Original Research

Piloting a research mentorship programme in a low-resource setting in Zimbabwe

Danai T. Zhou, Celia M.J. Matyanga, Munyaradzi Madhombiro, Vinie Kouamou, Precious K. Hove, Sarudzai Muyambo, Elizabeth Gori, Fortunate Farirai, Betty Mukuwapasi, Taona E. Mudhluli, Getrude D. Gwenzi, Enetia D. Bobo, Jenipher Chigerwe, Justin Chirima, Ratidzo Chirimo, Tonny P. Tauro, Mellisa B. Sagandira, Winnie Y. Mozirandi, Natsayi Chiwaye, Hardlife Rambwawasvika, Violet P. Dudu, Winnet E. Chipato, Yvonne O. Nyararai, Faith W. Kadzviti, Nomagugu Ndlovu, Upenyu N. Mupfiga, Hardlife Muhoyi, Runyararo Mano

Received: 01 Nov. 2024; Accepted: 30 Jan. 2025; Published: 12 May 2025

Copyright: © 2025. The Author(s). Licensee: AOSIS.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Women continue to be underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM), globally including in Africa and, indeed in Zimbabwe. The gender gap, absence of formal research mentorship and the male-dominated academic culture common among low- and middle-income countries makes scientific growth dire for Africa- and Zimbabwe-based female science researchers.

Aim: To address some of these challenges, a group of researchers (90% female) created the African Excellence in Research Initiative (AFRIESEARCHI) Zimbabwe Gender in STEMM Mentorship Programme.

Setting: Public universities and research institutions in Zimbabwe.

Methods: The team crafted a research mentorship curriculum, informed by stakeholder engagement and needs assessment, and piloted it from October 2021 to December 2022.

Results: The inaugural 12-month programme capacitated 30 members (80% female) with skills for research. The participants’ mean age was 42.5 (6.9) years, with minimum qualifications of Master’s degrees. Specifically, 5 (17%) members either registered for or graduated with doctoral degrees, 14 (50%) members completed visiting fellowships. Five individual projects were awarded grants all totalling over $300 000.00, while this mentorship project was shortlisted for the Free STEM Fund award (€50 000.00) for the 2022–2023 cycle. Half of shortlisted team members were selected for the competitive Zimbabwean Emerging Faculty Development Program. Almost 90% of participants were satisfied with their mentorship experience, although resources and time were needed.

Conclusion: Despite challenges, the team resolved the need to prioritise formalised research mentorship, within the Zimbabwe setting.

Contribution: Such efforts will enhance scientific growth for women (and indeed all academic researchers) in the sciences.

Keywords: Africa; gender; mentorship; pilot; project; research; STEMM.

Introduction

Research mentorship is critical for advancing science, but there are scarce practical approaches for promoting it in resource-limited settings.¹ The 2022 World Economic Forum reports that women continue to be underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM) fields.² This is exaggerated in Africa where completion of education by women remains among the lowest.³ In Zimbabwe, numbers of women in STEMM are also diminished, while many are leaving STEMM at all stages of the career pipeline.⁴ In addition, there are challenges of funding for researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as Zimbabwe.⁵ The low access to research funding⁵ and gender imbalance in STEMM,² are both because of multiple reasons. These include: limited local funding towards research, low resources placed towards mentorship, insufficient knowledge about funding application, time constraints because of work or life responsibilities, a lack of role models who have won international research grants and few mentors to guide the grant application process.⁶

Because of a dearth of research mentorship and research funding constraints,^1,5,7 researchers and faculty members in Zimbabwean universities and research institutions, are struggling with the fulfilment of the requirements of the new Education 5.0 strategy. Education 5.0 is the major thrust of Zimbabwe’s Higher Education Ministry, which seeks to encourage the development of ‘doers, thinkers, collaborators and problem-solvers’.⁸ All the five prongs of the Education 5.0 approach, which are teaching, research, innovation, industrialisation and community service,⁹ together with gender parity, are key drivers for United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals. To address some of the above challenges, a gender-sensitive research mentorship programme was developed and piloted by 10 early- to mid-career researchers from Zimbabwe (90% female).

Problem statement

Mentorship is a proven method, essential in developing science professionals for the 21st century.^10,11 Although transformative for both mentors and mentees, mentorship rarely receives the focused attention, material and financial support as other aspects of professional development, in low-resource settings.^12,13 There is an urgent need to formalise and normalise research mentorship, in order to increase research funding access, mainstream innovation and enhance scientific excellence in many LMICs, such as Zimbabwe.^14,15

Project aim

The aim of this capacity-building programme is to strengthen research mentorship by developing an excellent, gender-sensitive, collaborative research culture, for female scientists and researchers, for Zimbabwe’s research hubs and institutions of higher learning.

The theory of change

A theory of change (TOC) provided a framework for our programme’s activities and outputs, all designed to lead to the desired outcomes and impact. The TOC was driven by the observation that researchers from low-resource settings face significant barriers to securing funding, publishing research and translating findings into policy and practice. Hence, our programme’s long-term goal is to strengthen the capacity of researchers from a low-resource setting to secure funding, and produce high-quality research. Our programme’s intermediate outcomes are for researchers to: demonstrate increased knowledge and skills in writing competitive grant proposals; publish more research articles in reputable journals; and produce high-quality research that meets international standards. Guided by the TOC, our short-term outcomes are that researchers should: (1) express increased confidence in their ability to secure funding and conduct research; (2) develop clear research plans and proposals; and (3) establish relationships with experienced mentors and peer mentees. Our programme outputs are: (1) an established, structured mentorship programme, providing training and support to researchers; (2) trained researchers on grantsmanship, research design and methods; (3) developed and refined research proposals with mentor guidance and (4) peer reviewed draft research proposals and draft articles. Our programme assumptions are that: researchers are motivated to improve their grantsmanship and research skills and mentors have the necessary expertise and experience to provide effective guidance (see Figure 1¹⁶ for the logic model).

FIGURE 1: The Project Logic Model showing the components of planned work and intended results.

Intervention packages

An intervention package was designed to provide a comprehensive support system for mentees, addressing their research needs, skills and knowledge. By providing mentor training, mentee support, regular meetings and feedback, resource support, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E), this package’s aim was to enhance the effectiveness of the mentorship programme.

Research methods and design

Setting up the team and developing a training curriculum

The principal investigator (PI) and co-PIs co-designed the initiative entitled the ‘African Excellence in Research Initiative (AFRIESEARCHI) Zimbabwe Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEMM) Program’ aka ‘AFRIESEARCHI Zim GIS Program’. They then coalesced a multidisciplinary core team of 10 peer mentors. The peer mentors comprised one PI (postdoc), two co-PIs (one postdoc and one Doctor of Philosophy [DPhil] candidate) and seven members, each having at least a Masters’ degree in any STEMM field, a publication and a history of research funding. One programme administrator and 20 mentees were competitively selected by the peer mentors, from a pool of 49 early-career researchers, with at least a Masters’ degree, and at least one published article.

The peer mentors developed the mentorship curriculum (Table 1), based on a general needs assessment from published and grey literature, and a targeted needs assessment achieved by surveying team members. In addition, the curriculum development was informed by similar programmes from Africa (Uganda, Zimbabwe),^12,13,14,15 the United Kingdom (UK) (https://bit.ly/3PhWTk8) and the United States (US),^16,17,18,19 then adapted for the local setting. Based on the needs assessment, the training for both peer mentors and mentees covered a range of topics such as: mentorship versus supervision, effective mentorship, gender in STEMM, work–life balance, sexual harassment, leadership styles, networking, proposal writing, grant writing, responsible conduct of research and publishing.

Programme activities

To fulfil the aims of the programme, various activities were carried out. Firstly, the project PI and co-PI raised awareness about research mentorship through authorship,¹⁵ and by participating in local community events (https://bit.ly/3PjStcC) and on social media (https://bit.ly/3c1zSn4). Secondly, funding applications were made to various local and global funding agencies, to support activities. Thirdly, the team then engaged a training advisory committee (TAC) comprising senior mentors and technical advisers from the University of Zimbabwe (UZ), and the University at Buffalo (UB), SUNY, US. There is significant overlap between the vision and mission of the above institutions (https://www.uz.ac.zw/ and http://www.buffalo.edu/).

To design and implement the mentorship training curriculum, the PI and co-PIs of the AFRIESEARCHI Zim GIS programme leveraged previous participation in capacity-building training. This included workshops hosted by the Africa Research Excellence Fund (AREF), UK and the UZ Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences (FMHS). The faculty development workshops were, organised by UZ FMHS senior researchers, in collaboration with the Biomedical Research and Training Institute (BRTI), the Medical Education Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the Health Education and Advanced Leadership program in Zimbabwe (HEALZ) among others.¹⁵ A programme toolbox with outcome matrix for self-assessment was adapted for this work (Table 2).¹⁵ A Logic Model (Figure 1) of planned work and intended results, was adapted from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2019 and Murray S.A. et al., 2022.^16,19

The monitoring and evaluation plan

As per our M&E plan,^16,17,18,19 the impact of our programme was monitored and evaluated using quarterly review reports by the study team, using captured monthly reports as a basis for assessment. At the end of each quarter, high-level evaluation meetings were held to conduct a postmortem on the status of the study focusing on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, achievements and planning.^16,17,18,19 Key informant reports were made by responsible team members regarding number of participants attending training sessions, number of participants formally mentored, challenges experienced, remedial actions to be taken, successful strategies or processes implemented and activity outputs or outcomes that is number of feedback surveys completed, number of concept notes submitted and reviewed, number of monthly reports made and financial logs showing utilised resources.^16,17,18,19

Statistical analysis

For quantitative statistical analysis, we used descriptive analysis to summarise demographic characteristics, research skills and perceptions among mentees and mentors. Students’ t-tests at 95% confidence were used to compare continuous variables. For qualitative data, interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and interpreted in relation to the research objectives and literature review.

Ethical considerations

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe (No. MRCZ/A/2832).

Results

Approximately 80% of participants are female. There is a slight difference between mentors’ and mentees’ mean age but the difference did not reach statistical significance, p = 0.0835. The participants’ demographics, past experience and output during or beyond the programme (from 2022 to 2025), and participants’ current roles are listed in Table 3. A total of 88.2% of participants were satisfied with their mentorship experience, although 12.8% (n = 4) felt the need for more resources and time (Table 4 and section ‘Some exit survey comments arranged by themes’).

Impact of the programme’s awareness campaigns

Team members came from different institutions and various science disciplines including agriculture, biomedical sciences, chemical engineering, chemical pathology, chemistry, drug development, environmental sciences, genetics, medical virology, medicine, paediatrics, pharmacy, pharmacology, psychiatry, veterinary sciences and social sciences. Thus, the efforts of the team members and collaboration raised awareness of research mentorship at several universities, different institutions and scientific fields within Zimbabwe:

‘My approach to career networks has greatly improved. I also received some positive feedback from mentor and mentee meetings.’ (35 years old, female, mentee)

Collaborative efforts

Beyond the lifespan of the project, the team members were invited to host a Women in Science Conference in Zimbabwe, in November 2022, while a small team of members led group mentorship sessions at the UNESCO-UZ celebration of the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, on 10 February 2023. Another opportunity was the participation of team members at the Zimbabwe Association of Medical Laboratory Sciences Students (ZAMLS) Conference on 19 March 2023. Several invitational grant writing training workshops were held in 2024 and beyond. In addition, the mentorship project was shortlisted for the Free STEM Fund award for 2023. The team is continuing to pursue funding and looks forward to continue advocating for research mentorship and women empowerment in STEMM, in Zimbabwe, as individuals, as a team and in collaboration with universities, international funding bodies and local women’s groups such as the Organization of Women in Science for the Developing World Zimbabwe National Chapter (OWSD ZNC) and groups for women academics from Zimbabwe:

‘My mentor was always available to guide, encourage and motivate me.’ (35 years old, male, mentee)

The training advisory committee and the tiered mentorship model

The training advisory committee (TAC) members served as senior mentors, who mentored the peer mentors directly and the mentees indirectly, using a tiered model (Figure 2). Our novel tiered model, leveraged a cascading approach to knowledge transfer and support. In this structure, senior professors (senior mentors) mentored the 10 early-career researchers, who designed the programme (peer mentors), who in turn mentored two junior mentees each (n = 20). This tiered design allowed for efficient knowledge dissemination, as senior mentors imparted their expertise to peer mentors, who then transmitted this knowledge to their mentees. By bridging generational and experiential gaps, this model fostered a supportive community of practice, where mentors and mentees learned from and motivated one another, promoting a culture of collaborative growth and development. This model helped the peer mentors and mentees to maximise their benefit from senior mentors who are by nature very busy individuals.

FIGURE 2: The tiered mentorship model.

The training curriculum and programme toolbox

The training curriculum comprised 10 modules for mentors only, and 10 modules for both mentors and mentees. The modules were crafted by the team and were fluid in order to accommodate the needs of the participating team members (peer mentors and mentees). The programme toolbox with outcome matrix proved to be a necessary tool for members’ self-assessment.

Annual plan and calendar of events

As directed by the logic model, the project implementation started with a kick-off meeting and launch, followed by a series of career development and research mentorship workshops, facilitated by external and internal team of experts. Using an andragogy approach, peer mentors were involved as internal facilitators and delivered modules alongside external facilitators. External facilitators from Zimbabwe, Africa and abroad, were invited to share experiences through a series of workshops. Peer mentors were later matched with mentees based on mentees’ needs and career goals. After 6 months of being trained, peer mentors then facilitated one-on-one mentorship for two mentees each, over a further 6 months. The online workshops and one-on-one mentorship helped team members to navigate their career transition. During the exit survey, useful comments for improvement were received from both peer mentors and mentees and arranged by themes such as mentors’ and mentees’ fields, time requirements and physical meetings and networking.

Project impact

Participants’ perceived outcomes

Members of this mentorship programme reported several important achievements for example, they developed skills for scientific writing, presentation, collaborations and grant writing. Some participants formed life-long relationships and continued to mentor one another, beyond the programme lifespan.

Participants’ perceived outputs

Mentors and mentees reported having made tangible achievements during and after this programme. In particular, 5 (16%) members registered for or graduated with doctoral degrees, 92 articles were drafted, and submitted or published and 13 (42%) members completed regional and international visiting fellowships. Individuals were awarded postdoctoral or postgraduate or seed grants, or fellowships and 2 (7%) were selected for the highly competitive Zimbabwean Emerging Faculty Development Program (ZEFDP) by the US Embassy, Zimbabwe in partnership with the Institute of International Education (IIE). Twelve (39%) members developed competitive concept notes using the AFRIESEARCHI template, hundreds of additional people (and counting) have been formally mentored (besides those assigned in this project). The programme team co-hosted the Zimbabwean Women in Science Conference together with the OWSD ZNC and other collaborators, in 2023 and 2024. One member created a WhatsApp platform, where participating academic members and researchers share information on current grant or fellowship calls and scholarships. A more detailed list of the participants’ achievements is in Table 5.

Some exit survey comments arranged by themes

Theme 1: Peer Mentors’ and Mentees’ fields:

• Consider pairing mentor and mentee from the same field. This improves communication.
• In order to spread mentorship benefits widely future efforts should be focused by discipline and level for example engineering, vet sciences, biomedical sciences, social sciences, pharmacy, agricultural sciences, medicine, undergraduate students, postgraduate students, postdocs and so on.

Theme 2: More resources and time required (n = 4, 12.8%):

• Some of us had more than one goal to work on in this mentorship programme so getting to hear from other mentors and mentees progress would have been beneficial.
• I think the programme for future cohorts can be improved by increasing the duration to cater for members who have other roles to play in their work places.
• Provide more training to cover grant writing.
• Hold meetings in the late afternoons or weekends as some of us have demanding jobs and cannot attend meetings during working hours.

Theme 3: More physical or peer network meetings preferred:

• More seminars would help us learn from peer mentors and mentees.
• Holding more physical meetings would have been helpful.
• It would have been beneficial if more regular networking meetings amongst peers had been held.

Theme 4: More follow-up meetings and progress reports required:

• We would have preferred having more regular follow-up meetings.
• Sharing progress reports, for mentees, each month would have improved the experience.
• Using progress self-assessment tools, for mentees, would have give information about their goals and outputs at regular intervals for example every 3 months.

Theme 5: Positively impacted:

• The programme has been really good and I enjoyed it. I count it as a double portion because in trying to achieve my goals and objectives, I will also be fulfilling my annual work plan for my result-based management key areas of assessment at Bindura University of Science Education.
• It is also good to hear others to give their testimonies and journey in this programme and giving support to each other.
• We have grown to be a family and mechanisms should be put in place that this group will not dissolve. Thank you very much.
• The mentorship programme improved my interests in research and aspirations towards academic careers. My experience with the AFRIESEARCHI Zim GIS mentorship programme enhanced my career. I am now able to set goals regularly, challenge myself, read often, write often and be curious about my industry. The writing sessions improved my writing skills and helped me to overcome deadlines.

Additional comments:

• Institutionalisation of the mentorship will be ideal to increase its impact.
• Funding was crucial for supporting participants and more is required to ensure its sustainability.

Perceived impact by participants

Participants responded to the question regarding their satisfaction with the mentorship experience, 88% were satisfied, although 12% were not and some felt that more time and resources would be beneficial.

Question: Please comment on your mentorship experience Some participants’ answers:

• Mentee: ‘The mentor is very helpful, always available when needed. She is helping me apply for a scholarship and is guiding me in writing a grant proposal’. (51 years old, female, lecturer)
• Mentor: ‘It’s a great opportunity to give back to others’. (56 years old, female, mentor)
• Mentor: ‘The mentees and I are in the early stages of our careers and we understand what each one is going through’. (32 years old, female, mentor)
• Mentee: ‘I have significantly improved in my writing skills. During the period, I wrote three papers. All were accepted for publication and conference presentation was accepted. I have also found a prospective PhD supervisor and we are working towards developing a research proposal’. (39 years old, male, MSc graduate)
• Mentee: ‘So far, my mentor has helped me in acquiring skills in searching for funded grants and she also gave me links to some interesting websites on short courses’. (39 years old, female, PhD student)
• Mentee: ‘My approach to career networks has greatly improved. I also received some positive feedback from mentor and mentee meetings’. (34 years old, female, lecturer)
• Mentee: ‘Each meeting has clear objectives and by the end of the meeting new tasks are set as well. This makes for progress. I have managed to send three PhD proposal [applications]; I am still waiting for the outcomes while at the same time I am continuing to keep applying’. (35 years old, male, lecturer)

Group members’ achievements to date (guided by the outcome matrix)

Completion of this project culminated in peer mentors developing gender-awareness in the scientific research context, together with knowledge, attitudes and skills for collaboration, curriculum development, research mentorship, grant writing, responsible conduct of research, plus M&E. The mentees acquired skills for developing fundable project proposals, and for mentoring others, both of which will transform the Zimbabwe research and professional culture, one person at a time, with potential for wider application. Table 5 shows a list of some notable individual achievements of group members during and within 2 years of the mentorship:

‘I now understand what mentorship means.’ (32 years old, female, mentor)

Discussion

There have been several mentorship programmes in low-resource settings. What’s unique about ours is the involvement of local participants (mostly women) in the design of the curriculum and its delivery. The project achieved its aim of contributing to local and global efforts for women empowerment in STEMM.

As the project was carried out during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it helped members to maintain a sense of community, and helped to address the negative social impact of physical distancing in the context of COVID-19. It restored and maintained contact between and among Zimbabwean mentees and peer mentors, through ‘socially-distanced’ physical meetings and online webinars. This strategy was both innovative and life-changing as many researchers (and individuals) faced uncertain futures, sometimes in isolation. Many locally based researchers benefited from the online group mentorship at the start of the project, while those mentees selected into Cohort 1 received more individualised mentorship support. The project trained both peer mentors and mentees on mentorship and assisted the team members to find their own answers to several career-related challenges.

Online approaches, although common in developed countries, have great unpredictability in the African setting, where access to the internet is generally too costly and out of reach. Because of a dearth of funding opportunities and limited research support most local researchers have inadequate internet access. In spite of this unpredictability, physical distancing strategies were the norm, post the COVID-19 era, and our programme had to respond. One way we responded was to provide stipends towards transport and internet data to enable participants to travel for meetings, or access the internet, and participate in online training and group mentorship programmes virtually. The funding support was, however, minimal and team members from outside Harare, where most events were held, missed the physical meetings.

At the same time, this project provided an opportunity for both the newly trained peer mentors and more experienced senior mentors (TAC) to participate and give back, by mentoring the mentees, in a setting where mentorship, is traditionally erratic and not sustained. This initiative was indeed necessary, as there is limited support for formal mentorship programmes in the African and Zimbabwean context.

Because of a dearth of mentorship in LMIC, some supervisors purport to have dual roles of being both mentors and supervisors.¹³ However, centred on best practices, reports in literature and past experience, this project emphasised the role of a mentor that is separate from that of a supervisor, to limit conflict of interest. We initially found some resistance to the approach of separating a mentor from a supervisor, especially by those who did not fully comprehend the difference between supervision and mentorship. This controversy resonates with other low-resource setting where supervisors also ‘mentor’ their students.¹³ Despite the initial challenges, the initiative was perceived to be a timely response that brought local mentees and peer mentors together, who would not normally interact because of being from different disciplines or institutions:

‘I found that … if I had problems with my supervisor, it was easy for me to talk to my mentor, but now if your mentor is your supervisor and you are having problems with the supervisory part then whom are you going to talk to? And you find you’re stuck.’ (Mentor from Makerere University [sex and age of participant unspecified])¹³

Online activities via a WhatsApp group formed by one team member have made it possible for team members to spread research mentorship beyond the project. Some WhatsApp group members, although not part of the project have shared testimonies such as positive outcomes after responding to calls shared in the WhatsApp group, and their own experiences including practical tips and the tenacity and persistence required to win such grants:

‘I just want to say, please do apply for calls you see here [on the WhatsApp platform]. I got a few regrets but I bagged a generous fellowship when I was just trying out my luck. I’d also like to say take a chance and don’t stop applying each year getting better if you get a regret. I applied five times for another fellowship and got it the fifth time.’ (32 years old, female, PhD student)

Limitations

Although our results suggest that research mentorship is a good strategy for empowering women in STEMM, there were challenges, which included funding constraints, limited mentorship period, competing interests because of work-related demands, inadequate training, a lack of institutionalising, non-integration within existing systems, limited culture of mentorship and, a lack of understanding about mentorship:

‘In order to spread mentorship benefits widely future efforts should be focused by discipline and level e.g. engineering, vet sciences, biomedical sciences, social sciences, pharmacy, agricultural sciences, medicine, undergraduate students, postgraduate students, postdocs etc.’ (56 years old, female, postdoc)

In agreement with a similar project by Aldina et al. and Murray et al.^14,19 some mentees thought the role of mentors was to mobilise resources; others feared consequences of mistakes because they did not understand the purpose of mentorship, and a few mentees and mentors expected incentives for additional work. Some mentors experienced compassion fatigue as some expectations for resources were high and unrealistic.^14,19 The participants, however, lauded the efforts to leverage the experience of different internal and external facilitators, for their own growth. The efforts were dampened by dearth of prior exposure to mentorship, the limited time available for the mentorship activities, and local resource constraints to sustain the initiative.

There were limited common outputs because of the multidisciplinary nature of the group. This made it difficult for some mentors and mentees to effectively communicate and be productive. A major recommendation for future similar projects is to match mentors and mentees based on discipline or be focused on specific projects.

The quality of our M&E was hampered by time constraints, as the project administrative team, M&E team and project team members were preoccupied with full-time work commitments. Engaging an M&E specialist would be an ideal solution. Although our results were satisfactory, these must be taken with caution as they might have been confounded by the high quality of candidates that we selected in this pilot, which may have limited the risk of failure because of dropout, poor execution and low endurance.

Conclusion

Guided by previous similar programmes,^17,19 the AFRIESEARCHI Zim GIS Mentorship Program measured indicators of success based on the mentee’s satisfaction with their mentoring relationships, perceived professional growth, and outcome measures, such as career growth, article publications and grant applications.¹⁷ In addition, this programme identified important areas for improvement for example focusing on disciplines, levels or other common groupings, providing funding support for mentors, mentees and facilitators, continuing activities that increase productivity for example writing articles and applying for grants. Taken together, this pilot project serves as both an advocacy tool and an important preliminary model for strengthening institutional research mentorship for individual academicians and institutions, both within and without Zimbabwe.

Future directions

To address the challenges encountered and further enhance the effectiveness of the research mentorship programme, we propose the following future directions:

• Securing sustainable funding by exploring diverse funding sources, including government grants, private foundations, and corporate sponsorships and establishing partnerships with organisations committed to empowering women in STEMM.
• Institutionalising mentorship by collaborating with participating institutions to integrate mentorship programmes into their existing structures and developing policies and guidelines to support mentorship initiatives.
• Enhancing mentorship training through the provision of comprehensive training for mentors, focusing on effective communication, conflict resolution, and resource mobilisation and offering training for mentees on mentorship expectations, goal-setting and resource utilisation.
• Improving matching processes, for example, implementing a discipline-specific matching process to facilitate effective communication and collaboration between mentors and mentees and considering a project-based matching to focus on specific research objectives.
• Strengthening M&E by engaging a dedicated M&E specialist to ensure high-quality data collection and analysis and developing a more robust M&E framework to assess programme effectiveness and inform future improvements.
• Scaling up and expanding reach, that is including more participants, institutions and disciplines; and exploring opportunities for regional and international collaborations to share best practices and leverage resources.
• Addressing compassion fatigue and burnout by providing mentors with training and resources to manage compassion fatigue and burnout and encouraging mentors to prioritise self-care and seek support when needed.

By addressing these challenges and implementing these future directions, we aim to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of our research mentorship programme, ultimately empowering more women in STEMM to achieve their full potential.

Acknowledgements

The success of this endeavour would not have happened without the collaboration of the peer mentors, mentees, project administrator and project assistant. The authors would like to acknowledge the input of all technical advisory committee members, internal facilitators and external facilitators including Prof. Exnevia Gomo, Prof. Z. Mike Chirenje (UZ TAC members), Dr Walter Mangezi (Curriculum Development expert and TAC member), Prof. Justen Manasa (career mentor), Dr Shungu Munyati (D43 mentor), Professors Gene Morse and Qing Ma (UB TAC members), Dr Blessing Magonziwa (Mentorship expert), Ms Marshia Bofu (M&E and Leadership expert), Mr Brian Kombora (Team Building and Curriculum Development expert), Ms Tofara Chokera (Social Media Expert), Dr Ephifania Geza and Dr Morelyn Sigauke (experienced grant writers) and the administrative team, Dr Getrude D. Gwenzi and Mr Simbarashe G.H. Zhou.

The authors reported that they received funding that may be affected by the research reported in the enclosed publication. The author has disclosed those interests fully and has implemented an approved plan for managing any potential conflicts arising from their involvement. The terms of these funding arrangements have been reviewed and approved by the affiliated university in accordance with its policy on objectivity in research.

D.T.Z., C.M.J.M., M.M., V.K., P.K.H., S.M. E.G., F.F., B.M., and T.E.M. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; drafting of the work and reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; giving final approval of the version to be published; making an agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

G.D.G., E.D.B., J. Chigerwe, J. Chirima, R.C., T.P.T., M.B.S., W.Y.M., N.C., H.R., V.P.D., W.E.C., Y.O.N., F.W.K., N.N., U.N.M.,H.M., and R.M. made substantial contributions to the interpretation of the data and reviewing the work critically for important intellectual content; giving final approval of the version to be published and making an agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All the authors (D.T.Z., C.M.J.M., M.M., V.K., P.K.H., S.M., E.G., F.F., B.M., T.E.M., G.D.G., E.D.B., J. Chigerwe, J. Chirima, R.C., T.P.T., M.B.S., W.Y.M., N.C., H.R., V.P.D., W.E.C., Y.O.N., F.W.K., N.N., U.N.M., H.M., R.M.), and this work were funded by the US Alumni Engagement Innovation Fund (Zimbabwe USA Embassy). D.T.Z. was supported by the Africa Research Excellence Fund, (AREF) DDI 020 7395 2402 (2021-2024); the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Centre, US, #1D43TW011326 awarded to the Biomedical Research and Training Institute (BRTI), Zimbabwe’s D43 ATCHIVR Program and is currently supported through the Sub-Saharan African Network for TB/HIV Research Excellence (SANTHE), a DELTAS Africa Initiative (grant #DEL-15-006). The DELTAS Africa Initiative is an independent funding scheme of the African Academy of Sciences (AAS)’s Alliance for Accelerating Excellence in Science in Africa (AESA) and supported by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD Agency) with funding from the Wellcome Trust (grant #107752/Z/15/Z) and the UK government. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of AAS, NEPAD Agency, Wellcome Trust, or the UK government. T.E.M. and R.C. were supported by the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center Grant # D43TW010313, awarded to the University of Buffalo, SUNY, US, and the University of Zimbabwe’s HIV Research Training Program.

Anonymised data will be available, upon request from the corresponding author D.T.Z.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References