention; Total number of responses = 221 out of 76 respondents 50 F. Employment Details Respondents were asked if they encountered any problems in applying these KSAs in the job that they held immediately after receiving their highest degree. This question attempted to find out if trainees were able to apply their acquired KSAs in their profession, as part of the Performance level of the Kirkpatrick’s model. About one-fifth (18%) of the respondents reported having problems in applying their acquired KSAs in their workplace. Problems cited included a lack of support or interest from colleagues (3%) and a lack of infrastructure/equipment (7%). Several respondents (8%) changed their line of work and, consequently, were not able to apply their acquired KSAs. To validate respondents’ answers on previous questions on KSAs, trainees were asked to select from a list of specific choices how they applied the acquired KSAs. Trainees provided 255 responses to this question, an average of three answers per respondent. About two-thirds of the trainees said that they shared their KSAs through seminar/conference (70%), research supervision of students (66%), and publication (66%) (Figure 5). This finding implies that many of the former trainees are or have been university professors with the capacity to supervise students’ research or that many are or were active in research after completing their graduate training. 51 Figure 5. Question: How have you shared your knowledge, skills, and attitudes with others? through seminar/conference through works hop/training course as university instructor through publication through research supervision ofstudents through outside consulting 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent of Responses Note: Total number of responses = 255 out of 76 respondents 1. Current Employment Trainees were asked about their current or most recent employment. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents were currently employed, either full-time (84%) or part-time (4%). About one-half (48%) of the respondents were working in a host country. The largest share of trainees worked at universities (44%). Most were doing research (84%), coupled with some administration/management work (40%), while some were teaching (29%) in conjunction with their other assignments. Forty-nine percent of the currently employed respondents were still doing work related to beans/cowpeas. This continued effort on beans/cowpeas usually involved collaborative work on plant breeding/pathology. About 26 percent said that they supplemented their income from their primary job with outside consulting. 52 2. Employment after receiving highest degree The respondents were asked to describe their employment details immediately after receiving their highest degree, and to skip the question if that job was the same as their current or most recent employment. Of the 67 trainees who indicated they are currently employed, 31 answered this question. Assuming that respondents did not intentionally skip this question, 54 percent of the trainees were still employed by the same institution at which they were employed immediately after receiving their graduate degrees. While about 61 percent of the respondents worked in the U.S. immediately after receiving their highest degree, most of whom (84%) were US citizens. About one-half (47%) of all respondents worked at a university, 43 percent did work related to beans/cowpea, and 27 percent said they supplemented their income from their primary job with outside consulting. 3. Employment before starting graduate program The questionnaire also solicited information from the trainees about their employment before they began their graduate studies. Prior to their GDT, most were either employed (74%) or were students (25%). Of those who were previously employed, the largest share worked for the government (41%) and worked in a developing host country (66%). Slightly more than one-half of the respondents noted that they were working on a bean/cowpea—related job prior to their GDT (52%). Understandably, a large number of the respondents (84%) did not have any outside consultancies before they 53 began their graduate program, since a graduate degree and extensive experience are often pro-requisites for outside consultancies. 4. Employment trends Regarding their present employment location, almost all U.S. respondents were working in the US (97%) and most of the HC respondents were working in a host country (81%). Prior to their graduate study, HC trainees were mainly employed by the government (49%), the private sector (28%), or a university (24%). After their GDT, most HC trainees found work with the government (36%) or at a university (31%). In contrast, after completing their graduate degree, most U.S. trainees (63%) found work at a university, usually as professors/instructors. Before their GDT, a majority (59%) of the U.S. respondents were employed in the private sector. While only 12 percent of the U.S. respondents worked on a bean/cowpea-related project prior to beginning their GDT, most of the HC trainees (71%) were previously working on a bean/cowpea-related project. Remarkably, 49 percent of respondents -- 69 percent of HC trainees and 23 percent of U.S. trainees -- continue to work on a bean/cowpea-related project. G. Significance of degree level This section analyzes the difference in impact according to the graduate degree obtained. As it is usually at least twice as expensive to fund Ph.D. degree training, compared to MS. degree training, it is sometimes argued that training funds should be prioritized towards funding M.S. students. 54 This analysis makes a distinction between the highest CRSP-supported degree (M.S.=32, Ph.D.=44) and the highest degree obtained regardless of funding source (M.S.=18, Ph.D.=58). Fourteen respondents who were supported by the CRSP for their M.S. programs went on for Ph.D. degrees, with support from another funding source. Most of the M.S. respondents were from the US (61%), while most Ph.D. respondents come from host countries (60%) (Table 9). More than one-half of the respondents, both M.S. and Ph.D. trainees, specialized in plant science (e.g., plant pathology, plant breeding and horticulture) 0 Do M. S. trainees experience more problems during their GDT than Ph.D. trainees? There was no significant difference between the rates of academic (M.S.=17%, Ph.D.=14%) and non-academic (M.S=22%, Ph.D.=32%) related problems experienced by Ph.D. and M.S. graduates.l9 This implies that trainees in M.S. and Ph.D. programs encounter similar problems while studying in a U.S. university. Again, these problems related to family and financial problems and conflict with their supervisors. 0 Is there any difference in career advancement between M.S. and Ph.D. trainees? About half of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees currently work at a university (50%). This is not surprising, since a Ph.D. degree is usually a requirement for a job at a university, especially for academic positions. The other half of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees currently work for the government (23%), in the private sector, (9%), and at an international organization (12%). In contrast, 31 percent of the M.S. graduates were '9 Pearson chi-square test confirms that the difference is not statistically significant between occurrence of non-academic problems and highest degree attained. 55 now working in the private sector, while 25 percent work for the government, 25 percent are at a university, and another 12 percent were at an international organization. Notably, most Ph.D. respondents (57%) were still active in beans/cowpeas-related activities, compared to only one-fourth of the M.S. trainees (24%). This difference is statistically significant at the 5 percent confidence level. Table 9. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by highest degree‘“ Gender M.S. Ph.D. Total Female 9 50% 17 29% 26 34% Male 9 50% 41 71% 50 66% Region M.S. Ph.D. Total LAC 5 28% 18 31% 23 30% BSA 2 1 1% 8 14% 10 13% WA 0 0% 9 16% 9 12% U.S. ll 61 % 23 40% 34 45% Discipline M.S. Ph.D. Total Food Science 5 28% 8 14% 13 17% Plant Science 9 50% 37 64% 46 61 % Social Science 4 22% 13 22% 17 22% CRSP Funding M.S. Ph.D. Total Indirect 3 17% 8 14% l l 14% Partial 6 33% 24 41 % 30 39% Full 9 50% 26 45% 35 46% Total 18 58 76 24% 76% Note: a\ Highest degree reported by respondent, regardless of funding source 56 Only 6 percent of M.S. graduates sought outside consultancy to augment their income from their principal job, compared to 32 percent of the Ph.D. respondents. A correlation analysis affirmed that outside consultancy and highest degree attained is significantly correlated and the relationship is positive, meaning Ph.D. graduates are more likely than M.S. graduates to have outside consultancy projects. While Ph.D. training is more expensive than M.S. training, Ph.D. graduates have greater impact in the long-run. First, most CRSP-funded Ph.D. graduates secured an academic position at a university. Consequently, they serve as multipliers, as generations of students are trained by CRSP trainees. Second, M.S. trainees, who most often took positions in the private sector, seldom continued to collaborate with their CRSP supervisor. Finally, a higher percentage of Ph.D. graduates continued to work in the field of beans/cowpeas. Thus, if the objective of the GDT program is to develop a cadre of developing country scientists who continue to conduct bean/cowpea-related research, investing in Ph.D. training is a high priority endeavor. 0 D0 M.S. graduates have more or less drfi‘iculty in applying their knowledge and skills at their workplaces? More Ph.D. respondents (22% versus 6% for M.S. respondents) indicated problems in applying their acquired KSAs. The differences in the jobs that Ph.D. versus M.S. respondents took after completing their GDT may have been a factor in trainees’ difficulties in applying their acquired KSAs. Common problems that respondents identified related to a lack of resources (funding, equipment, and infrastructure) to carry out their work responsibilities. 57 H. Gender considerations of training This section assesses the differences in impact according to gender. Although the number of male respondents was about twice the number of female respondents, there was no major difference in response rates by gender (Female: 58%, Male: 62%). The number of male respondents who earned Ph.D. degrees was about twice the number of women (Table 10). Not surprisingly, 65 percent of women respondents were from the U.S. About one-half of the female respondents were partially supported (50%) by the CRSP, whereas slightly more men were fully supported (52%) to pursue their graduate studies. 0 D0 women trainees experience more problems during their GDT than men? The questionnaire asked whether trainees experienced any problems during their graduate study. For academic-related problems, there was no difference between the rates experienced by men (14%) and women (15%). However, for non-academic problems, more men (39% versus 12% for female respondents) admitted to having problems while studying.20 Problems cited usually involve money or financial hardship (36%). Some also mentioned the difficulty of being apart from family members while studying (43%). The higher rate (non-academic problems) for male respondents was not surprising because 40 percent of the male respondents had children living with them during their GDT, compared to only 15 percent of the female respondents. 20 Pearson chi-square test confirms that the difference is statistically significant at 95 percent confidence. 58 Table 10. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by gender Region Female Malt: Total LAC 6 23% 17 34% 23 30% BSA 1 4% 9 18% 10 13% WA 2 8% 7 14% 9 12% U.S. 17 65% 17 34% 34 45% Discipline Female Male Total ’ Food Science 8 31% 5 10% 13 17% Plant Science 14 54% 32 64% 46 61 % Social Science 4 15% 13 26% 17 22% CRSP funding Female Male Total Indirect 4 15% 7 14% l 1 14% Partial 13 50% 17 34% 30 39% Full 9 35% 26 52% 35 46% Highest Degree Female Male Total Ph.D. 17 65% 41 82% 58 76% M.S. 9 35% 9 18% 18 24% Total 26 50 76 34% 66% 0 Are there diflerences in career advancement between men and women? A majority of the female respondents (62%) were working at a university, compared to 38 percent of the male respondents. This may suggest that there is a wider array of jobs available to men outside the university system, or that women prefer university jobs rather than working for the government or the private sector. Further, only 8 percent of the female respondents (versus 35% for male respondents) secured outside consulting opportunities to augment their principal job. In addition, a smaller percentage 59 of female trainees were still working in a bean/cowpea-related field (39% versus 55% for male respondents). 0 D0 women have more or less difliculty in applying their KSAs in their workplaces? The questionnaire asked whether trainees experienced any problems in applying their acquired KSAs in their workplaces. A smaller portion of female respondents (12% versus 22% for male respondents) said they had problems applying their acquired KSAs. While this was incongruent with the ATLAS/AFGRAD study -- which found that women had more difficulty in applying KSAs than men -- the differences in the jobs that male and female respondents take (e.g., 31% of female respondents earned food science degrees versus 10% of male respondents) after completing their GDT may have been a factor in trainees’ difficulties in applying their acquired KSAs. Also, all of the ATLAS/AFGRAD trainees were from Africa, while 45 percent of CRSP respondents were from the U.S. -- 65 percent of which are female trainees. 1. Significance of field of study This section assesses the differences in impacts by discipline or field of study. Fields of study are broadly grouped into three categories: plant science (PS), food science (FS) and social science (SS). As a majority of CRSP trainees were in the field of PS, it is not surprising that more than one-half of the respondents specialized in this field (61%) (Table 11). Most of the PS and SS respondents came from LAC and the US, while most FS trainees were from the US (69%). More than 60 percent of the FS respondents were female, while about three-fourths of the PS (70%) and SS (76%) respondents 60 were male. Sixty-two percent of the FS trainees were fully supported, compared to 46 percent for PS, and 35 percent for SS. Table 11. Overview of the B/C CRSP trainee respondents, by field of study Gender Food Science Plant Science Social Science Total Female 8 62% 14 30% 4 24% 26 34% Male 5 38% 32 70% 13 76% 50 66% Region Food Science Plant Science Social Science Total LAC 1 8% 16 35% 6 35% 23 30% BSA 1 8% 7 15% 2 12% 10 13% WA 2 15% 5 1 l % 2 12% 9 12% U.S. 9 69% 18 39% 7 41% 34 45% CRSP Support Food Science Plant Science Social Science Total Indirect l 8% 7 15% 3 18% ll 14% Partial 4 31% 18 39% 8 47% 30 39% Total 8 62% 21 46% 6 35% 35 46% Highest Degree Food Science Plant Science Social Science Total M.S. 5 38% 9 20% 4 24% 18 24% Ph.D. 8 62% 37 80% 13 76% 58 76% Total 13 46 17 76 17 % 61 % 22 % 61 0 Are there differences in problems experienced by discipline? Trainees in PS experienced higher rates of both academic (20%) and non- academic problems (37%), followed by SS respondents (13% academic, 25% non- academic). Surprisingly, not a single one in the FS indicated having faced academic- related problems, and only one respondent reported facing non-academic problems. However, these differences may be due to factors unrelated to a trainee’s discipline. For example, 69 percent of the FS respondents were from the U.S., compared to 35 percent of the PS respondents. Thus, it is likely that FS trainees were better prepared for GDT than PS trainees, more likely to be fluent in English, and faced fewer cultural adjustment problems than PS respondents. 0 Are there differences in career advancement by discipline? There were minimal differences by discipline, regarding where trainees found employment after their graduate program. The largest share of the PS (50%) and SS (40%) trainees are now working at a university, while most of the FS trainees (46%) are employed in the private sector. Remarkably, more than one-half of the PS respondents (61%) are still active in beans/cowpeas-related research, compared to 41 percent of the SS and only 17 percent of the FS respondents. Furthermore, about one-third of the FS (33%) and PS (28%) trainees reported having outside consultancy projects, compared to 13 percent of the SS trainees. 62 0 Are there differences in the level of difiiculty in applying KSAs at workplace by discipline? The PS graduates reported experiencing the most problems (11 of 46, 24%) in applying their acquired KSAs after completing their GDT — mostly due to a lack of resources, particularly laboratory equipment. Again, no trainee in PS reported difficulty in applying their KSAs. Similarly, these differences may be due to factors unrelated to a trainee’s discipline. To highlight, more than half of the PS graduates (57%) are employed in a host country, while almost all of the FS respondents (92%) are employed in the U.S. Thus, it is likely that FS trainees have better working conditions in better equipped offices. On the other hand, laboratory equipment is expensive and is not readily available in most developing countries. J. Significance of participant location An important purpose of this assessment is to analyze differences in impact by trainees’ region of origin. Since 1980, the CRSP has supported collaborative projects in LAC, ESA, WA, and the US -- the main bean/cowpea-consuming regions of the world. 0 Are there difierences in problems that trainees experienced by location? More international trainees (18% LAC, 30% BSA, 11% WA) reported having academic problems than U.S. trainees (9%). The differences were even greater for non- academic problems -- 23 percent of the LAC trainees, 70 percent of the ESA trainees and 63 44 percent of the WA trainees reported experiencing non-academic related problems (e.g., financial and family) versus 18 percent of the U.S. respondents.” 0 Are there differences in career advancement by location ? There were differences by location regarding where trainees found employment after completing their GDT. Most U.S. (66%) and BSA (70%) respondents are now working in universities, while the largest share of the LAC (45 %) and WA (35%) trainees are employed by the government. Overwhelmingly, most HC trainees (69%) are still active in beans/cowpeas research (74% LAC, 60% BSA, 67% WA), compared to only 23 percent of U.S. trainees. Furthermore, 31 percent of the HC respondents have outside consulting jobs (10% LAC, 56% BSA, 56% WA), compared to 19 percent for U.S. trainees. To a large extent, these differences reflect where the trainees were recruited, as most trainees returned to the institution where they worked (e.g., university, NARS) prior to beginning their GDT. 0 Are there diflerences in the level of difi‘iculty in applying KSAs at workplace by location ? As expected, HC respondents reported more problems in applying their acquired KSAs (26% LAC, 20% BSA, 22% WA) than U.S. trainees (12%). Although many of the HC respondents reported difficulties in applying their KSAs due to resource constraints, two of the four U.S. graduates who reported problems said they do not need the acquired KSAs for their current job. 2' Pearson chi-square test confirms that the difference between the number of non-academic related problems faced by U.S. and HC trainees is statistically significant at 95 percent confidence. 64 K. Significance of type of employer The ATLAS/AFGRAD study found that participant location can be an indicator of potential impact and the level in which impact takes place. The findings reported in the previous section showed that many of the graduates were currently working at a university (44%), for the government (24%), in the private sector (14%), and at international organizations (13%). Almost all (82%) of the respondents who were working for the government continue to work on a bean/cowpea-related project, compared to 44 percent for trainees at universities, 20 percent for trainees in the private sector, and 33 percent for trainees at international organizations. Twenty-two percent of trainees working in the private sector and about one-third of trainees working at a university (32%) and for the government (31%) had outside consultancies. For government and university employees, low salaries possibly drive trainees to seek outside consultancies.22 On the other hand, trainees employed at international organizations do not have outside consultancies. L. Monetary and Non-monetary Impacts of Training on Participants Employing the Kirkpatrick Model, two types of impacts on individual trainees were assessed -- monetary and non-monetary. 1. Monetary Impacts Monetary benefits, such as salary and outside consulting opportunities, are the easiest to quantify, but usually difficult to obtain because many people consider this to be 22 A correlation analysis confirmed the negative relationship between income level and having outside consultancies. This suggests that the higher the trainees’ income, the less likely the respondents sought consultancies. This is statistically significant at 0.05 confidence level. 65 a sensitive question. Respondents were asked to approximate the annual salary (US$) that they earned from their previous job (i.e., job prior to GDT), their first job after completing their GDT, and their current job. Remarkably, 62 of the 76 respondents (82%) provided salary details for their current or most recent job. Of the 67 who were employed before they began their GDT, 42 trainees (75%) provided information on their prior salary.23 Table 12 shows the salary levels of former trainees in three different periods -- prior to their graduate study (Before), immediately after receiving their highest graduate degree (After), and their current or most recent employment (Current). Not surprisingly, prior to their GDT, a large share (64%) of the trainees earned less than US$15,000 per year. At their present or most recent employment, majority (73%) of the respondents reported earning more than US$15,000. Moreover, 62 percent of U.S. trainees reported earning more than US$60,000 per year. As the cost of living and the salaries differ widely, it is necessary to distinguish between salaries received by HC and U.S. nationals. The average current salary of a U.S. trainee is double the average salary of a HC trainee. As expected, the acquisition of a graduate degree greatly increased trainees’ salaries - both for U.S. and HC nationals. Prior to GDT, 78 percent of HC nationals and 40 percent of U.S. nationals were earning less than US$15,000 per year. At their present or most recent employment, 57 percent of HC nationals and 97 percent of U.S. nationals were earning more than US$15,000 a year. For U.S. trainees, their average salary increased by 298 percent (Before versus Current), 23 To avoid having to convert local currencies to US$, respondents (for trainees who were employed in a host country) were asked to estimate their salary in US$. However, the questionnaire did not specify if the trainees should use the current exchange rate or the exchange rate that prevailed during their past employment. 66 compared to 246 percent for HC trainees. Accounting for inflation, real wages for U.S. nationals increased by about 160 percent from ‘Before’ to ‘Current’ salary level.24 Table 12. Salary levels (in nominal US$), by period and by location (HC/US.) Before After Current Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent HC <15,000 21 78% 4 33% 16 43% 15,000-35,000 5 19% 4 33% 6 16% 35,000-45,000 0 0% 3 25% 3 8% 45,000-60,000 l 4% l 8% 3 8% >60,000 0 0% 0 0% 9 24% HC Total 27 12 37 Average Annual Salary $9,454 $23,408 $32,723 U.S. (15,000 6 40% 1 7% 1 3% 15,000-35,000 9 60% 6 40% 0 0% 35,000-45,000 0 0% 2 13% 6 21% 45,000-60,000 0 0% 3 20% 4 14% >60,000 0 0% 3 20% 18 62% U.S. Total 15 15 29 Average Annual Salary $19,003 $41,109 $75,650 Real Salary (2005: 100) $29,130 $47,203 $75,746 ALL <15,000 27 64% 5 19% 18 27% 15,000-35,000 14 33% 10 37% 6 9% 35,000-45 ,000 0 0% 5 19% 8 12% 45 ,000-60,000 1 2% 4 15 % 7 l 1% >60,000 0 0% 3 l 1% 27 41% ALL Total 42 27 66 Average Annual Salary $12,864 $33,242 $51,585 Note: Salaries that trainees reported Before and After GDT refer to different years. 2" Ideally, the real salary data should be used to estimate salary increases. However, for HC nationals, it is difficult to estimate real salaries because of uncertainty regarding the foreign exchange rates that should be used. Thus, the analysis only calculates real values for salaries received by U.S. nationals in US$. 67 However, all of the difference between the salaries that the trainees earned prior to GDT, compared to their current salaries, can not be attributed to training. First, salaries that trainees reported prior to GDT are for different years. Also, even if the trainees had not earned a graduate degree, their salaries would have increased due to additional time in service. Finally, trainees reported their salaries prior to and after GDT in nominal dollars. Thus, some of the increase in their salaries can be attributed to inflation. The difference in salaries received by respondents was also analyzed based on the academic degrees they received. Because salaries of U.S. and HC nationals diverged greatly, the two groups were analyzed separately. Table 13 illustrates the increase in salaries from 8.8. to M.S. to Ph.D. Before GDT, a HC respondent with a BS. degree earned (on average) about US$9,000 a year. At their present or most recent employment, HC respondents with M.S. degrees earned US$21,000 a year, while those with Ph.D. degrees earned US$35,000 a year. On the other hand, U.S. nationals with a BS. degree earned about US$19,000 a year prior to GDT. At their present or most recent employment, U.S. trainees with a M.S. degree earned US$65,000 a year, while those with Ph.D. degrees earned US$81,000 a year. These numbers represented an increase of about 180 percent from B.S. to M.S. and about 300 percent increase from ES. to Ph.D. Interestingly, the difference between HC and U.S. salaries decreased with a Ph.D. degree. 68 Table 13. Current average salary of trainees, by academic degree (in US$) 8, HC U.S. (BC-U.S.) Degree n Average 11 Average % diff 3.8. (a) 27 $ 9,454 15 $ 19,003 101% M.S. (b) 5 $ 20,688 10 $ 64,932 214% Ph.D. (C) 32 $ 34,604 1.9 $ 81,290 135% % difference 3.8. to M.S. [(b-a)/a] 119% 242% % difference B.S. to Ph.D. [(c-b)/b] 266% 328% Note: B.S.=salary received by trainees in the job they held prior to GDT, M.S.=Current salary of trainees with M.S. degrees, Ph.D.=Current salary of trainees with Ph.D. degrees; 11 = number of respondents. In addition, the survey asked HC trainees to approximate the average annual entry salary for nationals who received their academic degrees in the U.S. and from a local university. Table 14 presents these data by region, by degree, and by university location. The wage differentiation between U.S. degrees and degrees (B.S., M.S., Ph.D.) earned from a local university is greatest (222% - 249%) in the WA region. Similarly, there is a wage premium (53% - 75%) in LAC for U.S. graduates. On the other hand, in ESA, there appears to be no wage differentiation for a degree earned in the region, versus a U.S. degree. Also, because the entry level salary in Table 14 does not consider the years of experience or level of expertise of a host country national, the numbers are generally lower than the current salary reported by respondents in Table 13. A less obvious monetary benefit to GDT is the opportunity to secure outside consulting opportunities, which enables trainees to supplement the salary that they receive from their primary job. While a majority of the respondents did not have outside projects, the percentage of trainees who secured outside consulting opportunities increased after their GDT (16% Before, 27% After, 26% Current). However, some 69 trainees may not have pursued consultancies because their employer does not allow outside consulting or consulting opportunities were not available. Table 14. Trainees’ estimate of entry level annual salaries paid to U.S. and local graduates, by region and by degree (approximate in current US$) Entry Level Annual Salary (a) (b) [(b-a)/a] Difference Region Local B.S. n U.S. BS. 11 (%) LAC $ 7,435 15 $ 13,037 12 75% ESA $ 1,941 7 $ 1,941 7 0% WA $ 2,063 4 $ 6,650 5 222% Average $ 5,130 26 $ 8,470 24 65% Region Local M.S. U.S. M.S. LAC $ 11,943 15 $ 18,782 13 57% ESA $ 3,076 7 $ 3,076 7 0% WA $ 2,825 4 $ 9,860 5 249% Average $ 8,153 26 $ 12,600 25 55% Region Local Ph.D. U.S. Ph.D. LAC $ 18,995 10 $ 29,067 14 53% ESA $ 4,486 7 $ 4,486 7 0% WA 513 3,775 4 $ 12,620 5 234% Average $ 11,260 21 $ 19,286 26 71% Note: 11: number of respondents 70 2. Non-monetary Impacts Respondents were asked to describe and give concrete examples of any changes or impacts on their personal and professional lives that they could attribute to their CRSP-funded graduate degree. Sixty-four out of 76 respondents (84%) cited at least one positive impact of the GDT. With respect to changes on their personal lives, most of the responses evolved around improved financial status, greater self-confidence, an opportunity to learn a second language, and winning new friends outside their home country (Table 15). Professionally, aside from the KSAs that they acquired from their GDT, trainees frequently reported that GDT was an important factor that enabled them to secure their desired job (Table 16). In addition, the respondents noted that their GDT helped them to develop or widen their professional networks, particularly among beans/cowpeas scientists. Further, many trainees reported that as a result of having been involved in research in a developing country, they were able to broaden their perspective on agricultural development. 71 Table 15. Selected changes/impacts on personal life reported by CRSP trainees 0 I learned to appreciate diversity in all its aspects (cultural, ways of thinking, etc). 0 It allowed me to become proficient in a second language. 0 Conducting primary survey research in a poor country and seeing the challenging environment under which CRSP research was conducted has given me a "can-do" attitude that has benefited me greatly in my career. 0 I am more confident academically and I have been receiving invitations to lecture in other universities within my country and outside Tanzania. This of course has meant more dollars in my pocket & indeed has greatly enriched my academic/professional life 0 I grew a great deal as a person by wrestling with the challenges in my research. For sure, I gained a great deal of confidence. 0 I had the opportunity to interact with people from other Latin American countries and understand their difficulties in promoting science in places where funding is a major constraint for research. 0 I have met so many people from all over the world and learned to appreciate and respect all cultures. It has made me a better person by being more open to others. 0 I was able to provide my children with the opportunities that would have not have been possible, had I not been associated with the university. 0 My research was very intense. It challenged me to go beyond I ever thought I could achieve. It was an excellent learning experience and I am very thankful and grateful for the opportunity. 0 I have developed a network with scientists from different disciplines and expertise. My current research is multidisciplinary because of earlier experiences built working with CRSP. 0 The availability of CRSP funding was a major factor why I pursued a Ph.D. degree. I have a clearer perspective of nutritional problems that face developing countries. 0 The CRSP-funded degree improved my life and that of my family, arising from higher income as a result of my Ph.D.. Personally, the higher degree has also put me on a higher pedestal as an opinion leader in my village and society. 0 I came to graduate school with very little research experience. I left able: to read scientific articles critically; to develop ideas based on work in fields that were not my own; to make some headway in independent research. 0 I have a healthy appreciation for beans! The international travel experience benefited me both professionally and personally. I never realized how important a staple beans are in the Latin American diet. 0 It deeply broaden my knowledge and tolerance as far as working in a multi-cultural environment 0 My interest in working in international organizations job has increased since I got engaged on CRSP-funded research 72 Table 16. Selected changes/impacts on professional life reported by CRSP trainees l founded my own company due to my long standing interest in international development to contribute to improve food security and human health. I gained expertise in writing grants with international perspective and in obtaining externally funded projects. It taught me look at my work more critically. I am more confident academically and I have been receiving invitations to lecture in other universities within my country and outside Tanzania. This of course has meant more dollars in my pocket and indeed has greatly enriched my academic/professional life I have a faculty job. Without a Ph.D. that would be impossible I was able to see the impact of poverty on people’s lives and better appreciate the value of my field in reducing poverty. My CRSP-funded degree had a major influence on my being hired with an international organization. I’ve been able to use my rigorous training with the CRSP at my current place of work. It enabled me to participate in field survey research and socio-economic assessment of bean technologies in the Dominican Republic and Honduras. It also provided incredibly valuable hands- on experience in assessing the impact of international development projects. The degree program sharpened my knowledge and adequately prepared me in the field of entomology. It also prepared me very well in scientific writing and I have since published my work in scientific journals The scientific training and communication skills development helped me to be successful in my current position. I have also trained scientist throughout the globe, thus, I was able to share my acquired knowledge to others. The training and the degree I received with CRSP funding opened professional doors for me and allowed me to get exactly the job I had always wanted. It gave me the opportunity to develop long lasting professional contacts and collaboration with bean scientists from other countries. It gave me more access to updated literature on agricultural technology and other development initiatives. Being involved on a collaborative project gave me a new perspective and broadened my view of how scientific communities can work together to reach common objectives. I helped establish a bean breeding program that is in place and successful until today. I had the opportunity to participate in international meetings which allowed me to meet highly recognized researchers 73 3. Achievements/Contributions While the previous section looked into personal impacts of the GDT, respondents were also asked to describe their significant accomplishments -- especially those related to the beans/cowpeas sectors. This question sought to identify impacts of training beyond the individual level (i.e., Results evaluation stage of the Kirkpatrick model). Because the question focused on accomplishments that only related to beans/cowpeas, fewer respondents answered this question. Forty-three out of 76 respondents (57%) reported at least one bean/cowpea-related accomplishment. Significant accomplishments that trainees cited include their role in the release of varieties, awards or recognition received from their bean/cowpea research, papers published, and the important positions or jobs they held as a result of their GDT (Table 17). Because trainees frequently cited having papers or articles published as one of their achievements, research outputs from the trainees’ CRSP-supported research (during their degree program) were analyzed. Most of the M.S. and Ph.D. trainees published their research in joumals/books (83% for Ph.D., 58% for M.S.) and also presented their research at a conference/seminar (89% for Ph.D., 76% for M.S.). As expected, this impact is greater for Ph.D.-supported trainees. 74 Table 17. Selected professional accomplishments reported by CRSP trainees 0 Advanced the knowledge of heat tolerant varieties adaptation in tropical areas of Senegal 0 Developed a bean-based composite supplementary foods for undernourished children, now being commercialized 0 Developed a simple method of screening beans for resistance to root-knot nematodes, identified high level of resistance for the first time and explained its genetic basis 0 Development and release of several bean varieties which are currently among the most cultivated varieties in Latin/Central America 0 Development of drought resistant black bean line that is used in breeding for yield in Latin America and the United States 0 Helping a small business in USA to adopt the germination process that I co-developed. This process can be designed to produce flatulence-free bean flour for variety of food applications. 0 Initiated an on-going lima bean breeding program at the University of Delaware 0 Promoting production efficiency through introduction of new cultural techniques and technological inputs in Malawi 0 Release of five common bean germplasm lines resistant to common bacterial blight 0 Release of IPM strategies for cowpea production in Northern Cameroon; Release of bruchid resistant cowpea varieties; Release of sweet cowpea; release of 3 storage technologies 0 Setting up the Agricultural Market Information System in Honduras 0 Conducted an investigation into the inheritance of resistance to lima bean downy mildew (Phytophthora phaseoli) and presented results at the 2005 Bean Improvement Cooperative Meeting. 0 Designed an [DB-financed Agricultural Research Fund in Guatemala 0 External Adviser to Frito Lay Company on legume based snack project 0 Identified serious diseases and prevented their spread therefore saving millions of pesos in yield losses in the San Juan Valley, the grain producer area in the Dorrrinican Republic 0 Received President award for science and technology 0 Recognition for outstanding contribution to bean breeding in Mexico, 1999 0 Award received from the University of Nebraska for contribution in bean research 0 Editor of Special Edition on Beans of the Bunda Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology 0 Named Scientific Adviser to Pulse Innovation Project/Pulse Canada 0 Received the 'Outstanding Ph.D. Thesis Award 2003' from the Dept. of Ag Economics, Michigan State University for my CRSP-funded dissertation research 0 Commendation letter for best research at SUA, Certificate of recognition by USAID, Founder and Coordinator of the African Seed Health Center, Tanzania representative to the TC for Biotechnology Research and Policy Development for Eastern Africa (BIOEARN-SIDA) 0 Responsible for the release of several new common bean varieties and coordinated two book publications on Common Beans in Brazil 0 Appointed member of Technical Advisory Committee of the CGIAR from 1993 to 1997. 75 4. Significance of time/grant period on impacts Because impacts require several years to be fully realized, data on selected impacts were tabulated by grant period [Grant 1 (1981-1986), Grant 2a (1987-1997), Grant 2b (1998-2002), and Grant 3 (2003-2005)] to assess impacts over time (Table 18). While graduates who finished their degrees most recently (2003-2005) reported fewer changes/impacts, a similar percentage of the respondents in the three earlier grant periods reported at least one professional accomplishment (57% - 67%), a change/impact on their personal life (71% - 80%), and a change/impact on their professional life (79% - 87%). In monetary terms, Table 18 indicates that trainees who finished their degrees during the first grant period were currently earning a much higher income than trainees who finished their degrees most recently. On average, trainees from the first grant period currently earn US$71,000 a year (M.S.=$69,000, Ph.D.=$71,720), while recent graduates (2003-2005) are earning US$29,000 a year (M.S.=$21,000, Ph.D.=30,478). Across all grant periods, HC trainees currently earn substantially less than U.S. trainees, ranging from 39 percent (of U.S. trainee’s average salary) for 1987-1997 graduates to 69 percent for 2003-2005 graduates. The differences in current salaries between grant periods were more pronounced for U.S. respondents. U.S. trainees who finished their GDT in the early 1980s were earning 130 percent more than recent graduates. 76 Table 18. Impacts by grant period 1 2a 2b 3 1981-1986 1987-1997 1998-2002 2003-2005 Number of respondents 14 30 15 17 Reported at least one professional 57% 60% 67% 41% accomplishment (related to beans/cowpeas) Reported at least one 71% 73% 80% 59% change/impact on personal life Reported at least one 79% 80% 87% 65% change/impact on professional life Average Current Salary (in US$) $71,301 $55,746 $42,893 $28,755 By Degree M.S. trainees $69,000 $58,640 $44,184 $21,000 Ph.D. trainees $71,720 $54,957 $42,175 $30,478 By Location HC trainees $41,720 $33,730 $31,883 $26,589 U.S. trainees $89,790 $85,100 $53,903 $38,500 M. Returned to home country Brain drain is a matter of concern to program administrators and donors, since the goal of capacity building in developing countries is not achieved if trainees stay in the U.S. Incidental evidences indicate that some students from developing countries who earn graduate degrees in the U.S. do not return home because political strife and instability make it impossible for them to work or even live peacefully back in their home country, while others do not return due to very low wages and poor socio-economic 77 conditions. However, the apprehension about brain drain, particularly in Africa, is not supported with reliable data.25 Table 19 presents an overview of HC trainees who returned and did not return to their home country after finishing their highest degree in the U.S. The questionnaire asked trainees if they returned to their home countryimmediatelv after the GDT and i_f get, where they went and why they did not immediately return to their home country. It is important to note that while some former trainees did not return home immediately, almost all eventually returned and are currently working in their home country or at another country in the region. Also, although the questionnaire asked trainees if they returned to their home country, the study is primarily interested in whether they returned to a developing country. In the case of the CRSP, 86 percent (36 out of 42) of HC respondents returned to their home country or in another developing country after completing their GDT (Table 19). Out of the six respondents who did not return, four stayed in the U.S. permanently and two are still in graduate school. However, four trainees who returned to their home countries at some point in the past are currently working in the U.S. These numbers are consistent with information gathered about the current employment location of the 42 HC respondents. At their current employment, eight (19%) HC trainees were working in the U.S. and 34 (81%) were employed in a developing country. Almost all trainees who stayed in the U.S. cited having work opportunities or job offers in the U.S. as major reason for not returning home after completing their GDT. 25 UN Economic Commission for Africa. 2000. Report of the Regional Conference on Brain Drain and Capacity Building in Africa. 20-22 February 2000. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.iom.'1nr/at‘ricandiasgora/pdt‘IBraindratngodf. (Last accessed August 2006) 78 Table 19. Overview of HC trainee respondents who retumed/did not return to their home country after completing their GDT Gender No 2,5 Yes i Total Return rate . Female 2 33% 7 19% 9 78% Male 4 67% 29 81% 33 88% 7Highest degree No Yes Total Return rate? M.S. 2 33% 5 14% 7 71% Ph.D. 4 67 % 31 86% 35 89% Discipline code , No . , Yes (Total Return_ rate .. Social Sciences 2 33% 8 22% 10 80% Food Sciences 1 17% 3 8% 4 75% Plant Sciences 3 50% 25 69% 28 89% CRSP Support No Yes Total 5 A Return rate-f Indirect 1 17% 6 17% 7 86% Partial 2 33% 9 25% l 1 82% Full 3 50% 21 58% 24 88% Region N 0 Yes Total Return rate 1 LAC 5 83% 18 50% 23 78% BSA 1 17% 9 25% 10 90% WA 0 0% 9 25% 9 100% Total 6 36 42 86% 14% 86% The 86 percent return rate is based on data provided by the trainees who returned the questionnaire (40% of the HC trainee population). However, information obtained from the CRSP MO, US-PIs, and some of the respondents confirmed that most of the trainees who were not contacted or did not respond to the survey actually returned to their home countries or were currently working in another developing country.26 Out of the 56 HC trainees who did not return the questionnaire or were out-of—contact, only nine (16%) 2" The search for ‘lost’ trainees was carried out by Dr. Mywish Maredia and Dr. Richard Bemsten. 79 stayed in the U.S. permanently. Thus, almost all HC trainees (83 out of 98, 85%) eventually returned home or to another developing country after completing their GDT. Most of the returnees earned a Ph.D. degree (86%) and specialized in plant sciences (69%). Five of the respondents who did not return home were in the social sciences. With respect to the return rate by region, all of the nine respondents from WA, nine out of ten respondents (90%) from BSA, and 18 of the 23 respondents from LAC returned to their home country (78 %). HC trainees who returned to their home country were also asked whether or not they returned to the same institution where they were employed prior to studying in the U.S. Out of the 29 responses who answered this question, 23 trainees (79%) returned to the same institution — mainly the government (36%) or a university (31%) -— and 72 percent are working in a bean/cowpea-related field. Furthermore, about one-half of the returnees (43%) are currently involved in a bean/cowpea-related organization (e.g., the Bean Improvement Cooperative) and 62 percent had collaborated with their former CRSP supervisor on at least one research project after completing their GDT. These results demonstrate that the CRSP GDT program has been successful in strengthening the capacity of host countries to carry out bean/COWpea research. Moreover, 36 percent of the returnees have found outside consulting opportunities to supplement their income from their primary job. Salary differences between jobs in the U.S. versus their HC may explain why some trainees choose to stay in the U.S. Forty-four percent of returnees were earning less than US$15,000 per year, while all three of the non-retumees (excluding the two trainees who are still in graduate school) were earning more than US$45,000 per year. 80 N. Continued collaboration with BIC CRSP This section analyzes the characteristics of respondents who continued to and did not continue to collaborate with a CRSP scientist (i.e., their U.S. GDT supervisor) after completing their GDT. Twenty-nine out of 74 (39%) trainees reported that they had collaborated with their supervisors at least once since completing their GDT (Table 20). Most of these trainees were plant sciences graduates (76%) and from host countries (60%). In contrast, most U.S. trainees (29 of 34, 85%) reported that they did not collaborate with a CRSP scientist after graduation. However, as one trainee commented, non-collaboration does not necessarily mean that a trainee does not want to collaborate. In some cases, there are limited opportunities to collaborate, due to differences in career advancement, change in career priorities, and the difficulty of long-distance collaboration. A majority of trainees who collaborated with a CRSP scientist at least once since completing their GDT are either currently working for the government (38%) or a university (38%), whereas most of those who did not collaborate are either employed at a university (49%) or in the private sector (20%). Eighty-six percent of trainees who had collaborated with their former CRSP supervisor are currently working on a bean/cowpea-related project. Further, 55 percent of those who collaborated are currently associated with one or more bean/cowpea-related organizations. 81 Table 20. Overview of HC trainee respondents who continued/did not continue to collaborate with the CRSP after their GDT . Gender No Yes Total Collaboration rate Female 18 40% 8 28% 26 31% Male 27 60% 21 72% 48 44% _Iiighest degree N 0 Yes Total Collaboration rate M.S. 14 31% 4 14% 18 22% Ph.D. 31 69% 25 86% 56 45% Discipline code No ~ Yes Total Collaboration rate Social Sciences 1 1 24% 5 17% 16 31% Food Sciences 11 24% 2 7% 13 15% Plant Sciences 23 5 1% 22 76% 45 49% CRSP Support No Yes Total Collaboration rate Indirect 6 13% 4 14% 10 40% Partial 19 42% 11 38% 30 37% Full 20 44% 14 48% 34 41 % Region No Yes Total Collaboration rate , LAC 7 16% 15 52% 22 68% BSA 5 1 1% 4 14% 9 44% WA 4 9% 5 17% 9 56% US 29 64% 5 17% 34 15% Total 45 29 74 39% 61 % 39 % 82 CHAPTER VI Results: Principal Investigators A complementary survey was sent out to US-PIs and other scientists who had supervised or supported at least one graduate student under the CRSP graduate degree training program. The results of the PI survey are based on information provided by 25 current and former US-Pls who returned the questionnaire. The PIs, who responded to the survey, matched 117 students with their respective supervisors and provided contact information for many ‘lost’ trainees. 0 Characteristics of PI respondents Of the 25 PIs who returned the questionnaire, 22 (88%) worked at a university, two worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and one worked at Seminis Vegetable Seeds, a private company. Thus, it is not surprising that a majority of the P18 reported that their job responsibilities included teaching (72%) or doing research (92%) in their capacity as professors (72%), university administrators (12%), or research scientists (16%). More than one-half (56%) of the respondents were currently involved with the CRSP either as a PI/co-PI or a collaborator who directly received funding from the CRSP. About 67 percent of the respondents’ research focused on beans, while 20 percent were involved in cowpea research. All PIs surveyed had served as a trainee’s major professor, thesis adviser, or thesis committee member. 83 0 PIs’ collaborative work US-PI respondents were asked to list the countries where they had worked under the CRSP. The respondents reported having collaborated with scientists in 21 host countries, which verified the extensive U.S. and HC partnerships fostered by the CRSP (see Appendix 6 for a list of the US-Pls home institution and the host countries and institutions in these countries with which the PIs have had collaborative projects). Michigan State University is most represented with seven PIs who have worked in several countries -- mainly in LAC. The large number of PIs from MSU is not surprising, considering that 41 out of 187 CRSP-funded trainees attended MSU for their GDT, followed by the University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez with 23 trainees. 0 Problems and suggestions for capacity building PIs were asked to describe the major constraints to institutional capacity building and propose suggestions for relaxing these constraints up to three host countries where they had worked most intensively (Table 21). Regarding constraints to institutional capacity building, many PIs cited administrative difficulties in dealing with host country governments (91%), particularly with regards to the bureaucracy and political uncertainty, insufficient funding (61%), very low wages in developing countries (30%), and the poor level of infrastructure (43 %). Regarding suggestions for strengthening capacity building, many PIs cited the need for greater funding to support training (26%) and research (35%). Almost all P15 (91 %) explicitly cited the need to train more HC nationals, particularly at the Ph.D. level. 84 Table 21. Major constraints to institutional capacity building and suggestions for relaxing these constraints, as cited by PIs Problems % Suggestions % :Eiccllequate fundrng, delays in recervrng grant 61% More funding to training 26% Poor 1nfrastructure, lack of resources (e.g., 43% More funding to research 3 5% vehicles, lab equipment) Low wages in host countries 30% Problems dealrng w1th the 91% . . . . . . . . Train more HC nationals 91% 1nst1tut10n/government, polrtrcal 1nstab111ty Note: Total number of responses = 44 out of 23 respondents 0 PI’s assessment of the BIC CRSP graduate degree training The recruitment of promising trainees is critical to the success of a GDT program. As US-Pls are primarily responsible for recruiting trainees, PIs were asked to identify the factors that influenced their decision to fully or partially support a trainee under the CRSP. The primary reasons cited for fully supporting a trainee was because the individual was from a host country (31%) and that he/she could not pursue a graduate program without full funding (27%). The main reason PIs gave for partially supporting a trainee was because leveraged funds were available, either from the department (39%) in which the trainee was enrolled, or from an external source (25%), such as foreign scholarship or another research grant. 0 Problems PIs encountered while sponsoring students Regarding significant problems encountered while sponsoring students under the GDT program, PIs most frequently cited delays in receiving funds from the CRSP 85 management office (20%) —- due to the delays in the MO receiving its funding from USAID — and that the budget for training was insufficient (16%) (Table 22). Table 22. Selected problems encountered while sponsoring students and suggestions for the BIC CRSP Training Program, as cited by PIs Problems Suggestions Funds were not available in a timely fashion due to Electronic processing of forms/reports delay in receiving the funds from USAID and then getting the paper work completed through the university system. Bridge funding between CRSP phases - Although A priority on bridge funding for students during in the end we have always found solutions to keep transition between project phases students in their programs, but unnecessary worry and frustration has been experienced. Funding international students adequately Increase stipend, consider insurance and other living expenses High administrative costs of CRSP, limit funds for Find ways to reduce administrative cost graduate training Recent requirements by USAID for the J-1 visa will Permit students to continue to study under a more raise the cost of training flexible visa 0 Strengths of the BIC CRSP graduate degree training Many of the P18 (79%) recognize the capacity-building impacts of the GDT on the trainee and on the institution where they go after completing their graduate study (see Table 23 for examples of PI’s comments). This capacity-building effort opens up opportunities for future collaboration between the CRSP and former trainees (32%). Further, CRSP’s strong commitment to long-term training (42%) had paved the way for the recruitment of excellent students around the world, who are now distinguished agricultural scientists and research collaborators of the CRSP. In many instances, PIs noted that the CRSP has supported both the trainees’ coursework and thesis or 86 dissertation research (32%), which enabled trainees “to work on real problems and research topics relevant to the needs of the host country”. Table 23. Selected strengths of the BIC CRSP Graduate Degree Training, as cited by PIs Strengths of the BIC CRSP Graduate Dflree Training 0 Funding for conference attendance or participation in various workshops. This is a real strength of the program. The program recognizes that students must have the widest possible exposure to the U.S. system of research, presentations, conferences 0 Graduate student education is funded and graduate students are involved in various aspects of the projects in which they work. The program encourages the professional development of graduate students via funding for conference attendance. 0 After receiving their degrees from the U.S. institution, these students have gone back to their countries and became leaders in their respective fields of endeavor, i.e., plant breeding, nutrition, agronomy, etc. 0 Opportunity to bring bright young students to a major U.S. research institution for graduate training. Many of these students would never have the opportunity to do graduate work in their own countries or the U.S. without CRSP support. 0 Ability to work on a real problem area and research topic relevant to country needs 0 Provides long-term funding, so it's possible to plan research for a several-year horizon 0 Provision of both stipend and operating funds 0 Training students in U.S. institutions helps create an enormously strong bond between major professor and student, a bond of mutual interest, commitment and benefit that can/will often outlast the CRSP relationship and lead to additional research/training 0 Attracted high quality students, Maria Jose Zimmerman, Charles Omwega, Eric Stockinger, Dave Garvin, Brian Scully, Claire Federici, who are a credit to Brazilian, African, and U.S. agricultural research. 0 Linkages/long-term relationships are established between U.S. & HC scientists. 0 The Bean/Cowpea CRSP also supports the training of U.S. students strengthening bean research capabilities in the US 0 Adequate funding to train large numbers of students 0 Excellent fundamental and applied training combined in CRSP 0 Returning degree holders are able to contribute to crop improvement, and institutional building 87 0 Limitations of the BIC CRSP graduate degree training Pls cited many of the same problems they encountered while supervising students, such as the lapses in funding and the high cost of training students in U.S. universities (20%).27 In addition, some PIs raised concems regarding the overtaxing administrative duties they have to accomplish to satisfy USAID’s requirement in supporting trainees (16%), the difficulty in identifying students from host countries “with the requisite background and talents necessary to be sure they will be successful in graduate study in the U.S.” (16%), including knowledge of the English language. 0 HS perspective on trainees’ bean/cowpea-related achievements PIs were asked to identify bean/cowpea-related achievements or accomplishments of their former trainees (Table 24). Most of the PIs (64%) reported significant jobs held by their former trainees, including positions such as ‘Dean’, ‘Department Chair’, ‘Director’, ‘Manager’, ‘Professor’. Several PIs cited specific research contributions (15%) (e.g., ‘becoming the authority in bacterial disease research in Dominican Republic’, ‘contribution to the understanding of root rot mechanisms and the role of nitrogen fixation and bio-control agents in root rot control’) and publications and awards that resulted from the trainees’ bean/cowpea-related research (6%). 27 Many of these problems are inherent to training programs that recruit HC nationals to study in the U.S. 88 Table 24. Selected trainees' achievements, as cited by Pls Trainees' achievements from PIs’ perspective 0 Chair of his department; numerous research/consulting grants 0 Dean, College of Botany, University. of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 0 Helped restore banana and pineapple plantations for Dole after crops were lost to Hurricane Mitch - he used tissue culture to generate plantlets in both crops when Dole decided to stay in Honduras after losing all their plantations to the storm 0 Hired at International Potato Center (CIP) within 1 month of graduation with Ph.D.. 0 Has published several journal articles, including one article from his dissertation. 0 Named the coordinator for ISRA social science programs; this makes her the third ranked administrator at ISRA immediately below the DG and DDG. She also recently had a second journal article accepted from her dissertation. 0 Lead breeder for squash crops in a large international horticultural seed company 0 He developed two cowpea varieties that were released in Ghana 0 Professor of Evolution in Brazil, TAC member, FAQ Rep for Colombia, Bogota 0 Authority on aluminum toxicity in wheat. 0 Global Sensory Director, Givaudan Flavors - responsible for all sensory analyses of new and improved flavors developed by Givaudan worldwide 0 Manager, Product Development and Nutrition, Chick-fil-A, Inc. - responsible for development and introduction of new menu items for national restaurant chain 0 Senior Manager, Product Development, KFC - responsible for national launches of both limited time and permanent menu items available in KFC restaurants nationwide. 0 Currently Head of Plant Pathology, INIAP Ecuador 0 Co-developed the Rhizobium Research Laboratory website which is a major point of contact between students in applied nitrogen fixation from all over the world and our laboratory 0 Developed two sustainable agriculture companies after graduation; contributions to foundations such as Winrock, Bush, Kellogg and their initiatives; Awarded Lindbergh Fellowship in 2002; Currently Director-Regional Sustainable Agri Dev Program 0 Made major contribution to understanding root rot mechanisms and the role of nitrogen fixation and bio-control agents in root rot control 0 Experiment Station Head, Regional Research. Director; release of bean varieties for Dominican Republic 0 Head of Costa Rica Bean Program, President of American Phytopath Society - Caribbean Division, Head of Biotechnology Education Program at the University of Costa Rica 0 Served as the Director of the Horticulture Department and has recently co-authored a book about tropical fruit. 0 Provided leadership in the development of an integrated genetic map for the common bean 0 Currently serving as the Chief for the Brazilian team that is part of an exchange program between EMBRAPA and U.S.D.A./ARS 89 CHAPTER VII Results: Case Study at SUA This section focuses on the fourth stage of the Kirkpatrick model, the Results Evaluation. A case study was carried out to assess to what extent trainees had enhanced teaching and research capacity building at a partner HC institution and to document the kind of collaboration that had occurred between former trainees and U.S. and HC institutions. The institution selected for the case study was Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA, in Tanzania) -- an institution with which CRSP scientists had been collaborating with for over 20 years. SUA was selected for a case study based on the recommendations of current CRSP US-PIs -- particularly Dr. James Myers, an active PI, bean breeder, and professor at Oregon State University, who felt that the CRSP investment in training had greatly strengthened SUA’s capacity in teaching and research. Institutional assessment is defined as “a comprehensive approach for profiling institutional capacity and performance” (Morgan and Taschereau, 1996). Capacity building is defined as “any improvements in the ability of the institution, either singly or in cooperation with other organizations, to perform appropriate tasks effectively, efficiently and sustainably” (Hilderbrand and Grindle, 1994). Impact is defined as “any consequences that result from an investment or intervention that occurred at the personal, institutional, sectoral, community, national, or regional level” (Gilboy, et al., 2004). In thinking about impacts, two counter-factual situations were considered — (1) What was the institution’s capacity to conduct research/training before the CRSP training investments, compared to now? (Before and After Scenario) and (2) What would have 90 been the institution’s capacity to carry out teaching, research, and extension if the CRSP had not funded graduate training for the institution’s staff/faculty? (With and Without Scenario). Impacts vary depending on the type of institution. This study acknowledges that training investments have different impacts at national agricultural research systems (NARS) versus universities. Observable indicators of impacts for former trainees who are now university professors include, for example, the types and number of courses they teach and/or developed, the number of students they supervised, number of publications, and new technologies developed. For former trainees who are now researchers at NARS, the indicators commonly considered include the number of publications; and for plant breeders, the number of crop varieties released and the impacts of these crop varieties on increasing productivity. 0 Background information: Tanzania Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. The economy is highly dependent on agriculture, which accounts for over 50 percent of the country’s GDP and 75 percent of its export earnings — primarily from coffee, cotton, and cashew nuts. Furthermore, over 85 percent of the population depend on agriculture as their source of employment and income (Magola, 2006). Although Tanzania is a very large country, with nearly 900 million hectares (has) of land, topography and climatic conditions limit cultivation to about four million has. Beans, which are typically intercropped with maize, are grown mainly by small-scale farmers, on farms ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 has 91 (Mohamed & Teri, 1998). In 2004, Tanzania produced 332,000 metric tons of beans on 524,880 has (FAOSTAT, 2007).28 Frequent organizational changes characterize Tanzania’s agricultural research system (Johnsen, et al., 2004). In 19708, livestock and crOp research centers were under the Ministry of Agriculture. In the following decade, the government created several parastatal institutions, including the Tanzania Agricultural Research Organization, the Tanzania Livestock Research Organization, and the Tanzania Pesticide Research Institute. In the 19903, the Directorate of Research and Development (DRD) of the Ministry of Agriculture became the lead institution for both crops and livestock research. 0 Background information: SUA SUA, the CRSP partner institution in Tanzania, was established in 1984, as a separate institution from the University of Dar es Salaam and given the mandate to be the country’s center of excellence in agriculture. SUA is situated in the municipality of Morogoro, which is about 200 kilometers west of Dar es Salaam. The main campus lies on the foothills of the Uluguru mountains and has a total land area of 3,350 has, of which about 2,300 are reserved for the university farm (SUA, 2006). SUA offers undergraduate and post-graduate training, leading to a M.S. and Ph.D. in the fields of Agriculture, Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Food Science, Human Nutrition, Forestry, Management of Natural Resources and Sustainable Agriculture, Veterinary Medicine, and Rural Development. The CRSP has primarily collaborated with scientists associated with the Faculty of Agriculture, consisting of seven departments. More than 80 percent of the staff in the Faculty of Agriculture have either a M.S. or a Ph.D. degree (Table 25). 28 FAO only reports statistics for dry beans, which includes both common beans and cowpeas. 92 Key informants noted that in the past, low salaries were a constraint to retaining faculty. However, several SUA faculty mentioned that in recent years, the government has increased faculty salaries to make them more competitive with the salary level in other countries in the region, in the effort to retain professionals. Furthermore, in July 2006, the government announced a proposal to increase civil servant’s minimum wage by 50 percent. Figure 6 shows the basic annual salary by job title in the Faculty of Agriculture. Table 25 . Staff Profile at the Faculty of Agriculture, SUA, Tanzania, by highest degree attained, 2006 Ph.DJ M.S.I Cert! Department D.Phil M.Phil B.S. Dip Total Staff Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness 14 6 1 21 13% Agricultural Education and Extension 6 7 1 l4 9% Agricultural Engineering and Land Planning 17 3 1 3 24 15% Crop Science and Production 10 9 2 5 26 16% Food Science and Technology 19 4 1 4 28 17% Soil Science 11 4 6 21 13% Animal Science and Production 22 l 7 30 18% Total Staff 99 34 6 25 164 % 60% 21% 4% 15% Source: 2005-2006 Prospectus of SUA 93 Figure 6. Annual Basic Salary (in US$) at the Faculty of Agriculture, SUA-Tanzania, by position/job title, 2006 SUA Staff Proflle and Annual Basic Salary (In $US) Tech/Extension Professor $1,500.00 $17,000.00 23% 9% Tutorial Asst Msoc Prof $5,000.00 A, . . 2% ——=.——_._ - j‘« w"; .," $14,000.00 21% Asst Lectr $6,500.00 ‘ "II" I.“ ||||""' ' .q l 'ulllllllll" "Ill“ 3% A I i '1‘. ill. .iizi‘hlll‘ ' Lecturers ’ V I’ $890000 Sr. Res Fellow Sr. Lectr 15% $8,000.00 $12,000.00 1% 21% Source: 2005-2006 Prospectus of SUA; Salary estimate from key informant at SUA; US$1 = Tsh 1,200 There are eight major bean—growing regions in Tanzania, classified by altitude; (l) Mbeya (high), (2) Arusha (mid), (3) Kigoma (mid), (4) Kagera (mid), (5) Morogoro (low), (6) Rukwa (high), (7) Kilimanjaro (mid), and (8) Tanga (low) (Figure 7). SUA, which works closely in partnership with the National Beans Research Program, has a mandate to test lines and conduct performance trials for the low altitude ecosystem (<1,000m). The other major partners of the national bean program, Selian Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) and Uyole ARI, have a mandate to test bean lines for mid-level (1,000-1,500m) and high-level (>l,500m) ecosystems, respectively. SUA also contributes and exchanges germplasm with other national bean program partners. 94 Figure 7. Regional map of Tanzania - Dar as Salaam - Pamba North - Pcmba South - Zanzibar Central/South - Zanzlbar North - Zanzlbar Urban/Wu: Gabi-IND- Kager Mara Shinyanga Kllmanjaro Kigoma Tabora Mbeya Ruvuma Mtwara — Not—e": Bean regions are outlined in bold 0 BIC CRSP Collaboration The CRSP has collaborated with SUA faculty since 1981, before it became a separate institution from the University of Dar es Salaam. US-PI Dr. Matthew Silbemagel (USDA-ARS, Washington State University) began and led the program, which is now known commonly within the campus as the “bean project”. Table 26 describes the research projects that have been carried out in collaboration with SUA since 1981. 95 Table 26. B/C CRSP research projects in Tanzania Grant U.S. . . Breeding beans for disease and insect resistance and 1981- Matt . . . . WSU . determrnatron of economic impact on smallholder farm 1986 Silbemagel . . families A participatory research approach to breeding and evaluating 1986- WSU Lorna high yielding disease and insect resistant beans for low input 2002 Butler sustainable farming systems in which women are major contributors OSU James Genetic improvement of beans in East Africa Myers Jess Market Assessment of Bean and Cowpea Grain and 2002- Purdu Lowenber Processed Value-Added Products, and Determination of both 2007 e D B g Constraints to and Potential for Growth of Markets in the " e oer ESA Region Maurice Enhancement of Child Survival and Rehabilitation of MSU B . k Malnourished Children through the Development of enmn Inexpensive Bean/Sorghum/Maize Foods Peter Edaphic Constraints to Bean Production in Eastern Africa: UMN G h The Selection of Bean Cultivars and Rhizobium having ra am Tolerance to Low N and P, and Able to Grow at Acid pH Carol Miles Development of Cost-Effective and Sustainable Seed WSU and David Multiplication and Dissemination Systems for Improved H ll d Bean Cultivars that Meet the Needs of Limited- Resource 0 an Bean Farmers OSU James Develop Bean Cultivars for East and Southern Africa with Myers Enhanced Resistance to Diseases and Insects a\ WSU=Washington State University, OSU=Oregon State University, Purdue=Purdue University, MSUzMichigan State University, UMN=University of Minnesota While the program initially focused on plant breeding, its research focus was expanded in subsequent years. For the current grant (2002-2007), the project supports research on five themes: (1) plant breeding, (2) adaptive factors (abiotic stress), (3) seed multiplication, (4) food science and nutrition, and (5) marketing. SUA staff and US-Pls meet to develop annual workplans, which determined the direction of the collaborative research activities. According to SUA staff, the main 96 problem that they have faced in collaboration involved delays in receiving funds from U.S. institutions - due to delays in USAID making funds available to the CRSP MO. Over the last 25 years, SUA, in collaboration with the CRSP, developed four improved bean varieties (Table 27). However, while limited data are available to document the level of adoption of these varieties, two of the varieties were only released in 2006. According to SUA collaborators, adoption has been greatly limited by constraints to seed production and multiplication. Govemment—led efforts in seed multiplication have been largely unsuccessful and private seed companies have not engaged in bean seed production because they do not consider it to be profitable. Although NGOs and donor organizations are now beginning to play an active role in the seed multiplication system, there exists a need to train seed producers regarding how to produce high-quality seed. Recently, a community-based seed production project was established to produce “quality declared seeds”. Under this scheme, selected farmers, who have been trained in seed multiplication, are supplied with foundation seed which they then multiply under the supervision of extension workers. Also in 1998, the SUA- CRSP project initiated a small-scale bean seed multiplication program in collaboration with a NGO. However, there exists limited information regarding the adoption or success rates of this program. Table 27. Bean varieties developed by SUA in collaboration with the CRSP Variety Year released Characteristics SUA 90 1990 Drought tolerance; Bean Golden Mosaic tolerant; higher yield, tan (color) Rojo 1997 Same as SUA 90 but red (color) Mschindi 2006 Faster cooking time; soft; good taste; gray-mottled (color) Pesa 2006 Same as Mschindi but red (color) 97 0 B/C CRSP Training Investment The CRSP has supported a total of 20 students from Tanzania in 25 academic degrees. Eleven of these trainees went to the U.S. for their graduate study, while the other eight pursued their graduate degrees at SUA (see Appendix 7 for the complete list of trainees from Tanzania). For U.S. degree training, the US-PIs, in collaboration with SUA staff, identified the training and research needs of a project component. Then, the US-PIs asked their collaborators at SUA to recommend candidates who were qualified for admission to the U.S. partner university. Trainees usually went to the home university of the component’s US-PI, where the trainee worked on a bean/cowpea-related research topic for his/her thesis or dissertation. Since almost all of the trainees had worked at SUA prior to beginning their U.S. graduate program, SUA benefited from these staff development opportunities. For SUA-based degree training, HC-Pls identified disciplines and departments with a shortage of bean scientists. Also, HC—PIs consulted with the National Bean Program to determine training and research needs at the national level. To date, the CRSP has supported nine students in Tanzania for M.S. and Ph.D. degree training at SUA. Largely as a result of CRSP support, SUA has become the key institution in Tanzania for bean/cowpea-related degree training. Trainees, who were SUA employees, were usually granted study leave before going to the U.S. for GDT, which benefited both the trainee and SUA. First, the trainee continued to receive compensation while studying. Second, because the trainees were required to return to their home institution after completing their graduate program, this helped ensure that KSAs acquired from the trainees’ GDT supported capacity building at 98 the university. For example, the CRSP supported the training of SUA’s two plant breeders. Third, upon returning to Tanzania, trainees were assured of being appointed to a faculty position at SUA. These reasons serve as significant incentives for Tanzanian trainees to return home. Contrary to the popular notion that trainees from Africa rarely return to their home countries, 10 out of the 11 CRSP-supported trainees from Tanzania returned home after completing their GDT in the U.S. and a majority was still working at SUA. Furthermore, the returning trainees have become the main CRSP collaborators at SUA. While the GDT, not the CRSP per se, has contributed to the capacity building at SUA, the CRSP has facilitated this endeavor by awarding scholarships to SUA staff and through its support of collaborative research. Because of the scholarship opportunity made available by the CRSP to SUA, its teaching and research capacity has been strengthened. For instance, three former CRSP trainees are now Senior Lecturers, two are Associate Professors, and one is a Professor. Moreover, Tanzania’s first plant breeder to earn a Ph.D. degree, Prof. Robert Mabagala, is a product of the CRSP, and is still a CRSP collaborator. Further, through their teaching and research activities, these CRSP- supported trainees have produced “second-generation” trainees who hold key bean research-related position at the national level. For example, the bean breeders at the Selian ARI and at the TPRI in Arusha were CRSP-SUA sponsored students. Former CRSP trainees have also been successful in getting extemally-funded bean-related projects to complement and enhance their existing CRSP projects. For example, Dr. Mabagala recently received a grant from the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) to help build the Seed Health and Training Center for Africa, which is 99 located on SUA’s campus. Furthermore, SUA’s CRSP collaborators are active participants in other research networks in Africa, especially the Southern Africa Bean Research Network (SABRN) and the Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network (ECABREN) under the Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA). Table 28 lists additional accomplishments of former CRSP Trainees. An important question is, what would have been SUA’s capacity to carry out teaching and research -- if the CRSP had not funded GDT for SUA? To address this question, research and training impacts were assessed separately. Prior to 1980, very little bean research was conducted in Tanzania. Thus, the entry of the CRSP greatly enhanced Tanzania’s capacity to conduct bean-related research. Furthermore, the CRSP’s long-term commitment to capacity building - which is unique, compared to other organizations and research networks in the region — has sustained this momentum. Currently, at the regional level (East Africa), the Centro Intemacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) plays a dominant role in applied bean research. For example, CIAT helped establish and provides leadership to ECABREN and SABRN - research networks that conduct on-farm trials and evaluate bean lines and varieties — and funds and coordinates several bean research projects in Tanzania and the region. However, within Tanzania, SUA still plays a major role in the national bean program, as the institution with a mandate for conducting bean research for the low level elevation ecosystem. For training per se, the CRSP and SUA are the major players in training bean scientists. The success can be attributed to both the availability of CRSP funding over the past 20 years to support GDT for SUA staff and SUA’s ability to retain these former 100 trainees. Clearly, the CRSP investment in GDT has definitely had a major impact on capacity building at SUA. Table 28. Examples of the achievements/contributions of SUA’s CRSP-funded trainees 0 Dr. Robert Mabagala is the first plant breeder in Tanzania, and is now a Professor at the Dept of Crop Science and Plant Breeder at SUA. He is also one of the founding members of the Tanzania Association of Phytopathologists (TAP) and the Tanzania Society for Microbiology. Currently, he is the editor of the Tanzania Journal of Agricultural Sciences (TAJAS) and the African Journal of Plant Protection/OAU. Inter-African Phytosanitary Council Journal. He also coordinates the Field Research Project in Seed Bacteriology funded by DAN [DA and is the HC- PI for the CRSP’s adaptive factors component at SUA. 0 Dr. Susan Nchimbi-Msolla, who has been with the Dept. of Crop Science since 1982, is now an Associate Professor. She has supervised more than 100 undergraduate and graduate students at SUA and is the HC-PI for the CRSP’s breeding component at SUA. 0 Dr. Theobald Mosha is an Associate Professor at the Dept. of Food Science and Technology. He has been with the university since 1989. He is responsible for the CRSP’s nutrition component at SUA. 0 Mr. Sosthenes Kweka, a former student of Dr. Nchimbi-Msolla and Dr. Mabagala, is now the plant pathologist/breeder at Selian ARI. 0 Dr. Afihini Ijani, Dr. Mabagala’s first Ph.D. student, is the principal plant pathologist at the Tropical Pesticide Research Institute in Arusha. 0 Dr. Catherine Madata, who was indirectly funded by the CRSP, is now the Head of Bean Research Program based in Uyole ARI. She is also a CRSP collaborator in Tanzania. In contrast, the research impacts of the CRSP’s investment in Tanzania were difficult to document. Over the 25 years of CRSP involvement at SUA, SUA has developed only four bean varieties, two of which were released in 2006. Furthermore, farmer adoption of these varieties is, to a great extent, unknown. In summary, since initiating collaboration with SUA in the early 19803, the CRSP has played a major role in helping the university develop its research and teaching program, particularly in the area of crop science. The launch of the “bean project”, matched with the CRSP’s commitment to training host country nationals, has made SUA 101 one of the three institutions that make-up the national bean program -- Uyole ARI, Selian ARI, and SUA. The CRSP has been instrumental in developing this indigenous capacity in bean research, as indicated by the fact that CRSP trainees now hold significant professional positions at all of these institutions (e.g., Catherine Madata in Uyole, Sosthenes Kweka in Selian, and several professors in SUA). However, scientists at SUA are, first and foremost, university professors, who usually teach four courses a year -- which limits their time for conducting bean research. Although key informants at SUA noted that research publications are an important factor for promotion, time availability for conducting bean research is limited due to their heavy teaching responsibilities. Also key informants cited unreliable access to the intemet and electrical black-outs as constraints to doing research and factors that make collaboration with US-PIs difficult. Despite these challenges, SUA’s CRSP trainees have published numerous research papers in major journals, proceedings, and books, and have authored extension bulletins and manuals that are currently used by farmers and students. For example, Dr. Msolla-Nchimbi has supervised the thesis/dissertations of 16 graduate students at SUA, published 13 papers in newsletters/journals, written three books, published 36 papers in conference proceedings, and produced three extension publications. Dr. Mabagala has authored 32 journal articles, 13 conference proceeding papers, and eight - . 29 extensron bulletins. 29 Information obtained from the trainee‘s curriculum vitae. 102 CHAPTER VIII Overview, Key Findings, Recommendations, and Future Research A. Overview Since 1981, the CRSP has invested more than US$69 million to support global bean/cowpea research. About US$7 million of the total was spent on training, in order to develop a critical mass of bean/cowpea scientists. To this end, the CRSP has supported nearly 200 students for M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at U.S. universities in the fields of plant sciences, food sciences and social sciences -- fields critical to the development of bean and cowpea research in host countries in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa and the U.S. The priority placed on funding training demonstrates the CRSP’s long-term commitment to capacity-building at HC institutions. However, given the decline in the availability of donor funding to support graduate degree training (GDT) for students from developing countries, there is a need to assess the impacts of this type of investment. This study is the first major attempt to document and assess the impacts of the B/C CRSP graduate degree training program, from the perspectives of the trainees and the U.S. scientists who supervised the trainees. The thesis first summarizes recently completed studies on the impact of GDT. Key features of the CRSP training model were highlighted and compared with other major training programs. The CRSP is not solely a scholarship-granting-body, like ATLAS/AFGRAD and Fulbright. Rather, its training program is similar to that of the CGIAR, which includes ILRI and IRRI. The methodologies, findings and the lessons learned from these previous reports were influential in setting the direction of this study. Recent impact studies point to the intrinsic complementary relationships between 103 training, research, and institutional capacity building. Although impacts are difficult to quantify, these studies found that GDT has been a highly productive investment. The next section explored the features of the CRSP training program in greater details. Typically, CRSP trainees conduct research under the guidance of the CRSP scientist (US-Pl) while studying at a U.S. university and many continue to collaborate with their CRSP supervisor after returning to their home institution. A modified Kirkpatrick’s framework was presented and training impacts to be explored were identified. The assessment utilized several approaches to gather information about impacts from the perspectives of the trainee and the trainee’s supervisor (US-PI). Two survey questionnaires were developed -- one for the former trainees and another for the US-PIs or the scientist who supervised the trainee during his/her CRSP-supported GDT. In addition, a case study was carried out, which highlighted the impacts of the CRSP investment at Sokoine University of Agriculture in Tanzania. Further, an intemet search was carried out to collect information about the trainees that would complement evidence of impacts that were missed through other approaches. The results reported in this study were based on the analysis of questionnaires returned by 76 former trainees, representing 60 percent of our frame population (or 41% of our target population), and 25 former and current US-Pls, supplemented by face-to- face interviews with former trainees and HC-PIs at Sokoine University of Agriculture. One of the key findings is that almost all (86%) of the HC trainees returned to their home country and most of them are still involved in bean/cowpea research. Moreover, the study revealed that after completing their GDT, a much higher percentage 104 .II— of the HC trainees continue to collaborate with CRSP scientists and conduct bean/cowpea research, compared to U.S. trainees. Similarly, a much higher percentage of Ph.D. trainees continue to collaborate with CRSP scientists and conduct bean/cowpea research, compared to M.S. trainees. Additional major findings from the (l) trainee survey, (2) US-PI survey, and (3) case study are outlined in the next section. B. Key Findings From the survey of former B/C CRSP trainees, the study found that: 0 Trainees felt that that their GDT was necessary for their professional development (100%) and was highly relevant to their current work/job responsibility (92%). 0 Trainees felt that that their CRSP research was necessary for their professional development (97%) and was highly relevant to their current work/job responsibility (83%). 0 Trainees considered the ability to “design/conduct/analyze scientific research” (87%) as the most important knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) acquired from their GDT. 0 Most trainees shared their acquired KSAs through publication (66%), seminar/conference (70%), and research supervision of students (66%). 105 Most of the respondents with Ph.D. degrees currently work at a university (50%), while 23 percent were working for the government, 9 percent were in the private sector, and 12 percent were working at international organizations. Thirty-one percent of the M.S. graduates were now working in the private sector, while 25 percent were working for the government, 25 percent were working at a university, and another 12 percent were working at international organizations. Most of female respondents (62%) worked at a university, compared to 38 percent of male respondents. Most respondents who earned degrees in the plant sciences were still active in bean/cowpea research (61%), compared to 41 percent for the social sciences and 17 percent for food sciences degree recipients. Most HC trainees were still active in bean/cowpea research (69%), compared to 23 percent for U.S. trainees. Most trainees (78% HC, 40% U.S.) earned less than US$15,000 per year prior to their GDT. At their present or most recent employment, a majority of the respondents (57% HC, 97% U.S.) reported earning more than US$15,000 per year. The acquisition of a graduate degree greatly increased trainees’ salaries. Before GDT, a HC respondent with a BS. degree earned about US$9,000 per year. At their present or most recent employment, HC respondents with M.S. degrees earned about US$21,000 per year, while those with Ph.D. degrees earned 106 US$35,000 per year. A U.S. national with a BS. degree earned about US$19,000 per year prior to GDT. At their present or most recent employment, U.S. trainees with M.S. degrees earned US$65,000 per year, while those with a Ph.D. degree earned US$81,000 per year. There was large wage differentiation between a degree (B.S.fM.S./Ph.D.) received from a U.S. university versus from a local university, especially in the LAC and WA regions. In the ESA region, there appears to be no wage differentiation by university location. Few of the U.S. (19%) and LAC (10%) trainees had outside consultancies, while 56 percent of trainees from BSA and WA had outside projects to augment their income from their principal job. Most of the trainees (71%) reported changes in their personal lives, including improved financial status, greater self-confidence, an opportunity to learn a second language, and gaining new friends from outside their home country. Most of the trainees (78%) cited changes in their professional lives that evolved around improved capacity or enhanced KSAs to perform well in their desired jobs. Most of the trainees (57%) considered their role in the release of varieties, awards or recognition received from their bean/cowpea research, papers published, and the important positions or jobs that they held as important bean/cowpea-related achievements. 107 Trainees who finished their degrees during the first grant period (1981-1986) were currently earning a much higher income than trainees who finished their degrees recently. On average, trainees from the first grant period currently earn US$71,000 a year, while recent graduates (2003-2005) were earning US$29,000 a year. Most of the HC respondents (86%) returned to their home country or to another developing country after receiving their highest degree (78% LAC, 90% ESA, 100% WA). Furthermore, 79 percent of the returnees returned to the same institution at which they were employed prior to their GDT. Most of the returnees earned a Ph.D. degree (86%), specialized in plant sciences, (69%) and either worked for the government (36%) or at universities (31%). Most of the returnees (72%) were now working in a bean/COWpea-related field, compared to 50 percent of the non-returnees. Many of the returnees (36%) were able to get outside consulting opportunities to supplement their income from their primary job. Most of the HC trainees (60%) continued to collaborate with their CRSP supervisor after their GDT (68% LAC, 44% ESA, 56% WA), while only 15 percent of the U.S. trainees continued to collaborate with their CRSP supervisor after their GDT. 108 From the survey of former and current US-PIs, the study found that: Almost all of the Pls (79%) recognize the capacity-building impacts of the GDT on the trainees and on the institution where they go after completing their graduate study. Almost all of the P13 (91%) highlighted the need for greater funding support for graduate degree training, particularly at the Ph.D. level. The primary reasons that Pls fully supported a trainee were because he/she was from a host country (31%) and that the trainee could not pursue a graduate program without full funding (27%). The main reason that PIs partially supported a trainee was because leveraged funds were available, either from the department (39%) in which the trainee was enrolled, or from external sources (25%), such as a foreign government scholarships or another research grant. The most significant problems that PIs encountered while sponsoring students under the CRSP were delays in receiving funds from the CRSP MO (20%) — due to delays in USAID providing funds to the MO -- and insufficient funding to support graduate training (16%). Most of the P18 (64%) reported significant jobs held by their former trainees as important bean/cowpea—related achievement. Several Pls cited their trainees’ research contributions (15%) and some noted the publications and awards that resulted from the trainees’ bean/cowpea-related research (6%). 109 From the S UA case study, the assessment found that: Ten out of the 11 CRSP-supported trainees from Tanzania returned home after completing their GDT in the U.S. and majority were still working at SUA. Furthermore, the returned trainees were the CRSP’s principal collaborators at SUA. The CRSP has played a major role in helping SUA develop its research and teaching program, particularly in the area of crop science and production. The launch of the “bean project”, matched with its commitment to training host country nationals, has made SUA one of the key institutions that make-up the national bean program -- Uyole ARI, Selian ARI, and SUA. While the Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT) plays a leading role in applied bean research in the East Africa region, the CRSP is the major player in training bean scientists. Its strong and continued commitment to long- term training is a strength of the CRSP. The research impacts of the CRSP’s investment in Tanzania were more difficult to document. In the 25 years of CRSP involvement at SUA, SUA has developed only four bean varieties -- two of which were released in 2006. Furthermore, farmer adoption of these varieties is, to a great extent, unknown. Key informants noted that adoption has been greatly limited by constraints to seed production and multiplication. 110 0 The institutional visit to SUA confirmed that former trainees were now inducing impacts through teaching and supervising of students who now hold key research positions in Tanzania’s national bean program. Furthermore, former CRSP trainees have been successful in getting externally-funded bean-related projects to complement and enhance their existing CRSP research projects. C. Recommendations The study documents that the B/C CRSP has been playing an important role in strengthening teaching and research capacity in beans and cowpeas, both in the U.S. and in host countries. The following recommendations are proposed in order to build on and sustain these successes. Recommendations for the B/C CRSP M0: 0 Continue the commitment to GDT and continue to put high priority on supporting HC trainees; 0 Require trainees to submit a short report at the end of each training year, as part of a routine assessment of the training program; 0 At the end of their GDT, require trainees to complete an exit survey and provide future contact infomiation; 0 Create an e—mail group (listserve) in order to facilitate communications between P13 and former trainees and to encourage future collaboration; 111 0 Continue to support trainees after completing their GDT, perhaps by maintaining a link in the B/C CRSP website that identifies grant, scholarship, and employment opportunities for bean/cowpea scientists; and 0 Update data and contact information of trainees on a regular basis. Recommendations for US-PIs: 0 Continue to be considerate of the constraints (e.g., poor infrastructure, unstable source of electricity, limited intemet connection) faced by HC partners; and 0 Continue to maintain contact with former trainees. Recommendations for HC-PIs: 0 Continue to aggressively seek leverage money to supplement funds available from the CRSP for local bean/cowpea research; and 0 In the ESA region, develop stronger linkages with the NARS. Recommendations for USAID and other donors: 0 Recognize that almost all CRSP-funded HC trainees returned to their home countries after completing their GDT, where they assumed important roles in building research and teaching capacity at HC institutions; 112 0 Recognize that the CRSP graduate degree training has been successful in developing scientific capacity on bean/cowpea research in both the U.S. and in host countries; and for these reasons, 0 Increase financial support for GDT, particularly for HC nationals. D. Future Research The main contribution of this study is the documentation of impacts of the B/C CRSP graduate degree training program -- from the perspectives of the trainees and U.S. scientists who supervised the trainees. It is hoped that the evidence presented showed that CRSP trainees have successfully contributed to bean/cowpea research in the U.S. and in host countries. While this study documents the impacts of GDT, it has several weaknesses. First, the analysis is based on the responses of 76 of the 126 former trainees for whom contact information was available. Contact information was not available for 61 out of 187 former trainees. With a greater number of respondents, the results would have been more reliable. Second, for trainees who earned a CRSP-funded and a non CRSP-funded degree, it was not possible to separate the impacts of CRSP-funded GDT from the impacts of training received elsewhere. Third, the assessment of the impact of GDT on trainees’ income did not take into account some actors (e.g., year that the “before training salary” was received, annual salary increases that the trainee would have received even if he/she had not pursued GDT) that might have contributed to the difference in the salaries that trainees earned “before” and “after” GDT training. Finally, while many trainees 113 completed GDT in a host country, only the trainees who completed GDT in the U.S. were surveyed. Nonetheless, the findings, as well as the limitations of the study, suggest avenues for future research, including a more rigorous quantitative analysis of the costs and benefits of GDT to the trainee and to the B/C CRSP, and an analysis of the impact of GDT on trainees who pursued their graduate study in host country institutions. 114 APPENDICES 115 Appendix 1. Number of trainees who received M.S./Ph.D. degrees from U.S. universities, by country and gender Country Female Male Total Percent Latin America 15 41 56 30% 1. Brazil 2 5 7 4% 2. Costa Rica 3 3 6 3% 3. Dom. Republic 6 10 16 9% 4. Ecuador 1 5 6 3% 5. Guatemala 0 3 3 2% ' 6. Honduras 1 7 8 4% 7. Mexico 2 6 8 4% 8. Peru 0 2 2 1% — East/Southem Africa 5 20 25 13% 1. Botswana 1 l 2 1%. 2. Kenya 1 2 3 2% 3. Malawi 1 6 7 4% 4. Mozambique 0 2 2 I% 5. Tanzania 2 9 1 l 6% Western Africa 8 9 17 9% 1. Cameroon 0 3 3 2% 2. Ghana 5 3 8 4% 3. Nigeria 2 1 3 2% 4. Senegal 1 2 3 2% U.S. S0 39 89 48% Grand Total 78 109 187 100% 116 Appendix 2. Host Country Partner Institutions East/Southem Africa 1. Malawi Bunda College of Agriculture; Chancellor College 2. Mozambique Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mocambique; World Vision— Mozambique; Eduardo Mondane University 3. South Africa ARC-Grain Crops Institute; University of the Free State; University of Pretoria 4. Tanzania Sokoine University of Agriculture; Agriculture Research Institute, Uyole, Selian West Africa 1. Benin Programme de Technologie Aricole et Alimentaire; Agricultural Research Institute 2. Burkina Faso Institut de l'Environmentet des Recherches Station de Kamboince/CRREA Centre/Saria 3. Cameroon Institu de la Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement 4. Ghana Savanna Agricultural Research Institute; University of Ghana-Legon 5. Niger Ecologiique, Institu National de Recherches Agronomiques du Niger 6. Nigeria Abubaker Tafawa Balewu University; Ahmadu Bello University 7. Senegal Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles; Centre National de Recherches Agronomiques 8. Zimbabwe University of Zimbabwe Latin America/Caribbean 1. Colombia Centro lnternacional de Agricultura Tropical 2. Costa Rica Univerity of Costa Rica; Centro de Investigaciones en Tecnologia de Alimentos 3. Ecuador Instituto N acional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias 4. El Salvador National Center for Agriculture, Livestock and Forest Technology 5. Dominican Republic CEntro para el Desarrollo AGropecuario y Forestal, Inc. 6. Guatemala Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologia Agricoles; El Programa Cooperativo Regional de Frijol para Centro América, Me’xico y El Caribe 7. Honduras Escuela Agricola Panamericana-Zamorano 8. Jamaica University of the West Indies-Mona Campus 9. Nicaragua Instituto N icaraguense de Tecnologia Agropecuaria 10. Mexico Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias 117 Appendix 3. Number of Trainees by U.S. Training Location U.S. Training Location Female Male Total Percent 1 Auburn University 0 1 1 1% 2 Clemson University 0 1 1 1% 3 Cornell University 2 9 11 6% 4 Colorado State University 2 3 5 3% 5 Kansas State University 3 0 3 2% 6 Michigan State University 14 27 41 22% 7 Pennsylvania State University 0 1 1 1% 8 Purdue University 6 5 11 6% 9 University of Arizona 1 0 1 1% 10 University of Illinois-Urbana 2 5 7 4% 11 University of California-Davis 4 5 9 5% 12 University of California-Riverside 5 10 15 8% 13 University of Georgia 11 5 16 9% 14 University of Minnesota 5 5 10 5% 15 University of Nebraska-Lincoln 5 ' 6 11 6% 16 University of Puerto Rico 3 15 23 12% 17 University of Wisconsin 6 4 10 5% 18 Washington State University 4 7 11 6% TOTAL 78 109 187 100% 118 Appendix 4. . - - 3 Trainee Survey Questionnaire 0 30 This survey was approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 3/31/06 — valid through 3/30/07. IRB # 06-142. 119 DIRECTIONS: Please type your answer in the shaded areas of the questionnaire. For questions with pre-coded responses, click on the box to mark your answer. You can use TAB (or your mouse) to go to the next question or space. Press ENTER if you want to add another row or need more space for your answer. I. EDUCATION Please provide details on both your Ph.D. and MS graduate degrees. If your highest degree is a MS. GO to Q#12. Ph.D. Program Information (1) University (Name and Location) (2) Department (3) Years From To ( 4) Type of B/C CRSP fundig: (Please check all that apply) [:1 Research assistantship for all semesters [:1 Research assistantship for at least one semester [:1 Full funding for dissertation research [:1 Partial funding for dissertation research [:1 No funding [:1 Don’t know (5) Didjou receive other sources of funding? J E] No [I] Yes [:1 Don’t know (6) 11' YES, what were your other sources of fundifl? (Please check all that apply) [:1 Teaching assistantship [:1 Research assistantship on a non-CRSP project [I University fellowship E] Fulbright C] Other: (specify) (7) Major Professor (name): (8) CRSP Supervisor (name): (if applicable) (9) Thesis/Dissertation: (title) I (10) Didyoupublishanarticle/book chapterbasedonyourdissertation research? [:1 No [:1 Yes (.1 l ) Did you present the results of this research at a professronal Cl No El Yes conference/seminar? (as paper/posterprescntatron) MS Program Information (12) University (Name and Location) (13) Department (14) Years From To (15) Type of B/C CRSP fundig (Please check all that apply) [I Research assistantship for all semesters 1:] Research assistantship for at least one semester [:1 Full funding for thesis research E] Partial funding for thesis research E] No funding 1:] Don’t know (16) Did you receive other sources of funding? I E] N o [:1 Yes [:1 Don’t know ( 17 1 If YES, what were your other sources of funding? (Please check all that apply) D Teaching assistantship [:1 Research assistantship on a non-CRSP project [:1 Universithellowship [:1 Fulbright [3 Other: (specify) 1 18) Major Professor (name): (19) CRSP Supervisor (name): (if applicable) (20) Thesis: (title) 121) Did youpublishanarticle/bookchapterbasedrmourthefisresearch? D No [I Yes (22) Dld you present the results of this research at a professronal C] No 1:1 Yes conference/seminar? (as paper/poster presentation) 120 II. CURRENT EMPLOYIVIEN'I‘ (23) Are you currently employed? j C] No 1:] Yes; Full time 1:] Yes; Part-time (34) If NO, what is the main reason you are not currently employed? E] Studying C] Retired DHealth Reasons [3 Other: (specify) Please describe details of your current job or your most recent job, if NOT currently employed. (25) Name of Employer and Country of Location (26) Year (27) Job Title/Position Employer: From To Country: (28) Type of Employer: E] University [:1 Private: local 1:] Private: multi-national [:1 International organization [:1 Government aggrcy [:1 N00 [:1 Other: (specify) 129) Job RESEnSibility: (Please check all that apply) [:1 Research [I Teaching C] Planning/policy-making [j Outreach/extension E] Administration/management [:1 Marketing/sales C] Other: (specify) 1 30) What was the minimum degree level required for this job? E] B.S./B.A. E] M.S. [:1 Ph.D. E] Don’t know (31) Does this job entail work related to beans/cowpeas? T C] No D Yes (32) 11' YES, please describe nature of your work in relation to beans/cowpeas. (.53) Please approximate the annual sa1_ary (in US$) you receive(d) Starting: $ ‘ from this job. Final: 3 In addition to this job, do (did) you supplement your income 1 j (i 4) through outside consulting? D No D Yes lIl. ElVII’LOYMENT AFTER RECEIVING HIGHEST DEGREE Please describe the job that you held immediately after receiving your highest degree. If your job after receiving your highest degree is the same as your current job, SKIP this section. GO to Section IV. (35) Name of Employer and Country of Location (36) Year (37) Job Title/Position Employer: From To Counfl: (38) Type of Employer: 1:] University 1:] Private: local 1:] Private: multi-national [:1 International organization [:1 Government agency D NGO C] Other: (specify) 1' 39) Job Responsibility: (Please check all that apply) 1:] Research C] Teaching E] Planning/policy-making C] Outreach/extension [j Administration/management I] Marketing/sales 1:] Other: (specify) (40) What was the minimum degree level required for this job? D B.S.lB.A. [j M.S. [I Ph.D. [:1 Don’t know (41) Did this job entail work related to beans/cowpeas? [ [:1 No E] Yes (42) If YES, please describe nature of your work in relation to beans/cowpeas. (4,) Please approximate the annual salagy (in $US) you received Starting: $ ‘ from this job. Final: $ , In addition to this job, did you supplement your income (44) through outside consulting? D No D Yes 121 IV. EMPLOYMENT BEFORE BEGINNING GRADUATE PROGRAM (45) What was your employment status before El Employed; Full-time 1:] Not employed beginnig your graduate program? [:1 Employed; Part-time [:1 I was a student If you were not employed or were a student, SKIP the following questions. Go to Section V. If you were employed full/part-time, please describe the job that you held immediately before beginning your graduate program. (46) Name of Employer and Country of Location (47) Year (48) Job Title/Position Employer. From To COUl'llflt (49) Type of Employer: El Government agency 1:] NGO D Other: (specify) 1] University [1 Private: local [:1 Private: multi-national [3 International organization (50) Job ResponsibilitEWIease check in that apply) [1 Research [:1 Teaching CI Planning/policy-making E] Outreach/extension E] Administration/management D Marketing/sales [:1 Other: (specify) (5 1) What was the minimum degree level required for this job? E] B.S.lB.A. El M.S. E] Ph.D. [:1 Don’t know Did this job entail work related to beans/cowpeas? I [:1 No 1:] Yes (53) If YES, please describe nature your work in relation to beans/cowpeas. Please approximate the annual M (in US$) you received Starting: 5 (54) . . . from this job. Final: 3 In addition to this job did you supplement your income S 9 L 5) through outside consulting? D No D Yes V. CRSP-FUNDED GRADUATE DEGREE [ (56) What was the highest degree you completed with B/C CRSP funding? I [:1 MS [3 PhD l For this CRSP-funded graduate degree, please answer the following questions. (57) Were you married? [:1 No C] Yes (58) ll‘ YliS, was your spouse living with you? I] No [1 Yes (59) Did you have any children? [:1 No [:1 Yes (61)) 11' YES, how many did you have? (61) If you had children, did any of them live with you? 1:] No C] Yes How important was each of the following in your decision to pursue this Very N01 (62) CRSP-funded graduate degree in the U.S.? Important 'mPOIlam (Please rate each item below on a scale of 1-Very Important to 4-Nol Important) 1 2 3 4 Desire to collaborate with specific scientists C1 Cl [:1 C] Opportunity to study at a specific university C] [I U [:1 Encouraged by employer C1 C1 Cl 1] Encouraged by CRSP scientists C] [:1 El E1 Desire to gain an international perspective [:1 Cl [:1 [:1 Opportunity to travel abroad [:1 [:1 [:1 Cl Felt necessary for professional development [:1 D 1:] 1:] Desire to earn higher income in the future C1 C1 Cl C] Desire to secure a job in the future with an international organization [3 Cl 1:] Cl 122 Please indicate if you agree or disagree with each of the statements about (63) your personal experiences during this CRSP-funded graduate degree. Highly Hignry (Please rate each item below on a scale of 1-Highly Agree to 4-Highly Disagree) Agree Disagree Academic Program 1 2 3 4 My departmentprovided an intellectually stimulating atmosphere. 1:] [:1 Cl [:1 Communication with faculty regarding my needs and concerns was satisfactory U D D D The advice 1 received from my major professor was satisfactory. [:1 Cl [:1 1:] My major professor spent sufficient time to advise me on academic matters. C1 C1 Cl C] The requrrements and work of my graduate program were challengrng but El [:1 E] El reasonable. My graduate program allowed me to pursue my specific academic interests. E] [I] 1:] [:1 My graduate program provided me with excellent preparation for my future 1:] 1:] Cl 1:] professional work. My graduate program was relevant to my current work/job responsibility. 1:] El 1:] [:1 BIG CRSP Research My CRSP research provided me an opportunity to gain valuable professional Cl [:1 C1 C1 expertise and gperience. I received sufficientirofessional guidance from CRSP staff/scientists. [:1 C] D Cl MyCRSP research was interesting and intellectually challenging. D Cl 1:] C] The work requirements and expectations of my CRSP research were reasonable. D D D D My CRSP research provided me with excellent preparation for my future [:1 Cl 1:] 13 professional work. My CRSP research was relevant to my current work/job responsibility. [:1 1:] Cl C] During this CRSP-funded graduate degree, did you encounter any ‘ (64) academic-related problems? (e.g., tailedexamsosagreementwimlawlty) D No D Yes (65) 11‘ YES, please describe the problem(s) and suggest ways how the B/C CRSP can help ‘ students cope with such problem(s) in the future. Problem(51 SuggestlomsL During this CRSP-funded graduate degree, did you encounter any 929; (66) academic-related problems? (e.g., family, financial matters) D No D Yes (67) 11‘ YES, please describe the problem(s) and suggest ways how the B/C CRSP can help students cope with such problem(s) in the future. Problem(s): Suggestion(s)' ( 68) What significant changes/impacts in your personal and/or professional life can you attribute to your C RSP-funded graduate degree? (Please provide us some concrete examples) a) Changes/Unpacts on personal life b) Clrarigeslrnpacts on professronal life 123 VI. PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES AFTER COMPLETING HIGHEST DEGREE .——_ (69) What was the highest degree you completed? (regardless of funding source) I [:1 MS [:1 PhD I For this degree program, please answer the following questions. What are the 3 most important types of knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) that you (70) acquired from this degree program? (e.g., designing/conducting/analyzing scientific research, scientific methods/tools. attitude towards work. computer skills, critical thinking,_time management language fluency, communication skills) 1. 2. 3. (7” Did you encounter any problems in applying these KSAs in the job that [:1 No Cl Yes you help immediately after receivingyour highest degree progam? (72) If YES, please describe any problem(s) you encountered in applying these KSAs. (7.5) How have you shared your knowledge, skills, and attitudes with others? (Please check all that apply) 1:] through seminar/conference 1:] through workshop/training course [:1 as university instructor [:1 through publication [:1 through research supervision of students 1:] through outside consulting D Other: (specify) Since completing this graduate program, have you collaborated on a (74) research goject with your BIC CRSP smrvisor? D No D Yes (75) If YES, please describe the time and nature of your most recent collaboration. Nature of Collaboration Years (76) Are you currently involved in any bean/cowpea related organizations? D No Cl Yes (e.g., professional socretres. assocratrons, networks) (77) If YES, please list the name(s) of the bean/cowpea related organization(s). Please describe your most important professional accomplishments (related to beans/cowpeas) (78) afler completing your higlest degree. (e.g., varieties released, patents registered, awards received) (79) Please feel free to share any additional comments. If you were a U.S. citizen during your BIC CRSP-funded graduate program, do not answer the following questions. You have completed the survey. Please GO to “Final Instructions” on how to submit your survey. If you were a non-U.S. citizen during your BIC CRSP-funded graduate program, please continue to Section VII. 124 V II. HOST-COUNTRY SCHOLARS In your home country, what do you think are the most important constraints to build_ry' institutional (80) 2mm? 81 In your home country, how could the BIC CRSP better achieve its goal of building ( ) institutional capacity? (82) What was your vrsa status during your CRSP-funded Cl F-l U J-l D Other graduate program? After completing your highest degree.... - Were you required to return to your home country? (83) (e.g., visa restrictions, contract agreements) D NO D Yes ('84) Were you flaranteed of a job upon returningto your home country? 1:] No [:1 Yes (85) Did you return immediately to your home country? I] No [:1 Yes (86) If YES, did you return to the same institution at which you were employed before ' beginning your graduate program? [:1 No C] Yes [:1 Not applicable (I was not previously employed) (87) ll~ NO, where did you go and why? (Please choose one and briefly explain why) 1:] Stayed in the U.S. Reason: C] Joined another institution in my home country Reason: [:1 Went to a third country Reason: 1:] Other: (specify) Reason: (88) If you are currently in the U.S. or a third country, do you intend to return permanently to your home country? [:1 Within gyear E] In 1-2 years [:1 In 3-5 years [:1 No/never 1:] Don’t know (89) Could you have done the same graduate degree and specialization at a I] No 1:] Yes ‘ university in your home country? (referring to your highest degree program) [:1 Don’t know (90) 11' YES, would you receive the same salary if you had earned your C] No [I Yes highest degree from a university in your home country? [1 Don’t know (9 I) Could you have done the same graduate degree and specialization at a C] No [:1 Yes university in your geographical region? (referring to your highest degree program) 1:] Don't know (92) ll~ YES, please tell us the name of the university. (9}) In your field, please approximate the current entry-level annual salagy (in US$) of a host- ” country national who: Earned his/her degree at a local university Earned his/her degree at a U.S. university BS: USS BS: USS Masters: USS Masters: USS PhD: USS PhD: USS You have completed the survey. Please GO to “Final Instructions” on how to submit your survey. 125 Appendix 5. US-PI Survey Questionnaire31 3’ This survey was approved by the Social Science/Behavioral/Education Institutional Review Board (SIRB) at Michigan State University. Approved 3/31/06 -— valid through 3/30/07. IRB # 06-142. 126 DIRECTIONS: Please type your answer in the shaded areas of the questionnaire. For questions with pre-coded responses, click on the box to mark your answer. You can use TAB (or your mouse) to go to the next question or space. Press ENTER if you want to add another row or need more space for your answer. 1. CURRENT \VORK INFORMATION Please tell us details of your current job or your most recent iob, if NOT currently employed. (1) Name of Emplgyer/Institution (2) Years (From-To) ( 3) Job Title/Position (4) Type of Employer: 1 [:1 University [:1 Other: (specify) (5) Job Responsibility: (Please select all that apply) [:JResearch DTeaching DOutreachIExtension DAdministration DOther: (specify) II. BIC CRSP ( 6) Are you involved in the current BIC CRSP grant? I D No [:1 Yes (7) 11' YES, please tell us the year when you fir_'s_t became involved with the BIC CRSP. l (8) If N 0, please tell us the years of your most recent involvement From' To- with the BIC CRSP. ' ' What is/was the nature of your involvement with the BIC CRSP? Current Past (9) (Please consider your current and p_a_sl involvement) Gram Oral-11(5) a) Receive(d) and manage(d) BIC CRSP funds as PIICo-PI C1 C1 b) Receive(d) and manage(d) BIC CRSP funds as a collaborator Cl [:1 c) Serve(d) as a collaborator on a BIC CRSP project, Pit do (did) n_ot [:1 Cl receive or manage BIC CRSP funds (10) On which commodity do/did your CRSP activities focused? [j Beans [j Cowpeas El Both beans & cowpeas With which institutions/countries have you collaborated with support from the BIC CRSP? (Please list the name of institution. country of location. and years of collaboration) (ll) Institution Country Years I. - In the 3 countries where you have worked most intensively on a BIC CRSP project, what do (12) you consider islare the biggest constraint(s) to buildin institutional ca aci ? Country Constraints 1. l. 2. 2. 3. 3. 7 In the 3 countries where you have worked most intensively on a BIC CRSP project, how do (13 ) you think B/C CRSP can better achieve its goal of building institutional capacity? Country Recommendations/Suggestions l. l. 2. 2. 3. 3. 127 III. BIC CRSI’ GRADUATE DEGREE TRAINING PROGRAM Please consider involvement in graduate degree training only (MS or Ph.D.). (14) How have you been involved in the BIC CRSP graduate degree training program? (Please select all that apply) C] I have not played any role in the BIC CRSP graduate degree training program* I] Served as maior professor for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled in my university C] Served as maior professor for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled at another university C] Served as thesisIdissertation adviser for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled in my university I] Served as thesis/dissertation adviser for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled at another university C] Served as member of thesis/dissertation committee for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled in my university E] Served as member of thesis/dissertation committee for a BIC CRSP trainee enrolled at another university C] Other: (specify) *If you have NOT played any role in the BIC CRSP graduate degree training program, do not answer the following questions. You have completed the survey. Please GO to “Final Instructions” on how to submit your survey Have you encountered any problems in funding graduate students “5) through the BIC CRSP? D N° 0 Yes (I 6) if YES, please describe the most significant problem(s) and suggest ways how the BIC CRSP can help with such problem(s) in the future. Problems): Q9 to 3) Suggestion(s): I. 1. (l7) Whatdo youthinkarethemajorfimgfiofthe BIC CRSPMuate degreetraining program? I. ( 18) What do you think are the major weaknesses of the BIC CRSP mduate degree training program? l. The next section asks you about student/trainee-specific information. IV. STUDENT ASSESSMENT DIRECTIONS: Our records indicate that you have supported the following students with BIC CRSP funds. Please answer the corresponding questions for each student. (1) Given Last Name Name Citizenship Start Yr End Yr Degree Department (19) In what capacity did you supervise this student? (Please select all that apply) C] I did not supervise this student* [:1 Major professor C] I do not remembefl‘ E] Thesis/dissertation adviser E] Member of thesis/dissertation committee C] Other: (specify) >*SKIP the following questions if you did NOT supervise the student g if you do NOT remember having supervised the student. GO to NEXT student. (20) Did you play a role in selecting and recruiting this student? C] No C] Yes [I Do not remember 128 If YES, why did you select/recruit this student? C] Student was employed at a collaborating El Student was employed at a collaborating host- host-country institution a_tfi with which I country institution but with which I have not have had prior working relationship had prior working relationship D Student was from a collaborating host- [:1 Student was from a non-host country gag was country _an_d was already enrolled in my already enrolled in my department department Cl Student was from a country where I had plans El Student was from a collaborating host- to expand BIC CRSP research country M was recommended by a host- E] Do not remember country collaborator El Other: (specify) Was this student fully or partially funded by BIC CRSP? D Fully funded (tinded tuition. st'pend. and research costs torthe student'swhote degree program) I] Partially funded (funded art of the costs of the students degree program andor funded fly snident’s hesis/dissertatim costs) C] Don’t know (I did n_ot play a role in funding decisions/I do not remember) If fully funded. go to Q# 23. If partially funded. go to Q# 24. If fully funded, what factor(s) played a role in your decision to fully-fund this student? (Please select all that applL) C] Trainee was from a collaborating host country institution Cl Trainee could not attend graduate school without full-funding E] Certainty of BIC CRSP funds to support the trainee’s whole degree program [I Adequacy of BIC CRSP funds to support the trainee’s whole degree program E] Do not remember C] Other: (specify) (34) If partially funded, what factor(s) played a role in your decision to partially-fund this student? (Please select all that apply) E] Trainee was from a non-host country Cl Availability of funds from my department to partially support the trainee [3 Availability of funds from external sources to partially support the trainee El Inadequate BIC CRSP funds to fully-support the trainee Cl Uncertainty of timing of BIC CRSP funds 1:] Do not remember C] Other: (specify) (25) Did you play a major role in the selection and approval of the C] No D Yes student’s research/thesis/dissertation topic? E] Do not remember (36) If YES, how was the research/thesis/dissertation topic selected? C] I proposed the topic to the student [I The student proposed the topic himself [3 Do not remember C] Other: (specify) (37) Are you currently collaborating with this student? l E] No C] Yes (28) l f Y ES, please describe the nature of your collaboration. (29) M NO, please describe the time and nature of your most recent collaboration. (SKIP IIll\' question if you did not collaborate with this student since lie/she congiletedgtraduatc study) ( 30) Do you know of _a_n_y outstanding achievements/contributions that this student Cl No has made/accomplished since completing his/her graduate program? [I Yes (Please consider both CRSP and non-CRSP related achievements/ contributions) (3|) If YES, please describe his/her most important achievements/contributions. Please provide this student’s last known e-mail address. I You have completed the survey. Please GO to “Final Instructions” on how to submit your survey. 129 Appendix 6. US-PI and HC Collaboration us Institution ”mg" H6: H0 Institution Colorado State University 1 Costa Rica: University of Costa Rica Michigan State University 7 Costa Rica: University of Costa Rica; Ecuador: lnsituto Nacional Purdue University Seminis Vegetable Seeds University of Califomia-Davis University of Califomia-Riverside University of Georgia University of Minnesota University of Nebraska University of Puerto Rico University of Illinois Washington State University USDA-ARS Autbnomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias; Guatemala: Institut de Ciencia i Tecnologia Ambientals; Honduras: Escuela Agricola Panamericana; Jamaica: University of West Indies; Malawi: Bunda College of Agriculture; Mexico: National Institute for Forest, Agriculture and Livestock Research; Nicaragua: Instituto Nicaraguense de Tecnologia Agropecuaria; U.S. ngn Islands: Agricultural Experiment Station; Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture, University of Morogoro Burkina Faso: Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles; Cameroon: Institut de Recherche Agricola pour Ie Developpement; Costa Rica: University of Costa Rica; Ghana: Savannah Agricultural Research Institute, Cooperative Resources International; Malawi: Bunda College, University of Malawi. Institut d'Economie Rurale du MALI; Mozambique: Instituto de Investigacao Agricola de Mocambique; Niger: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger, Nigeria: Institute of Agricultural Research, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University; Senegal: Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles; South Africa: University of the Free State; Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture Brazil: Agricultural Research Corporation; Tanzania Malawi: Bunda College Ghana: SRI Nyankpala; Kenya: University of Nairobi; Senegal: ISRA; Sudan: Agricultural Research Council Benin: National Institute of Agricultural Research of Benin; Ghana: Univ. of Ghana at Legon, Accra; Nigeria: University of Nigeria, Nsukka Ecuador: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agropecuarias; Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture Dominican Republic: Secretary of Agriculture, Centro para el Desarrollo Agropecuaria y Forestal, lnc.; Honduras: Escuela Agricola Panamericana; Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture Dominican Republic: Ministry of Agriculture, Instituto Dominicano de Investigacién Agroflorestales; Haiti: Ministry of Agriculture; Honduras: Escuela Agricola Panamericana Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture; Malawi Guatemala: Instituto de Nutrieién de Centro America y Panama Costa Rica: University of Costa Rica; Guatemala: Instituto de Nutricion de Centro America y Panama; Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture TOTAL 25 130 Appendix 7. List of B/C CRSP Trainees from Tanzania Trained at U.S. institutions Last Name Given Name Gender End Year University” Degree Department I Elia Frank M 1995 MSU Ph.D. Crop Science 2 Mabagala Robert 1991 MSU Ph.D. Plant Pathology 3 Magayane Flavianus M 1994 U of Illinois Ph.D. Ag Extension 4 Mmbaga Emil M 1989 MSU Ph.D. Crop and Soil Sciences 5 Mollel N aftali M 1989 U of Illinois Ph.D. Ag Extension 6 Mosha Theobald M 2004 MSU Ph.D. Nutrition/Food Science 7 Msolla Susan Nchimbi F 1988 UWI Ph.D. Horticulture 8 N jau Paul M. 1995 WSU MS Wology 9 Quentin Martha F 1991 MSU Ph.D. Entomology 10 Rugambisa Jeremiah M 1985 U of Illinois Ph.D. Ag Economics 1 I Rweyemamu Comel M 1995 MSU Ph.D. Crop and Soil Sciences Trained at Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania Last Name Given Name Gender End Year University Degree Department 12 Gondwe Betty James F 1996 SUA Ph.D. Bacteriology 13 Ijani Afihini M 1996 SUA Ph.D. Plant Pathology 14 Kweka Sosthenes M 2005 SUA MS Plant Breeding 15 Misangu Robert M 1996 SUA Ph.D. Crop Science 16 Mkenda Vera F 1996 SUA MS Crop Science 17 Mohamed Rose-Anne F 1989 SUA MS Crop Science 18 Mtenga Kibiby F 1999 SUA MS Ag Extension 19 Silomba Luseshelo M 1999 SUA MS Ag Economics 20 Zubeda Mduruma F 1994 SUA Ph.D. Crop Science a\ MSU=Michigan State University, U of Illinois=University of Illinois, UWI=University of Wisconsin, WSU=Washington State University, SUA=Sokoine University of Agriculture 131 REFERENCES Abernathy D. 1999. Thinking outside the evaluation box. Training and Development 53(2):18—23. Adams, M. Wayne. 2003. Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program: origin structure, development. Field Crops Research 82, pp. 81-82. Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Support Program (B/C CRSP). 2003. Complementarity of the Bean/Cowpea and CIAT in bean research. (unpublished) B/C CRSP. http://www.isp.msu.edu/crsp/home.htm. (Last accessed August 2006) B/C CRSP. 2002a. Remong Partnerships to Enhance Bean/Cowp_ea Consurgtion an_d Production in Africa_and Latin America, Grant Proposal for 2002 to 2007. B/C CRSP. 2002b. Developing the Human Factor: A Summary of Training Achievements by the Bean/Cowpea CRSP. 1997-2002. In Bean/Cowpea CRSP. 2002 Toward a Land Without Hunger: A Story of Food Security, Economic Growth and the Stewardship of Natural Resources, Final Report of the Five-Year Grant Extension Phase, 1997-2002 B/C CRSP. 20020. Toward a Land Without Hunger: A Story of Food Security, Economic Growth and the Stewardsm of Natural Resources, Final Report of the Five-Year Grant Extension Phase, 1997-2002. B/C CRSP. 2004. Research and Training Highlights: Regional Partnerships to Enhance Bean/Cowpea Consumption and Production in AfriCQnd Latin America. Centro Intemacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 2004. Area, production, and yield for dry bean in the main producing countries in the five continents. http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/beans/worldstat2.htm#. (Last accessed August 2006) Couper, Mick. 2000. Web Surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter 2000, 64 (4), ABI/INFORM Global pp. 464-494. Eley R., Ibrahim H., Hambly H., Mulat Demeke and Smalley M. 2002. Evaluating the mad of thggraduate fellowship programme of the International Livestock Research Institute. A tools and process report. ILRI Impact Assessment Series 8. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx. (Last accessed February 2007) Gilbert, T. 1998. A Leisurely Look at Worthy Performance. The 1998 ASTD Training and Performance Yearbook. Woods, .1. & Gortada, J. (editors). New York McGraw- Hill. 132 Gilboy, Andrew, Hillary Carr, Thierno Kane, and Robert Torene. 2004. m Development Impact of U.S. Long-term University Training on Africa from 1963 to 2_0_0;, Vol. 1&2. A Report prepared by Aguirre International for USAID, Washington, DC, September, 2004 Hall, Anthony. 2003. Future Directions of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research Supmrt Program. Field Crops Research 82, pp. 233-239. Hilderbrand, Mary and Merilee Grindle. 1994. Building sustainable capacity: Challenges for the public sector. Prepared for the United Nations Development Programme, Pilot Study of Capacity Building. Harvard Institute for lntemational Development: Harvard University. http://magnet.undp.org/cdrb/parti.htm (Last accessed August 2006). Horton, D., A. Alexaki, S. Bennett-Laney, K.N. Brice, D. Campilan, F. Carden, J. de Souza Silva, L.T. Duong, I. Khadar, A. Maestrey Boza, I. Kayes Muniruzzaman, J. Perez, M. Somarriba Chang, R. Vernooy, and J. Watts. 2003. Evaluating capacity development: experiences from research and development organizations around the world. The Netherlands: lntemational Service for National Agricultural Research; Canada: lntemational Development Research Centre, the Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. Howes, Teresa Jean. 1992. An Evaluation of the Impact of Training: A Case Study of the Malawian and Tanzanian Bean/Cowpea CRSP. MS Plan B Paper, Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University. Johnsen, F.H., Nchimbi-Msolla, S., Makungo, P.S.J., Mwaseba, BL. 2004. M agricultural research reduce fipoverty among smallholder farmers? The cage of Tanzania. Centre for International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric), Agricultural University of Norway, 2004 J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board. Annual Report 2004-2005. http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/ffsb/annualreport/2004/Fulbright12005. plf. (Last accessed August 2006) Kirkpatrick, Donald. 1998. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels, 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Magola, Christopher. 2006. District Agricultural Sector Investment Proiect Launched. Sunday Observer Newspaper, July 16, 2006, p.8. Michigan State University. 2006. History of MSU's tuition per credit amounts, Undergafduate Instate Lower Division. http://www.ct1r.msu.edu/studrec/histopy.htm (Last accessed July 2006) Mohamed, RA. and Teri, J.M. 1989. Mgeta farmers and bean diseases in: Leisa Magazine, Vol 5 no 3, October 1989, p 18-19. http://www.metafrobe/leisa/1989/base view (Last accessed July 2006) 133 Morgan, Peter & Xuzanne Taschereau. 1996. Capacity and Institutional Assessment: Frameworks, Methods and Tools for Analysis. Canadian lntemational Development Agency. Murdock, Larry. 2005. The Bean/Cowpea CRSP and HTA: Collaboration, Cooperation and Complementarity. http://www.isp.msu.edu/CRSP/IITA%20and%20CRSPfinfinrev22May.pdf (Last accessed July 2006) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 1999. Falling through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Commerce. Raab, R.T., G.L. Denning, and R.R.V. Cruz. 1996. Impact of IRRI’s Training Program: A Different Perspective. Reprinted form Impact of Rice Research in: Proceedings of the lntemational Conference on the Impact of the Rice Research, 3-5 June 1996, Bangkok, Thailand; Thailand Development Research Institute, 1998, pp. 159-191. Sokoine University of Agriculture. 2005—2006 Prospectus. SRI lntemational. 2005. Outcome Assessment of the Visiting Fulbright Student Program. For the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. June 2005. Washington, DC. Stern, Elliot (Chair), Lucia de Vaccaro, John Lynam, Sirkka lmmonen. 2006. Evaluation and Impact of Training in the CGIAR. CGIAR Science Council Secretariat. March 2006. Survey System. Sample size calculator and confidence interval calculator. —_ http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm. (Last accessed July 2006) UN Economic Commission for Africa. 2000. Report of the Regional Conference on Brain Drain and Capacity Building in Africa. 20-22 February 2000. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.iom.int/africandiaspora/pdf/Braindrain.pdf. (Last accessed August 2006) Wright, T. and 11.]. Tsao. 1983. A frame on frames: an annotated bibliography. In Statistical Methods and the Improvement of Data Quality, ed T. Wright, pp 25-72. New York: Academic Press. 134 TTTTTTTT iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 9 02845