Proposal Writing Wkshop Arusha Apr 09

Skill Enhancement Training for NARS Scientists in Southern Africa, 20‐25 April, 2009, Arusha, Tanzania
RUFORUM/SADC PROPOSAL, SCIENTIFIC WRITING AND
COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP
Skills Enhancement Training for NARS Scientists in Southern Africa
Workshop Report Submitted by RUFORUM to SADC
East and Southern Africa Management Institute (ESAMI), 20 to 25 April,

2009 Arusha, Tanzania
1
Table of Contents
Cover page 1
Table of Contents 2
Acknowledgements 3
Acronyms and abbreviations 4
1.0 Summary 5
2.0 Introduction 7
3.0 Workshop purpose and objectives 10
4.0 Workshop approach and orientation 10
5.0 Workshop achievements and outputs 17
6.0 Participants evaluation of the training and learning process 20
7.0 Workshop Photographic Gallery 29
8.0 Appendices 40
Appendix 1: Participants’ Profiles 40
Appendix 2: Programme profiles 49
Appendix 3: Summary of participants expectations, fears and suggested interventions 54
Appendix 4: Workshop evaluation form 57
9.0 Annex 1: Original evaluation forms as completed by participants 58
2
Acknowledgements
The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture thanks the Southern Africa
Development Community (SADC) through its ICART Programme for supporting this important
workshop on strengthening capacity of SADC members in proposal development, scientific writing
and communication skills. RUFORUM is especially grateful to the ICART team for guiding the
design of the workshops to ensure that SADC priorities are met, and that these skills development
workshop contribute to wider goals.
We extend our gratitude to the facilitators Prof. Obura, Dr. Tenywa and Dr. Nampala for the
excellent training course that they have been able to deliver. We also thank Dr. Jane Alumira,
ICART Staff and all those who in one way or the other contributed significantly during the
workshop, we extend our sincere thanks and appreciation on your valuable contribution toward the
success of this workshop.
The management and staff of ESAMI, who offered and maintained the conference space and
taking care of the participants during the workshop period, are also acknowledged. The success of
the workshop was largely dependent on the commitment of the trainers, participants, ICART Staff.
They were excellent individuals who worked so hard and diligently through out the workshop period
and some times for extended hours without grumbling or sneaking out. To them we extend our
sincere gratitude.
RUFORUM SECRETARIAT
3
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ASTD - Agricultural Science and Technology for Development

AU - African Union
CAADP - Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
ECA - Eastern and Central Africa region
FAAP - Framework for African Agricultural Productivity
FANR - Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate
FARA - Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa
GE - Genetic Engineering
IAR4D - Integrated Agricultural Research for Development
ICART - Implementation and Coordination of Agricultural Research and Training
IR4D - Integrated Research for Development
MDG - Millennium Development Goals
NEPAD - New Partnership for African Development
RUFORUM - Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
R&D - Research and Development
R4D - Research for Development
SADC - Southern Africa Development Cooperation
4
1.0 Summary
In the Eastern, Central and Southern African (ECSA) region (excluding the Republic of South
Africa), Agriculture remains the mainstay of the economies and supports livelihood strategies of
more than 280 million people surviving on more than 300 million hectares. The natural resources of
the region are exploited through agricultural activities. This makes the resources vulnerable to
biophysical constraints such as drought, diseases and pests, declining soil fertility and agro
biodiversity as well as economic externalities that affect trade. The Framework for African
Agricultural Productivity (FAAP) of the AU-CAADP stresses the need to mobilize Science and
Technology to deliver for enhancing agricultural production and value addition. In order to make the
region a major actor in agricultural trade and bio-resources; food and nutrition security; wealth
creation; sustainable use of resource base; and a strategic player in Agricultural Science and
Technology Development (ASTD), Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
(RUFORUM) is keen on developing the capacity of the NARS scientists to enable them to be
competent and relevant in promoting Research for Development (R4D) in the ECSA region. It is on
this background that RUFORUM organized the Proposal Development, Scientific writing and
Communication skills Workshop for ECSA-NARS scientists with the following objectives:
• Develop competitive research and training proposals;
• Relate research to development;
• Produce scientific publications for peer reviewed journals; and
• Design appropriate communication products.
RUFORUM, has among its mandates, capacity enhancement of researchers and scientists in
universities and the NARS of its member countries, in the aspects of scientific writing for access to
competitive research grants, scholarly publishing and production of knowledge and communication
products. For this purpose, a groundbreaking workshop targeting scientists drawn from the
Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) Region was conducted at Gaborone in
Botswana in September 2008 to cater for institutions in the Southern Africa.
The effort was very successful and as a follow up a similar workshop was arranged in Arusha
Tanzania in April 2009 to benefit other scientists, particularly those that had made attempt to
respond to previous ICART Expression of Interest (EOI) but did not win grants. Four participants
that attended the previous training were invited to interact with the facilitators as part of the process
of training of trainers with a view to build resident capacity within the region. Participants were
drawn from SADC countries including Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland,
Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Their mother institutions included universities, national research
systems, government departments, private sector and other organizations. The focus of the
workshop objectives was to enhance capacity in scientific writing for competitive grants, peer
review publications and other communication products/research outputs.
The approach was highly participatory and hands-on, and was catalyzed by theoretical expositions
commensurate with the current donor trends and expectations; captivating terminologies and
writing styles for both technical and non-technical publications. The process was beneficial to all
participants but most especially to those without or with limited insights in research for
development. The participation of the SADC ICART officials greatly enriched the process.
5
Generally, group profiling, which enabled a multidisciplinary mix, was instrumental in breaking
barriers to multidisciplinary team building across institutions represented in the region. The
objectives of the workshop were achieved and among the outputs of the workshop, was enhanced
cohesion and networking among participants from the participating countries and diversity of
institutions and disciplines.
Summary of participants description of the Workshop and Learning Process
6
“On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Martin Kimanya <mekimanya@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dear All, I appreciate the way we are showing commitment to the team work spirit as
> was emphasised at ESAMI. This shows that success in proposals and publications is on
our way. So we should try to respond to the CEI sent to us by Upright in order to enjoy fruits
of the training. Comments from those who attended my oral presentation in Belgium today
> (28/04/2009) show that the fruits of the good work done by our facilitators are ripe and
should be picked out for our use as soon as possible. It was well presented!. I thank you all
for your good wishes. With best regards, Martin (Knowledge)”
The Workshop was a resounding success with several testimonies to the effect such as the above quote from Martin Kimanya’s
correspondence.
2.0 Introduction
Many scientists in Africa find it increasingly difficult to access research grants owing to the
continuously dwindling support from various development partners; dreary efforts in developing
grants and the eliminative conditions placed on them. Along with formulation of wining proposals,
is the challenge of competitive scholarly publishing and developing effective knowledge
communication products for various audiences to achieve the intended impact. Universities are in
the most challenging positions of paradigm shift as the research grants focus shifts towards
agricultural research and development (R&D), and more lately, agricultural research for
development (AR4D) and integrated research for agricultural development (IAR4D). Universities
and indeed the entire National Agricultural Research System as partners in the research and
innovation processes must maintain a system of tooling or retooling their staff to dynamically
respond to global, regional and national research and outreach dynamics to be able to maintain
relevance with public interests.
National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) scientists play important roles in developing and generating
technologies for innovations. To support these activities NARS scientists undertake training to develop the
required skills and competencies and also conduct research to advance knowledge. However, they need
funding to support their research and other activities. To source for such funds, the NARS scientists must
write fundable proposals to the relevant funding agencies. On the other hand, once the research is
completed, they should communicate their findings to their peers and to the broader community, including
policy makers and other relevant stakeholders. Nevertheless, the capacity for Proposal development,
Scientific writing, and Communication Skills is weak in several NARS in sub-Saharan Africa. This deficiency
7
has been recognized in several fora, by the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
(RUFORUM, see www.ruforum.org) and during the Southern African Development Community (SADC)-
Implementation and Coordination of Agricultural Research and Training (ICART) competitive grant process.
Thus, RUFORUM has initiated a process to strengthen Proposal development, Scientific Writing and
Communication skills for NARS scientists in the SADC region. In particular, RUFORUM is keen to see that
research funds are sourced and that research findings are shared among peers, relevant stakeholders,
inform policy makers and is also communicated to the broader audience. In addition, RUFORUM would like
to see greater contribution of African scientists to global knowledge.
Rather than provide such skill enhancement training at the individual NARS level, RUFORUM is of the view
that initially it is more efficient to tackle these deficiencies by group learning events organized for the benefit
of scientists from various NARS in the SADC region at large. Such trainings will also provide opportunities
for NARS scientists to meet and learn from one another and also forge working relationship. The training
activities would then subsequently be done periodically at individual NARS level. To support scaling up, a
training of trainers would be needed.
It was through appreciation of this that the RUFORUM continues to mount training workshops to
enhance staff from the NARS in the SADC and indeed other regions, in scientific writing skills for
grant winning proposals and competitive scholarly publication. The training attracted over 30
scientists from the region, with a good representation of women (Appendix 1 – Participants
Profiles). The underlying assumption in the design and module delivery was that the trained group
would eventually out-scale the skills acquired to the wider staff communities in their institutions as
well as mentor especially the young scientists.
For this purpose, four participants who participated in
previous proposal and scientific writing sessions were
invited to shadow the facilitators.
Kenneth Caula (from Malawi)
8
Lilian Mukandiwa (Zimbabwe)
Silvia Mausse Sitoe and Martin Kimanya
A highly intensive training programme was the basis for training (Appendix 2 – Programme
Profiles). Participants were divided into two groups, and a set of facilitators and SADC staff
interacted with each of the two groups.
Three experienced consultants from

Makerere University in Uganda (Dr.
J.S. Tenywa & Dr. Paul Nampala),
and Egerton University (Prof. R.K.
Obura) were engaged for this
purpose.
9
Dr. Jane Alumira of the ICART

Project attended all sessions of the
training and presented key
highlights of the ICART Programme.
3.0 Workshop purpose and objectives
The purpose of this learning event was to update skills in Proposal development, scientific writing and
communicating skills of SADC-NARS scientists. After attending this skill enhancement training, NARS
scientists would be able to:
• Develop competitive research and training proposals;
• Relate research to development;
• Produce scientific publications for peer reviewed journals; and
• Design appropriate communication products.
The main objective was to strengthen the capacity of NARS scientists in Southern Africa in
competitive proposal preparation and scientific writing. The primary objectives of the workshop
included:
(i) Introduce and/or share experiences in scientific writing for developing interdisciplinary
grant winning proposals and competitive manuscripts for publication in peer reviewed
journals;
(ii) Strengthen capacity for production of educational and extension communication products;
(iii) Strengthen capacity for capacity building in formulation of grant winning proposals and
competitive knowledge and communications products
(iv) Foster multidisciplinary team building and cohesion within and among scientists in the
SADC region.
4.0 Approach and orientation of the workshop

The training included presentations by the resource persons, group work, plenary discussions and
experience sharing as well as computer based practicals. The training was participatory and interactive.
There were scheduled presentations and discussions led by experienced resource persons. Resource
persons were Experienced Specialists who routinely teach and offer training in Proposal development,
10
scientific writing and components of Communication skills. Participating NARS scientists were also expected
to actively contribute to this learning event.
The facilitator responsibilities included:

• Designing and implementing the entire Workshop Programme,
• Working with groups and influencing them with humility and skilfully steering them to
reach conclusions on the task at hand.
• Minimizing any possible disruptive behaviour during the workshop by managing
disagreements and strong views among participants.
• Sifting and sorting information reach conclusions and bringing the workshop to a
logical closure.
• Coaching and providing timely guidance and feedback to help participants to complete
their assigned tasks.
The training involved presentations, discussion and experience sharing as well as computer-based
practical exercises. The training was heavily participatory and interactive. There were short and
diverse presentations and discussions led by the facilitators to precede the group discussions and
plenary presentations. The training approach was based on Experiential Learning Cycle for adult
learners. The group exercises and other computer-based practical and experience sharing were
designed to expose the participants to aspects of proposal and scientific writing in line with the
premise of the workshop. The workshop emphasized practical application, internalization and
ownership of concepts, resources, methods and output by the participants. The participants were
expected to develop analytical and integration frameworks and guidelines based on relevant
individual, institutional and discipline-based proposal writing capacities, needs, situations and
experiences. The workshop intended to realize a plan to strengthen individual and institutional
proposal writing skills.
The approaches and methodologies for the training program entailed a combination of training
methods like interactive presentations, group work, activity based reflections and discussions with
major emphasis on participatory approaches coupled with games and other focused energizers.
Intensive discussion opportunities were offered to the participants during the sessions. The
workshop adopted adult learning principles to facilitate the learning by the participants through
participation. In addition to this, brainstorming exercises was also used throughout the workshop.
The 6-day training was dominantly hands-on, but enriched with facilitators’ guiding highlights in
plenary sessions prior to most items on the programme. Initially, all participants went through a
joint plenary session which enabled them present their (i) expectations from the workshop, (ii) fears
that would hinder achievement of the expectations, and (iii) plausible intervention to mitigate the
fears. This was done to (i) purposely customize the workshop to the participants’ needs, (ii)
establish a cross-cutting baseline of knowledge training needs among the diverse participants, and
(iii) initiate and ensure a participatory process that would be maintained throughout the workshop.
The participants’ workshop expectations, fears and suggested interventions to the fears formed the
milestones for evaluation of the training workshop. The detailed account of the participants
expectations, fears and suggested interventions are presented in Appendix 3.
11
The joint plenary session was

conducted by the facilitators. The
core values of the workshop that
were shared by the facilitators
(presented by Prof. Obura) to guide
engagement during the sessions
included:
• Ownership- The
workshop was
organised by
RUFORUM, but the
process was meant to
be co-created together
with the participants in
order to have their
active input to it.
• Appreciation of any contribution - there was no stupid question, the key assumption
was that not every body was familiar with scientific writing and communication
concepts. Participants were encouraged to ask any question, so that at the end of the
meeting no one goes home with unanswered questions.
• Creativity- participants were encouraged to think beyond the box. They were
challenged to continuously re-assess their perceptions in order to see if there could be
new thinking or new way of seeing things, which was very useful in generating new
ideas and presented avenues for discussing issues exhaustively.
• Flexibility- The meeting did not have a rigid agenda. The process was designed to be
flexible in order to cater for any emergent burning issues.
• Honesty and Political incorrectness – In consideration of the observation that people
tend to be polite especially when real sensitive issues are discussed, and thus put the
real issues under the carpet. Participants were encouraged to ensure that nothing was
hidden under the carpet or the table.
• Inclusiveness- It was indicated that the facilitators would foster the participation of
everybody, thus giving priority to the quiet ones if they speak up or prod them if they
remain quiet.
• Informality- was key to creating a relaxed atmosphere for free interaction and active
participation by all.
• Integrity – It was stressed the facilitators were independent, with no stake in the
meeting agenda per se, but rather there to guide the process. The approach was to
ensure balance in contributions so that at the end of the meeting every participant is
happy of the outcome, without compromise to delivery of principles and key aspects of
the programme.
• Open dialogue/multilogue- this workshop was not a chairman type, so there were to be
no one way communication but rather an open dialogue. This is the reason why the
sitting arrangement is in the sense that in will encourage active participation of all.
• Transparency- Facilitators urged the participants to open up and intelligibly present
their ideas.
12
The approach to engaging the participants in fruitful activities during and after the workshop through the
Participant Action Plan Approach (PAPA) was presented. The final PAPA is presented in the subsequent
section.
Multidisciplinary groups and sub-groups were used as a means to ensure effective participation
and learning. This was earlier on resisted by some participants who believed in maintaining their
disciplinary groups. However, the facilitators were instrumental in allaying the fears in light of the
realities of meaningful development and implementation of IAR4D projects, which requires
multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary approaches. The groups formed the focal points for the hands-on
exercises. The participants also chose unique adjective as “nick names” that were used in the
workshop as part of a strategy to dissolve professional titles. Additionally, this was useful in
galvanizing the teams and indeed team spirit prevailed throughout the training.
Team-spirit prevailed at all times and the working

environment was extremely cordial. Participants
were treated to abroad array of energizers to keep
awake and active through the long sessions.
13
The approach was intensively hands-on and group outputs were discussed in plenary sessions for further insights; all
plenary sessions were guided by the facilitators
The approach was intensively hands-on catalyzed by theoretical expositions commensurate with
the current donor trends and expectations; captivating terminologies and writing styles for both
scientific and non-technical publications.
14
Facilitators presented theoretical

expositions and practical examples
The process was relatively challenging to most participants, especially those who lacked or had
limited insights in research for development. Aspects of inter-multidisciplinary and participatory
approaches appeared unusual to many. However, by the nature of the modules, all these became
immaterial progressively.
15
By and large, the most striking challenge for
proposal development was the Logical
Framework Approach (LFA) and process which
involved participants in intensive problem
analysis, i.e., problem and objective tree
construction, and
eventually the logframe itself as the first and
foremost components in project development.
This approach was new to more than 50% of
the participants; most of them had felt that
the approach was cumbersome and
unnecessary.
Linking proposals and/or research
projects to technical publications tailored
to specific audiences was the most
significant challenge for developing
competitive scholarly resource
materials.
Additionally, development of the goal, purpose, results/outputs and activities was particularly
challenging. Despite the initial difficulties in adjusting to the new approach, participants finally
appreciated the value of the LFA and the logframe in focusing and directing the writing process.
16
For technical publications, the biggest challenge was the linking project out puts to publications and
designing relevant communication products for various audiences. All modules presented and
other relevant reference materials valuable for the participants and others in their institutions were
provided to participants as resource materials both in soft copy format.
5.0 Workshop achievements and outputs
Virtually, all the objectives of the workshop were met based on participants’ assessment, despite
the limited time for group work and hands-on.
Overall, the major achievements can be summarized as:
(i) Capacity in scientific writing for grant winning proposals and for publication in peer
reviewed journal was strengthened;
(ii) Perceived disciplinary walls were reduced significantly; participants realized the benefits of
teaming up even in areas slightly different from their traditional disciplinary confines;
(iii) Potential synergies for close collaboration were realized and enhanced; platforms for
future regional collaboration and networking among participants were laid-out;
(iv) Participants embraced the value of the LFA and log frame as a backbone in proposal
development;
(v) Participants realized the importance of not having to rush to literature in developing
interpretation of results and discussion and appreciated that literature should be used to
substantiate own work and not vice versa round as is always the case with most writers.
(vi) Participants generated through a participatory process a Participants Action Plan using the
PAPA. In addition, country action plans were also discussed and presented during the
closing plenary session. The country action plans were still very preliminary but served as
strong indicators of willingness to swing into action with regard to applying the skills gained
and also as avenues for initiating collaboration within the SADC region.
17
Participants resolved to implement the following
actions:
• brief colleagues at respective
institutions and share resource
materials;
• develop winning proposals;
• share biodata to enhance
communication and identification of
collaborators,
• train others in proposal writing and
scientific communication; and
• develop and disseminate knowledge
communication products.
18
Wednesday, 6 May, 2009 2:03 PM

From: "m.marake" <mv.marake@nul.ls>
Hi grazy team, I am not sure what kind of opium the Ruforum team overdosed all of you with
... but I hope it sustains and transforms into equally enthusiastic actions.
I am just settling back in my office after one week in Pretoria right from
Tanzania. I met with my regional team on Se in Soils and HIV & AIDS mitigation. I had
to go to the library several times to settle arguments about activities,
outputs, outcomes & impacts.
Well you all have a lovely day Marake, -----Original Message-----
Further indications of Workshop Achievements submitted by participants
Thursday, 30 April, 2009 11:34 AM

From: "James B. Chimphamba"
<jameschimphamba@chanco.unima.mw>
Dear All, Thank you so much for your positive attitude
towards the workshop and that you are home and dry. I may
be the last to respond because in our African traddition
we believe that the elders are the last to go on the dancing
floor.This gives them opportunity to copy the intricate
dancing styles of the young ones thereby enabling them
display with tingling ecstancy their wriggling of figure &. Now
the stage is set for the King.
Warmest regards.
James
19
6.0 Participants’ evaluation of the training and learning

process
A summary of participants’ evaluations is as presented below. For details of the evaluation, please
refer to the original hard copies1 completed by participants (Annex 1).
A. Impact of Workshop from the standpoint of what participants gained from the
experience
How well did the workshop meet its objective?

Not at all On target
1 5
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Level of objectives met (Not at all - on target)
1
Hard copies of the completed evaluation forms are available as Annex 1 of the hard copy version of this
report.
20
New knowledge/skills acquired

Very little Substantial
1 5
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Level of new skills acquired (very little - substantial)
Application of the skills
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood of applying the concepts (very little - substantial)
21
Expectations met
50
45
40
35
30
% Response 25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Level of expectations met (very little - substantial)
22
B. Overall assessment on the suitability of the methods and materials used in the training
Clarity of hand outs
Poor Outstanding
1 5
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating of clarity of handouts (Poor - Outstanding)
Content of hand outs
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating of content of handouts (Poor - Outstanding)
23
Clarity of visual aids
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating of clarity of visual aids (Poor - Outstanding)
Content of visual aids
60
50
40
% Response 30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating of content of visual aids (Poor - Outstanding)
24
Plenary discussions
45
40
35
30
25
% Response
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Rating of plenary discussions (Poor - Outstanding)
C. What aspect of the workshop/materials was most valuable to you? Why?

• Writing skills, I had done my publications based on experience but not enough to train
others
• Logical framework – as a summary of all the components of the research proposal and a
good entry point for proposal development
• Writing the introduction and tips, team building, tips on proposal writing. The presentation
pointed clearly on how to go about these aspects, and I gained a lot since I have been
struggling in this area.
• Identification and justification of research problem
• Communication skills and elimination of words because it improved my quality of
presentation
• Doing group work in developing different components of the project proposal and critiquing
the outcomes. This was more valuable because it provided me hands on what I am
supposed to do later
• Proposal development approach and publication of policy briefs
• The project problem tree approach and its linkage to objectives and finally leading to
budgeting
• The oral presentation of the facilitators, because they are well prepared to do it; all
presentations and facilitators very enlightening. Keep it up
• Problem tree, preparing objectives because this is usually where we fail in project planning
• Scientific writing because I have floating data that from the knowledge gained I will be able
to publish
25
• Scientific writing for journals and oral presentation skills. Also networking with/meeting
other scientists in SADC. This is because I am yet to have my publication and knowing the
do’s and don’ts is a great help. I also find myself giving presentations to various audiences
and I learnt a lot of skills at this meeting
• Linking proposals to reports and publications because of the valuable guidelines presented
• Choosing a research team. This is because the composition of a team determines
success or failure
• Dos and don’ts in proposal writing – This is important because elements of writing were
emphasized which are essential for proposal writing
• Proposal writing in particular problem tree (problem identification) objective development
and log frame development. This was new knowledge for proposal development
• Almost all the presented materials were valuable. This is mainly due to the fact that I was
actually learning. So everything would be put to good use and see what comes out at the
end
• The power point presentations were well prepared
• Linking the proposal with the report production and publication. Because it has helped me
to understand how to start writing my report and publication
• Writing skills for publications, making effective teams for collaboration
• Discussions in groups. Multidisciplinary groups help to understand more things and
exchange experiences
• From the technical point of view, materials were excellent, presentations well facilitated
and encouraged a high level of participation
D. What aspect of the workshop/materials would you change? Why?

• The M & E session was well presented but too brief and would be useful if we had
additional material on this aspect.
• For some of the presentations, the slides were overloaded with text and the font was not
consistent
• Would equally cover what goes in development and research proposals – especially on
examples. More examples were focused on university-based and research proposals
• Portioning the session into 2 parts: (1) Proposal writing 3 – 5days; (2) Scientific writing 3 –
5 days. It should take two weeks: one week for proposal development; one week for paper
development for publication
• Manual (hand outs) quality needs improvement
• Separate hands on from lectures. Give presentation and then have the participants work
on proposal writing and publications
• More time should time should be allowed for the plenary sessions. one week as clearly not
enough and some things were just too compressed in trying to cover everything. The long
sessions only lead to boredom and lack of concentration
• Time allocation, a lot was covered in too short a time and it was obvious that we need
more time to assimilate
• Time table (program) was too crowded – Need to set aside time for participants to get free
air for effective learning
• Venue – not conducive for a workshop of this nature; the accommodation and other
workshop facilities were not good
26
• I would change nothing. As I have already said, to me, all the materials were very
valuable and they contain the latest information which could help one come out with a
good proposal and effective publication thus improving his/her writing and communication
skills
E. Any additional comments or suggestions you might have about the workshop?
• Program too compact, there was limited time for participants to accomplish
exercises and hence concentrate on hands-on
• The workshop was enlightening and refreshing. Keep it up!
• RUFORUM could have looked for a better place/hotel for participants. In future I
request the organization to at least send an administration officer to survey venue.
Otherwise delegates were so mature and dedicated to the training SADC/ICART
needs to convene more training in the region for proposal writing so that the region
can be equipped.
• Participants should be told prior to workshop that they should bring a draft
proposal, data, papers targeted for publication. Just to assist exercises. It will
take off a lot of pressure on time. Give time for a early break in the evening
• Availability of email facilities at the workshop institution is a plus
• The last plenary session should have been made earlier to enable the resource
persons integrate proposal writing for knowledge generation with those of
information sharing and networking
• No concrete suggestions at the moment
• Schedule too congested – working on Saturday – No please. Venue:
accommodation and food – poor quality
• Could have 2 weeks for this important training to finish all the contents well and
then give participants 4 – 5 days to work on proposals
• To benefit more scientists, the workshop could be held at national level within the
SADC countries, if possible
• More working groups; may be in the morning we should do the exercises and in
the afternoon the presentations
• Improve on the venue for future workshops. Allowances for free time is essential,
adults need a more relaxed atmosphere
• Give enough time for different aspects. One week is not enough to adequately
cover training on scientific writing, proposal writing
• Target people who are still relatively junior in their systems to be trained. Senior
people such as commissioners not likely to disseminate workshop information as
they have too many commitments
• The training should be followed up by impact evaluation
• Run the workshop over a longer period – 7 working days at a venue that promotes
teaching and learning
• Allow for socialization during the training. Remember: “All work and no play makes
Jane a dull girl”
27
• Inform participants that they must bring data or ensure that a draft paper should be
produced by end of workshop. The paper should be published with help of
resource persons
• I think the program was very tight/congested thus making the resource persons to
rush some presentations. Important: I appeal to RUFORUM to help provide
scholarships MSc., PhD to some of us.
• Improve on lodging arrangements
28
7.0 Workshop photographic gallery
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
8.0 Appendices
APPENDIX 1
Participants Profiles2
Shalaulani James Nsoso, a citizen of Botswana. I work for Botswana College of

Agriculture (BCA) as an Associate Professor of Animal Breeding in the Department
of Animal Science and Production. I hold a BSc in Agricultural Science (Honours)
and a PhD in Animal Science, which I obtained in November 1990 and April 1996,
respectively, both from Lincoln University, New Zealand. My research interests are
evaluation of indigenous breeds, selection indigenous breeds for parasite/disease
tolerance/resistance and improved productivity and domestication of wild species
as alternative farm animals. My contact details are: BCA, Private Bag 27,
Gaborone. Botswana. Tel: +267 3650158; Fax +267 3928753 and e-mail:
sjnsoso@bca.bw or snsoso@bca.bw.
James B Chimphamba is a Lecturer in Physical Geography, University of

Malawi. Bsc – Majoring Biology and Earth Sciences, University of Malawi, 1978,
Postgraduate, Diploma in Agricultural Engineering (Agric.E), National College of
Agricultural Engineering England, 1983, Master of Science in Land and Water
Management, Cranfield University, England, 1990. 23years with Department of
Land Resources Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture Malawi, Managed a SADC
course on integrating Soil Conservation into the farming systems (1991 – 95),
Head of Land Resources Conservation for Blantyre Agricultural Development
Division, retired from Ministry of Agriculture as Chief Land Management Training
Officer (PS), in 2001, Vice chairman of Environmental, Long-term Observatory
Network for southern Africa, Malawi Representative of the international long-term
Ecological Research, University of Malawi Coordinator of Waternet – SADC MSc
Programme in IWRM (2002 – 2006, Excutive member of African Water Forum,
United Nations Office for the Outer Space Affairs Coordinator for Mapping of
Deforestation, forest fires and landslides for Sub-Saharan Region.
Mr. Jonathan Mukuruba is a holder of a Bsc. Honours Degree in Agricultural

Economics which he attained in 2003 from the University of Zimbabwe. Soon after
college he became a Lecturer in Farm and Agribusiness Management at Chibero
Agricultural College in Norton, a town 42km west of Harare, Zimbabwe, up to end
of October 2004. He then transferred to the Head Office of the Ministry of
Agriculture in Harare to work as an Agricultural Economist. He is currently a
Principal Agricultural Economist in the Ministry and has vast experience in
research, agricultural policy formulation and analysis, agricultural planning, project
appraisal and development, agribusiness management, rural development and
monitoring and evaluation. His contact details are: telephone +263 4 797 443,
+263 4 797 416, business address; 1 Borrowdale Road, Harare, Zimbabwe and
email address jmukuruba@yahoo.co.uk
2
Other SADC staff in attendance to handle logistic arrangements, but complete profiles not presented here,
were Mr. Joel Motswagole, Finance Officer (tgower@sadc.int) and Ms. Tshegofasto Gower, Secretary
(tgower@sadc.int)
40
Makoala V. Marake, Educational Experience: Ph.D Soil and Water (1993); Msc.
Soil Fertility and Management (1989) - University of Nebraska, Lincoln. USA.
Bsc. Agronomy – Soil Science (1985); Diploma – Soil & Water Resource
Conservation (1983) - Colorado State University. Colorado. USA. He is Senior
Lecturer, Department of Soil Science and Resource Conservation. Faculty of
Agriculture (1993 to Date); Inter alia Director of Transformation (2002–2004)
National University of Lesotho. Currently Department Head: Soil Science.
Teaching and supervising students at undergraduate and graduate levels; Teach a
course in research methods incorporating philosophy of science, proposal
development and technical writing; Research and consultancy in environment,
conservation and agricultural development. Conservation Soil Scientist (1985-
1987). Department of Conservation, Forestry & LUP. Ministry of Agriculture.
Lesotho. Researcg and training interests include Soil Science and Environmental
Management: Soil Management & Quality, Wetland Soils and Management,
Conservation Agriculture; Climate Change Adaptation: Inter/transdisciplinary
research issues. Training, leadership & transformation. Professional Services:
Expert Evaluator - Research Proposals on Agriculture & Land Use. European
Community Research Frame Work. Brussels, Belgium. November, 2001.
Member of an International Review Panel for the 5th Research Framework of the
European Community. Brussels, Belgium. November 2002 to April 2003. Contact:
Work : +26622340601; Cell : +26658772958; Work Fax: +26622340000;
Personal e-mail: mv.marake@nul.ls; National University of Lesotho P.O.
Roma180 Lesotho
Mtaita Tuarira Abduel, Bsc in Agriculture from Sokoine University Tanzania and
an MSc. in Tropical Horticulture from University of London. I work with Africa
University, Mutare, Zimbabwe where I teach Ecology, Fruit Production and
Principles of Landscaping. Tel:+263-020-61611/616775
Email: tamtaita@africau.ac.zw
Ntitis Tvoane, Bachelors of Applied Science in Agriculture obtained from Charles

Stuart University Australia in 1999. I serve the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
Security in Lesotho as a Chief Agricultural Officer.
Ilitongo Kaywala, Zambia. Bsc. Natural Resources (University of Zambia), Post

Graduate Diploma Project Management, Certificate in Plant Genetic Resources
Management. Current work: Agriculture Research Officer: Plant Genetic
Resources. Area of Research: Plant Genetic Resources. Institution: Zambia
Agriculture Research Institute, National Plant Genetic Resources Centre, Mt.
Makulu Central Research Institute, P/bag 7, Chilanga, Lusaka, Zambia. Phone:
+26 0977 462651, Email: ilitongok@yahoo.com
41
Rosa Felizarda da Costa, graduated in Veterinary Medicine in 1981, from the

Eduardo Mondlane University. In 1988, did the Post Graduate/Diploma Course in
Veterinary Pathology at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Royal
Veterinary College, Uppsala. In 1993 completed the MSc in Veterinary Pathology
at the same University. From 1984 until 1997, worked as pathologist and
researcher, at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, in Mozambique. In 1998 was
appointed Director of the Central Veterinary Laboratory, until 2004. From 2006 to
2008 was the Technical Director of Animal Sciences at the Agrarian Research
Institute of Mozambique (IIAM). Since 1989 until now, is also lecturing in Histology,
Pathology and Physiopathology at the Eduardo Mondlane University. Currently
she is working at IIAM, as a researcher, the national coordinator for the ICART -
Lili-Market project- livestock and livelihood: improving market aspects, and is also
implementing a project looking at livestock health problems in the interface areas,
at the Great Limpopo conservation area. Her field of interest is diseases in goats
and poultry. Current Address: Directorate of Animal Science, Agricultural Research
Institute of Mozambique, Private Bag 1922, Maputo, Mozambique. E-mail:
rosa.cost@gmail.com. Telephone + 25821475170/25821475171. Fax
+258,21475172.
Frieda Lucy Kayuni from Malawi. I work as a Deputy Director in the Department
of Agricultural Extension Services which is one of the departments under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. Iam responsible for providing guidance,
coordinating and monitoring gender, HIV and AIDS activities. I have a Bachelors
degree in Agriculture obtained from Bunda College of Agriculture and a Master
Science Degree in Extension Education obtained from Oregon State University,
USA. In my career I have worked as a gender specialist at Zone level and as In
charge of Agricultural Programs at District level. I have also worked on Women in
Agricultural Development Project funded by USAID as a co Researcher, Small
holder Irrigation Project for Rice production and HIV/AIDS project to facilitate
mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS and related gender issues in Agricultural Programmes.
Currently Iam interested in doing research on Extension Methodologies that can
effectively reach vulnerable groups and Crops and Herbs that can significantly
improve the immunity of People Living with HIV. My contact information is:e mail
address; flkayuni@yahoo.co.uk, Fax; 26501750384 and Postal Address;
Department of Agricultural Extension Services, P.O. Box 30145, Lilongwe, Malawi
Chaula W. Kenneth, Malawian working as Principal Agricultural Extension Officer

in the Department of Agricultural Extension Services under Ministry of Agriculture
and Food Security in Malawi. He has vast experience in Extension Programme
Development & Delivery for both staff and farmers. He has experience in formal
and informal training of both staff and farmers in Agro enterprise Development,
Farmer Based Organization development and Management. He is a trainer of
trainers in Gender, HIV and AIDS mainstreaming, Participatory Diagnosis,
Farmers Field Schools and Farmer Business Schools. He has skills in conducting
training needs assessment for both staff and farmers.
kennethchaula@yahoo.co.uk. Fax; 26501750384 and Postal Address;
Department of Agricultural Extension Services, P.O. Box 30145, Lilongwe, Malawi,
cell: +265 888 865 180
42
Mukandiwa Lillian, Junior Lecturer in the Department of Animal Science at the

University of Zimbabwe. She holds a BSc (Hons) in Agriculture and an MSc.
Degree in Animal Science from the University of Zimbabwe. Currently her research
interests are in the use of Ethnoveterinary Medicines and in Rangeland
Rehabilitation and she is currently pursuing her PhD Studies in South Africa.
Contact details: Address: Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box MP167, Mt. Pleasant, Harare Email:
lmukandiwa@agric.uz.ac.zw, lmukandiwa@yahoo.com; Tel: 263-4-303211 ext
1409 or 263-912 697 058
Jane Alumira, PhD. currently working with the Implementation and Coordination
of Agricultural Research And Training (ICART) Project under the Food, Agriculture
and Natural Resources (FANR) Programe of the SADC. She is a Social Scientist
with wide ranging experience in extension pathways/methodologies. Prior to
joining ICART Project, Jane worked and made significant contribution with CGIAR
Centres, including ICRISAT under the Challenge Program on Water and Food
(CGIAR CPWF). She is the Networks Support Officer of the ICART and can be
contacted at email address: jalumira@sadc.int or icart@sadc.int; Mailing Address:
P/Bag 0095, Kgale View Offices, Gaborone, Botswana; Tel. +267 395 1863; Fax:
+267 395 1821.
Kennedy K. Muimui, (MSc Plant breeding and Genetics, BSc Agric, Dip in crop
science). Principal Agric Research Officer/Bean Breeder. Working as the Bean
Programme leader and National Coordinator for the Southern African Bean
Research Network (SABRN). Working on incorporating biotic and abiotic stresses
in bean lines. Working with partners to disseminate preferred bean varieties to
farmers and bean-based technologies.
Sίlvia Maússe Sitoe, Mozambican and Bsc in Forestry from Eduardo Mondlane
University. I currently work at Department of Forestry, Faculty of Agriculture and
Forestry, Eduardo Mondlane University as a research assistant. I have been
working in fruit flies research since I finish my first degree. I am still doing my MSc
in forestry and hope to finish early. Address: Eduardo Mondlane University,
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Forestry. Campus Universitario.
Edificio 1. Maputo. Mozambique. Tel./Fax: +25821496238. Mobile:
+258822832810. Email: smausse@uem.mz, smaussesitoe@yahoo.com,
smaussesitoe@gmail.com
Martin Epafras Kimanya is a holder of PhD in Applied Biological Sciences (with

specialisation in Public Health and Human Nutrition) obtained from Ghent
University in Belgium. Martin was born in Tanzania in 1968. He works with the
Tanzania Food and Drugs Authority. Presently, he holds the position of Manager
for Food Evaluation and Registration and is the principal investigator for a project
on Risk assessment and management of mycotoxins in foods. Martin is a member
of several scientific committees in Tanzania and has co-authored several peer-
reviewed publications. His address is P.O. Box 77150, Dar es Salaam TANZANIA;
Email: Mekimanya@yahoo.co.uk
43
Tafadzwa Chevo is an Assitant Lecturer in the Department of

Sociology at the University of Zimbabwe. He holds a Master of Science Degree in
Sociology and Social Anthropology , a Bachelor of Science Special Honours
Degree in Sociology both from the University of Zimbabwe and a Bachelor of
Social Sciences Degree from Africa University in Zimbabwe. Tafadzwa
specializes in Rural Development , Social Policy and Social Administration and
Qualitative and Quantitative Social Research Methods within the Department of
Sociology. He is part of the Social Scientists consulting on Social Development
challenges in Zimbabwe, a project sponsered by the United Nations Development
Programme. His areas of interest are, integrating indigenous technical knowledge
and other sustainable agricultural innovations to enhance food security, livelihoods
and environmental systems in Southern Africa. . He is also is keen on examining
the impact of land reforms in Southern Africa and thier policy implications. He can
be contacted at: tafadzwachevo@hotmail.com or tchevo@social.uz.ac.zw
Kanyadzo Taruvinga3 (Swaziland)
Moreetsi Thobega, Ph.D Agricultural Extension Education, Program Development

and Evaluation; MSc – Agricultural Education , Iowa State University. BSc.
Agriculture, Uinversity of Botswana (1994). Job Experience: Lecturer,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Education and Extension, Botswana
College of Agriculture (2002 to date). Teaching and supervising students at
undergraduate and graduate levels; Teaching a course in Research Methods in
Education, Programme Evaluation and Measurements. Research Interests
Educational programmes development and evaluation procedures. Analysis of
assessment procedures both in school or extension settings. Contact: Botswana
College of Agriculture, Private Bag 0027, Gaborone, Botswana. Phone: +267 365
0227; Email: mthobega@bca.bw.
Moses W. Munthali (Msc Agric ( Env. Soil Chemistry), Bsc Agric). Working as a
Soil Scientist and Soils Research Commodity Team Leader in the Department of
Agricultural Research Services -- Ministry of Agriculture and Food security.
Research interest Areas: soil fertility and water management
Contacts: Chitedze Agricultural Research Station, P.O Box 158, Lilongwe, Malawi
Tel + 265 1 707 041
Fax + 265 1 707 041
Cell + 265 999 067 350
Email: munthalimw@yahoo.co.uk
3
Biodata not available
44
Osvaldo Catine, Mozambican, Agri-Forestry Engineer by Eduardo Mondlane

University. He works for Mozambique Institute For Cotton since 2002. From 2007
up to date, is the head of Department for Studies and Projects. His experience is
based in Project Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, and also implementation.
Contacts: Eduardo Mondlane Avenue, nr.2221, 1st floor, Maputo, Mozambique.
Telephone: +258-1-431015/6; Fax: +258-1-430679
Mobile: +258 82 6715 970 or +258 84 2585135
E-mail: dep@iam.gov.mz or ocatine1@yahoo.com.br
Tauro. T.P
A soil scientist currently working as a Senior Research Officer (Crop Nutritionist) at
Chemistry and Soil Research Institute of DRSS. I have just finished a Degree in
Master of Philosophy at the University of Zimbabwe majoring in soil fertility
management and ecology. I have experience in soil fertility management and
fertilizer and lime recommendations for crop production. A team member of Soil
Fertility Consortium for Southern Africa (SOFECSA), working in Makoni District
and Wedza District of Zimbabwe. Research interest: soil fertility management
mainly focusing on ensuring food security for smallholder farmer. Email:
phirilani2@yahoo.co.uk or crsipss@mweb.co.zw
Tšoamathe ‘Maseribane, Currently lecturing demography at the National University

of Lesotho in the Department of Statistics and Demography, Roma, Lesotho.
Extensively worked on questionnaire design for national population census and
surveys inclusive of data collection, analysis and report writing. Qualifications:
2003 Masters in Population Studies, University of Natal, Durban campus.1999
Bachelor of Arts, B.A. Economics and Demography National University of Lesotho.
Research interests: Infant and maternal mortality, Migration and HIV, Reproductive
health and Fertility
Contacts: P.O. Roma 180, Lesotho, Mobile: +266 5886 5328, Tel work: + 266
22340 601 Fax work: +266 22340 000 e-mail: tj.maseribane@nul.ls OR
tsoamathe@yahoo.com
Mashuta Kalebe, BSc Agriculture University of Swaziland, MSc Soil Science,

University of Ghent Belgium. Has special interests in soil research work and is
involved in Land Evaluation and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for
environmental and Soils Research. Supervises Undergraduates from University of
Zambia, Copper-belt University, and Colleges of agriculture. Interested in Bio-fuel
promotion, and soil fertility improvement using cover crops and agro-forestry.
Kabwe Research Station, Box 80908, Kabwe, ZAMBIA. mashutak@yahoo.com
Tel +260 977 712 784
Joyce K. Mvuna (MSc. Agriculture Education and Extension) a Principal

Agriculture Officer working with the Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and
Cooperatives under the Extension Services Section . Currently, I advise the
ministry on policy formulation; develop implementation guidelines and extension
materials; provide technical backstopping to agriculture service providers both
public and private. For the past four years I have worked with the Tea Research
Institute of Tanzania training farmers, extension staff and participating researchers
in tea subject. I am interested in sharing better methodologies for extension
service delivery. Ministry of Agriculture Food Security and Cooperatives,
P.O. Box 9192, dare s Salaam, TANZANIA. Tel: +255 222 866 401 Fax +255
222 866 372, Mobile: +255 754 929 022
Email: jmvuna2808@yahoo.com
45
Peter J.Mosha, Tanzania.BSc in Agricultural Extension and Education from

Sokoine University of Agriculture.Currently I am working at SARI as Agricultural
researcher in the Department of technology transferring. Also head of technology
transferring at HORTI Tengeru, Emai:pmakusaro@yahoo.com, Address:HORTI
TENGERU, P.O.BOX 1253, TANZANIA
27 Emma Musaba, University of Namibia4 (can be reached at

ec.musaba@unam.na
28 Birungi Irene.M is a Ugandan National. She is currently working with

RUFORUM Secretariat in Kampala - Uganda. She holds a Second Upper
Bachelors degree in Social Sciences of Makerere University, a first class
Diploma in Secretarial Science of Kyambogo University formerly ITEK,
and currently finalizing a Masters Degree in Organizational Psychology at
Makerere University. She has worked with various NGO with high
positive impact levels in health and education sectors e.g African Medical
and Research Foundation (AMREF) Uganda as an Administrative
Assistant and Developing Human Resources for Health Project (DHRH) a
European Union funded Project (17million Euro) first as a Project
Administrator and later as a Program Officer. She also has various
certificates in several areas, including among others Management,
Procurement, ICT, and a vast experience in the fields of Procurement,
Administration, Events Management, Public Relations, Stores
Management and Human Resource Management. She can be contacted at,
irenebirungim@gmail.com. i.birungi@ruforum.org
29 Ms. Joan E. Apio is a Ugandan and Currently pursuing a Masters Degree in

Information Technology at the Faculty of Information Communication and
Technology, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. She finished her Bachelors
Office and Information Management at Makerere Business School, Kampala
Uganda. She is Currently working with Regional Universities Forum for Capacity
Building in Agriculture (RUFORUM) as a Programme Assistant under the ICT
department. She previously worked with GTV as an administrative Officer for 2
and half years before joining RUFORUM. She can be contact at: RUFORUM, Plot
151 Garden Hill Road, PO Box 7062 Kampala, Uganda, Telephone +256 414
535939, Mobile +254 772 946 826, Email: j.apio@ruforum.org;
apiojoan@gmail.com
4
Biodata not available by the time of report compilation
46
30 Maleoa Mohloboli, Mosotho National holds a Masters degree holder in Plant

Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization (PGRCU) and currently working
as Chief Research Officer. She is Head of Natural Resources Management
Research Program and Curator of the National Plant Genetic Resources Centre.
Chairperson of the Research Program Committee, hence additional
responsibilities include editing Departmental research proposals, technical reports
and articles. I have participated in a wide range of administration fora in policy and
management related subjects. Contact: maleoacm@yahoo.co.uk Telephone: (O)
266 22 312 395, (M) 266 58857203, Department of Agricultural Research, P.O
Box 829 ,Maseru 100. Lesotho
Facitators
Obura Robert Kariuki is a Kenyan. He holds a B.Sc. (Agric) from University of
Nairobi, M.Sc. Agronomy from Tuskegee University, Alabama, USA and PhD in
Soil Microbiology from Clemson University, South Carolina, USA. Currently he is
lecturing in areas of soil microbiology and pasture agronomy. He is also the
Director of Egerton University, Board of Post Graduate Studies-the graduate
school since Jan 2007 to date. Robert is also a consultant in the areas of proposal
writing and scientific writing since 1990 to date which he has done widely for
various IARCs, NARIs, CTA, and ARC-South Africa among others. He can be
contacted at: P.O.Box 536, Egerton, Phone/fax: +254 51 2217847, Cell: +254 722
734181, Email: jarapedhi@yahoo.com or eugradschool@wananchi.com
Tenywa John Stephen is a Ugandan born in Kamuli district, eastern Uganda. He

is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Soil Science at Makerere University in
Uganda, and the Editor-in-Chief of the African Crop Science Journal. He holds a
Master of Science in Agriculture of the Agricultural University of Norway (NLH),
and a doctorate of The Ohio State University in USA (1993). His is a versatile
researcher with wide and varied experiences, but mainly in soil fertility and plant
nutrition, agronomy, environmental and general natural resource management. He
has supervised 16 masters and 6 doctorate students. He is a peer reviewer for a
number of journals and an editor of three. He provides consultancy services for
book, scientific documents and project reviews. He has served as technical
facilitator in project/proposal development, scientific/technical writing and journal
publishing at local and international levels. Besides, he is a member of several
international professional organisations. He values collaborative research and joint
student training. He has published widely in refereed journals and proceedings.
His contact details are: Department of Soil Science, Makerere University, P. O.
Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda; Tel: 256 41 542277 (office) or 256 77 487404
(mobile); E-mail: jstenywa@agric.mak.ac.ug or acss@starcom.co.ug
Nampala Paul is a Crop Protection specialist (Crop Pest Ecology), he attained

his Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Master of Science in Crop Science and a
Doctor of Philosophy degree at Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. He is
the Executive Secretary of the Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS),
an autonomous body established by Government Charter to offer independent
evidence-based scientific advice to government and the public. Paul also offers
lectures on part-time basis in Crop Protection, Insect Pest Ecology, Biosafety &
Bioethics, Biometry and Environmental Impact Assessment at the Faculties of
Agriculture at Makerere University and Busoga University. He is Scientific
Editor of the prestigious African Crop Science Journal. Through these
engagements, Paul has proficiently worked under multidisciplinary, multicultural
and multiracial environments and has gained vast experience. He has excellent
knowledge and working relationships with NARS, Regional
47
Organisation/Networks and International Agricultural Research Centres

(IARCs). He has vast experience working with diverse stakeholders in science,
technology and innovations. He serves as peer reviewer for several journals
and research publications; and provides consultancy services in proposal
development and technical writing. Paul is a member of several professional
organizations including the African Crop Science Society, International
Biometrics Society, African Association of Insect Scientists and the International
Federation of Science Editors. He has published widely in referred journals and
proceedings. He can be contacted at: Uganda National Academy of Sciences,
Makerere University, Lincoln Flat A4, P.O. Box 23911 Kampala, Uganda; Tel:
256-041-533044 or 256 77-468919; Email: nampalap@yahoo.co.uk or
paulnampala@unas.or.ug .
48
APPENDIX 2
Programme profiles
Time Activity Responsible Person

Programme for Day 1: Sunday 19 April 2009
3.00pm Participants Registration RUFORUM Secretariat
Programme for Day Monday 20 April 2009 –Part 1 : proposal Development
7.30 am Registration Cont’d RUFORUM Secretariat
8.00am Welcome Remarks RUFORUM Coordinator &
SADC Representative
8.20am Self –introduction All participants
8.30am Workshop objectives: participant expectations and Facilitators
fears
9.00am Key issues in scientific writing, Persuasive and
informative writing and Group Exercises: Use of
simple/short words or phrases; Eliminating sentence
wordiness; Logical text arrangement
9.40am Types & categories of projects: proposal types
(research vs. Development, Concept-note vs. Full);
Primary components/Structure; Variable components
10.00am Designing a fundable project: Steps in proposal
writing; Selecting right topic-problem identification;
Matching proposals to donors; Features of a winning
proposal
Interpreting of research calls (Examples of active

RFPs)
11.00am Plenary Session
11.20am Health Break
11.40am Formulation of objectives, hypotheses/research
questions /prepositions
12.00am Formulation of objectives, hypotheses/research
questions/prepositions
12.20am Group exercise: problem identification, objectives,
hypotheses/research questions/prepositions
1.00pm Lunch Break
2.00pm Group presentations
3.30pm Logical framework matrix: goal, purpose,
results/outputs/activities/milestones, MOV,OVI,
assumptions
4.10pm Plenary Discussion
4.30pm Health Break
5.00pm Group Exercise: log frame development
6.00 pm Evaluation and House keeping
7.30pm Open Session in the evening-Proposal drafting
49
Programme for Day 3: Tuesday 21 April 2009

8.00am Review of day 2 (Participants)
8:30 am Group exercise: Problem identification/Analysis
9:15 am Group presentations: Problem Analysis

10:00 am Working Break – Discussions in Groups
10:20 am Formulation of objectives, hypotheses/research
10:50 am Group exercise: Formulation of objectives,
11:20 am Group presentations: Objectives,
Group presentations: Problem analysis and
Formulation of objectives, hypotheses/research
8.20am Group Presentations on progress-Logical framework
matrix
9.00am Group exercise: development of logical framework
matrix cont’d
10.30 am Health Break
11.00am Materials and Methods (M&M)
11.30am Group exercise: M&M
1.00pm Lunch Break
2.00pm Group presentations-M&M
3.30pm Group Exercise-Refine M&M
4.30 pm Health Break
5.00pm Budget & Work plan
5.30pm Evaluation and House keeping
7.30pm Open Session - Proposal Drafting
50
Programme for Day 4: Wednesday 22 April 2009

8.00am Review of day 3 Participants
8.20am Group presentations –Budget & Work plans
9.20 am Group exercises: Refining budgets and work plans
11.00am Introduction, Literature Review, Titles, Abstract,
Executive Summary and Other components
12.00pm Group exercise-Components above
1.00pm Lunch Break
2.00pm Monitoring and Evaluation Plan
2.30pm Communication Strategy
3.00pm Mounting competitive research teams, CVs, Lead
institution/PI
4.30pm Health Break
4.45pm Group Exercise-Continue refining proposal drafts
6.00pm Evaluation and House Keeping
7.30pm Open Session - Proposal Drafting
51
Programme for Day 5: Thursday 23 April 2009 – Part 2: Technical Scientific Writing
8.00am Review of Day 4 Participants
8.20am Linking proposals to report production & publication
8.50am Discussion
9.10am Presenting results
9.40am Interpretation of results
10.50am Group Exercise: Results presentation and
interpretation
11.50am Group presentations-Plenary discussion
1.00pm Lunch Break
2.00pm How to write discussion, conclusions and
recommendations
3.30pm Group Exercise: Discussion, conclusion and
recommendations
4.30pm Health break
5.00pm Plenary discussions
6.00 pm Evaluation and House Keeping
7.30 pm Open Session - Proposal Drafting
52
Programme for Day 6: Friday 24 April 2009 – Part 2: Technical Scientific Writing
8.20am Citing and listing references
8.40 am Publishing in Journals
9.10 am The role of journal editors and reviewers
9.30 am Responding to review comments
10.00am Plenary Discussion –Experiences, challenges and
opportunities
11.00am Effective oral presentations
11.30am Effective poster development and other scientific
communication products (Policy briefs, Fact and
knowledge sheets
12.00pm Group exercise-designing a poster
1.00pm Lunch Break
2.00pm Group presentation-posters
3.30 Participants focus on their manuscripts
4.30pm Health break
5.00pm Closing remarks and house keeping
7.00pm Reception
Programme for Day 7: Saturday 25 April 2009 – Part 2: Technical Scientific Writing
8.20am Group exercise-participants – Publications and other
knowledge communication products
11.00am Networking through Information Sharing in the SADC Dr. Jane Alumira
1.00pm Lunch break
2.00pm PAPA Presentation and discussions
4.30pm Health Break
5.00pm Final evaluation and End of Workshop
53
APPENDIX 3
Summary of the participants’ expectations, fears and suggested5 interventions
Participants’ expectations from the workshop included the following:

Participants Expectations
• Be able to write winning proposals; why previous ones failed
• Be able to communicate my research results to end users
• Develop institutional networks for collaborations; with other countries
• Be able to diff. between research outputs and indicators
• Be able to understand the difference between assumptions and preconditions
• Improve scientific writing skills to produce publishable papers
• Get had outs or electronic copies of presentations
• Proposal writing skills, utilizing my social science background
• Detailed understanding of log frame, objectives, hypotheses
• Grounding in communication skills to communicate better
• Sustainable networking; identify potential collaborators
• Up grade and sharpen workshop facilitation skills (ToTs)
• What happened to my proposal
• Deepen theory and practice of proposal development + technical writing skills
• Convincingly write cross-cutting proposals
• Increase confidence in networking
• Draft at least a concept note
• Up date oral communication skills
• Be able to identify research problems
• Learn/develop basic skills in PW
• Be clear on the dos and don’ts in PW
• Understand log frame development
• Knowledge in writing a good summary of a research proposal
• Identify short falls in communication
• Learn how to develop a good proposal that has impact on livelihoods and food security
• Development of my scientific publication
• Improve skills to compete with high international researchers
• Budgeting in regional proposals
5
The expectation highlighted in bold was not realized
54
Participants’ fears that the workshop would not meet their expectations included:
Participants Fears6
• Lack of inventory of researchers
• Understanding of networking of activities along common interests
• Time allocation for practice and management – time constraints
• Bad communications
• Irrelevant topics
• Lack of adequate experience in research
• Facilitators might be too fast in delivering facts on assumption that we understand
everything – too many assumptions
• Some participants may not be willing to open up
• Not to get help from resource persons on improving my proposal
• Not being focused and realistic
• Not having or identifying common priorities
• Narrow pool of experts in my field
• Incompetence of resource persons
• May not reflect new approaches in PW based on CORDEMA
• Expectation not met
• Failure to identify potential collaborators esp. SADC type
• Participants disciplines and difference may make the training difficult
• Overwhelming information
• Language barriers (not fluent in English)
• Unclear goal setting
• Generalities
• Much focus will be on agricultural research and will not take care of participants that
are not agricultural scientist
• Agricultural jargon will be used and cloud my understanding of training
6
The fears highlighted in bold were not overcome by the end of the workshop
55
Participants’ suggested interventions to mitigate the fears7
Interventions
• Avoid jargon and acronyms that are likely to be understood only by agricultural scientists
• Broaden horizon to include other scientists e.g., demographers and sociologists
• Being specific with minimum assumptions
• Programme self and work within limits
• Let the training outline goals be part of the training
• Properly manage plenary and group work sessions (time management)
• Colleagues and facilitators have to speak slowly
• Decongest the program
• Categories participants into experienced and novices – Not applicable
• SADC to provide a list of all potential collaborators/scientists
• Appoint a diligent time keeper – Diligent time keepers were appointed but it was
difficult to stick to time given the overloaded program
• Sensitive areas for proposal should be given enough time and presented during morning
hours – Not applicable
• Facilitators to be well guiding and explain clearly
• Skills in involving rural poor in research process – Participatory approached not fully
addressed
• Fire the resource team or teach each other how to swim
• Talk about our institutions
• Build upon participants experiences
• Facilitators to take their time and avoid rushing
• Get help to improve my proposal to ICART
• Get to know more calls for proposals
• Facilitators to have away of obtaining participants feed back
• Facilitators to assist participants to build trust in each other
• More networking and participation in research project – Not applicable
• Provide lists of websites which usually call for proposals
• Participants knowledge to be tapped
• Allow flexibility in time management
• Clarify the questions
7
The proposed interventions highlighted in bold were not used to overcome the anticipated fears, it was
realised at the end of the workshop that some proposed interventions were not applicable given the
workshop focus and approach
56
APPENDIX 4
Workshop Evaluation Form
Your cooperation in completing this evaluation form will be greatly appreciated. The information
you provide will be useful in planning future events.
1. Assess the Workshop from the standpoint of what you gained from the experience
How well did the workshop meet the main Not at all On target
objective?
1 2 3 4 5
Equip MSc. Students with writing skills to enable them
produce research proposals of high quality and
feasibility
Very little Substantial

1 2 3 4 5
New knowledge/skills acquired
Likelihood of applying concepts to your work
Expectations met
2. Rate the methods and materials relative to their value in accomplishing the workshop
Poor Outstanding
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity of participant handouts
Content of participant handouts
Clarity of visual aids
Content of visual aids
Plenary discussions
3. What aspect of the workshop/materials was most valuable to you? Why?
4. What aspect of the workshop/materials would you change? Why?
5. Any additional comments or suggestions you might have about the workshop?
Thank you for completing this evaluation
57
9.0 Annex
Annex 1: Original work evaluation forms as completed by participants
58

Proposal Writing Wkshop Arusha Apr 09

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Proposal Writing Wkshop Arusha Apr 09

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Skill Enhancement Training for NARS Scientists in Southern Africa, 20‐25 April, 2009, Arusha, Tanzania

East and Southern Africa Management Institute (ESAMI), 20 to 25 April,

Acronyms and abbreviations 4

3.0 Workshop purpose and objectives 10

4.0 Workshop approach and orientation 10

5.0 Workshop achievements and outputs 17

6.0 Participants evaluation of the training and learning process 20

7.0 Workshop Photographic Gallery 29

Appendix 1: Participants’ Profiles 40

Appendix 2: Programme profiles 49

Appendix 3: Summary of participants expectations, fears and suggested interventions 54

Appendix 4: Workshop evaluation form 57

9.0 Annex 1: Original evaluation forms as completed by participants 58

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASTD - Agricultural Science and Technology for Development

Summary of participants description of the Workshop and Learning Process

Kenneth Caula (from Malawi)

Lilian Mukandiwa (Zimbabwe)

Silvia Mausse Sitoe and Martin Kimanya

Three experienced consultants from

Dr. Jane Alumira of the ICART

3.0 Workshop purpose and objectives

4.0 Approach and orientation of the workshop

The facilitator responsibilities included:

The joint plenary session was

Team-spirit prevailed at all times and the working

Facilitators presented theoretical

By and large, the most striking challenge for

proposal development was the Logical

Framework Approach (LFA) and process which

involved participants in intensive problem

analysis, i.e., problem and objective tree

eventually the logframe itself as the first and

foremost components in project development.

This approach was new to more than 50% of

the participants; most of them had felt that

the approach was cumbersome and

Linking proposals and/or research

projects to technical publications tailored

to specific audiences was the most

significant challenge for developing

competitive scholarly resource

5.0 Workshop achievements and outputs

Participants resolved to implement the following

• brief colleagues at respective

institutions and share resource

• develop winning proposals;

• share biodata to enhance

communication and identification of

• train others in proposal writing and

scientific communication; and

• develop and disseminate knowledge

Wednesday, 6 May, 2009 2:03 PM

Further indications of Workshop Achievements submitted by participants

Thursday, 30 April, 2009 11:34 AM

6.0 Participants’ evaluation of the training and learning

How well did the workshop meet its objective?

New knowledge/skills acquired

Application of the skills

Content of hand outs

Clarity of visual aids

Content of visual aids