61
1 Introduction
The need for research organisations to actively
engage with their proximate communities to
nurture mutual respect, understanding, inclusive
participation and empowerment is increasingly
emphasised (Benatar 2002; Newman 2006;
Tindana et al. 2007). This is arguably particularly
important in international research
environments, where differences between
research staff and communities in wealth, health
and exposure to science can be very marked
(Angell 1997; Krosin et al. 2006; Molyneux et al.
2004; Nabulsi et al. 2011). While there is
widespread agreement that community
engagement can potentially have both
instrumental value (e.g. improved consent or
quality of research) and intrinsic value (such as
showing respect or ensuring a sense of inclusion),
it is also clear that key elements of the term are
complex and contested. For example, defining
who the relevant communities are for a study or
research institution, who represents the various
communities, what the goals of community
engagement are for those different communities,
and most fundamentally who makes these
decisions, is far from straightforward.
1
As a
growing body of work is beginning to document
experiences with community engagement, the
range of goals for activities, and in some cases
the tensions between the different goals that are
identified, are beginning to be highlighted. Also
highlighted is the need to recognise the limits to
what community engagement itself can do in
terms of solving all problems in research,
including historical and background injustices
and inequities, and unfair distribution of benefits
in research.
The Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)–
Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP)
in Kilifi is an internationally recognised,
multidisciplinary health research programme.
The programme employs over 700 people, with
researchers primarily from Kenya and elsewhere
in East Africa, the UK, and other countries
worldwide. Research conducted by KWTRP
Seeing ‘With my Own Eyes’:
Strengthening Interactions between
Researchers and Schools*
Alun Davies, Bibi Mbete, Greg Fegan, Sassy Molyneux and
Sam Kinyanjui
Abstract We describe a participatory action research (PAR) project aimed at initiating a schools project as a
component of the wider Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)–Wellcome Trust Research Programme’s
(KWTRP) community engagement strategy in Kilifi. Students and teachers from three nearby secondary
schools, and scientists from KWTRP, were involved in designing and implementing a set of interventions
aimed at promoting school awareness of locally conducted research, and positive attitudes towards school
science and health research. The project was evaluated using a mixture of pre- and post-intervention surveys
and discussions with teachers, students, researchers and other stakeholders throughout the duration of the
project. The project did appear to fill some knowledge gaps about research and contribute to enhancing
students’ educational experiences, as intended. However, the project also provided a forum where teachers
and students could express their concerns and question research practices, and unexpectedly promoted
learning among researchers themselves. Further work is needed to learn more about the potential of school
engagement to provide benefits for research institutes, individual researchers and local schools.
IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 5 September 2012 © 2012 The Authors. IDS Bulletin © 2012 Institute of Development Studies
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Davies et al. Seeing ‘With my Own Eyes’: Strengthening Interactions between Researchers and Schools
62
focuses on important health problems for Kenya,
but research results are utilised throughout
Africa and beyond. Social science studies since
the early 2000s have documented that many
community members have a range of questions
and concerns about the research, sometimes
expressed in rumours (Molyneux et al. 2004;
Molyneux et al. 2005). Many community members
and leaders argued for greater interaction and
dialogue between community members and the
research institution. In response, and in
recognition of the range of arguments for
community engagement noted above, a formal
communication strategy was developed for the
programme in 2005. The strategy was initially
developed with inputs from a range of staff and
community representatives, and has been evolving
ever since. The overall goals are to build mutual
understanding and trust between KWTRP and
key local communities, including local residents,
administrative leaders, Ministry of Health facility
staff and KWTRP staff (Marsh et al. 2008).
KWTRP ’s communication strategy to date has
focused on increasing the numbers and types of
channels for communication and discourse
between the programme and key communities.
During these interactions, community
representatives have often suggested that the
research centre should engage more with local
schools to promote education, including in
science, among the students. This suggestion is
based on an appreciation of KWTRP’s potential
to enrich science education through drawing on
its considerable personnel and facilities
including a series of world-class laboratories,
and a recognition of the serious challenges
facing science education in Kenyan schools, and
in Kilifi schools in particular. Kenyan schools are
characterised by large class sizes and poorly
resourced laboratories (Sifuna and Kaime 2007).
A typical example of questions raised in
community engagement fora is: ‘What is
KWTRP doing to advise our schoolchildren on
what subjects to choose to become scientists?’
(Roka village chief, annual debriefing workshop,
25 October 2007.) From a programme’s point of
view, involvement with existing school science
activities was felt to be appropriate to available
expertise and resources. In 2009 we therefore
carried out a pilot study to explore the
possibility of adding a School Engagement
Programme (SEP) to the wider programme’s
community engagement activities.
In this article we report research staff, teacher
and pupil perceptions of the intervention, and
the impact of SEP on pupil’s knowledge and
attitudes towards science and KWTRP research.
We discuss the plans for scale-up and the
challenges of documenting and evaluating
community engagement initiatives such as this.
2 Methods
2.1 Developing interventions activities for schools – a
participatory approach
This project was coordinated by Alun Davies who
is a British male researcher, fluent in Kiswahili,
with 13 years of science teaching experience
(including nine years teaching in Kenya’s Coast
Province) and by Bibi Mbete, a Kenyan female
scientist with an MSc from Coast Province, with
experience of interviewing youth groups in
Kenya. The pilot involved 19 mid-level Kenyan
researchers (i.e. degree (9), Masters (5) and PhD
level (5)), the District Education Officer (DEO),
school heads, Parent Teacher Associations
(PTAs), students and 17 science teachers from
three schools. The three secondary schools were
selected in consultation with the DEO including
single and mixed sex, and day and boarding
schools. All researchers and the three schools
volunteered to be involved in project.
We chose a PAR approach for the design of the
intervention because of its potential to ensure
that voices, perspectives and experiences of those
other than researcher staff were included
(Gaventa and Cornwall 2006; Park 2006).
Discussions, meetings and workshops throughout
the course of the process with all of those
involved with the pilot allowed for feedback and
reflection, and fed into lessons for future
expansion. An initial three-day workshop aimed
at brainstorming and planning intervention
activities was informed by baseline data
(described below). A range of activities identified
through this participatory process were
implemented, including: school tours of the
KWTRP laboratories, visits to schools by KWTRP
scientists to talk to students about their work and
careers; an inter-school competition where 108
participants presented songs, dramas, posters and
talks about science to an audience of 540
students; and support with a laptop, a projector
and a subscription to a popular science journal.
To contribute to and supplement the information
collected as part of the ongoing intervention
IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 5 September 2012
63
activities, self-administered questionnaires were
completed at baseline and post intervention by
two independent samples of 178 and 167
randomly selected 16–18-year-olds respectively.
For both surveys, adolescents were selected from
across the three schools in order to measure
changes in knowledge and attitudes towards
science and research.
3 Results
3.1 Scientists’ views and experiences of school
engagement
The scientists who took part in the planning and
implementing of the project comprised of
medical staff, clinical trials project managers,
and Masters and PhD students aged between
25–35 years. In exploring their views and
experience of being involved in the project, three
themes emerged. The first reflected a feeling
that the project helped scientists meet their
responsibility of contributing to the development
of the area, going beyond study-specific
obligations to ‘give back’ or ‘pay back to the
community’ through nurturing more up-to-date
and positive attitudes towards science.
A second emerging theme was of benefits to the
scientists themselves. Many described in our
regular interactions that the intervention offered
them an opportunity to reflect on and gain a
better understanding of the context in which
they work; to get out of their offices and
laboratories, and into local schools.
You need to have a context for which your work is
taking place in. Your work does not take place in a
vacuum… We are an institute based in the community,
we are not an institute in London where you can be
very detached and removed (Scientist #17).
The third theme emerged as a result of the
impressive depth of questions that the teachers
and students posed to researchers during
presentations. Many scientists started to
appreciate the positive contribution that
non-research audiences could make to research
ideas, and gained insights into their own
knowledge gaps and communication skills needs.
They asked very basic and brilliant questions…
particularly they asked about the interaction of HIV
with malaria which there is little literature on… and
there is still some controversy and still gaps that need
to be filled. It made me want to know and read more
on that and just understand the relationship, it was
great (Scientist #15).
I think I was a bit naive and thought that they [the
teachers] would be passive about the work we do; I
thought they would be less critical and analytical
(Scientist #17).
They were able to ask questions. There was actually a
genuine appreciation (Scientist #14).
These quotes highlight a change in scientists’
perception of the capabilities of community
members to appreciate, criticise, form opinions
and make suggestions about biomedical
research, following their interactions.
3.2 Change in knowledge and attitudes towards
KWTRP and research
At baseline, 72 per cent of students gave correct
answers to at least seven of the 15 key KWTRP
knowledge questions. Three months after the
intervention this increased significantly to 89 per
cent (p=0.0001). This gain in knowledge is also
represented by the graph in Figure 1 which
shows students’ responses to questions about
knowledge of KWTRP at baseline and post-
intervention. This change was supported by
qualitative data where students and teachers
gave more accurate descriptions of ethical
approval procedures, voluntariness in research
participation, and the purpose of conducting
Table 1 Baseline and post-intervention scores for attitudes towards physics, chemistry and biology
Baseline Post P
Attitudes towards physics index score 2.05 2.15 0.761
Attitudes towards chemistry index score 1.96 1.95 0.460
Attitudes towards biology 1.44 1.29 0.008*
* Statistically significant improvement in attitude towards biology
Davies et al. Seeing ‘With my Own Eyes’: Strengthening Interactions between Researchers and Schools
64
biomedical research. The greatest knowledge
gains were observed among students and
teachers who had had the most exposure to the
intervention activities.
Baseline discussions revealed mostly positive
attitudes towards KWTRP but lack of clarity on
the difference between research and health care,
and a range of concerns including about the
collection of blood samples and the presence of a
snake on the institutional logo. These fears
contributed to rumours – as described elsewhere –
of the research programme being involved in ‘devil-
worship’ (Molyneux et al. 2004). Students and
teachers also described a ‘remoteness’ between the
worlds of researchers and the community, and a
lack of knowledge about what goes on behind the
compound walls of KWTRP. This was attributed
to little interaction between staff and community
members, and a difference in access to resources
and salaries. As one teacher asked, ‘How do you
expect a person who is earning 100,000 Kenya
shilling (£900) to interact with a person who is
earning 8,000 (£70) salary [per month]?’
Post intervention quantitative data suggested
there was a shift towards more positive attitudes
over the duration of the SEP activities, with a
decrease in negative attitude scores from 1.44 at
baseline to 1.29 post intervention (p=0.008).
Further evidence for these increasingly positive
attitudes came in the form of an increasing
willingness and enthusiasm for SEP activities by
school participants throughout the intervention,
and by the way in which feelings, opinions,
concerns and questions were raised and
discussed. This process appeared in turn to
enable participants to transmit information
concerning KWTRP to the rest of the community
more confidently and in some cases to challenge
rumours.
With me the best thing… is that KEMRI has
demystified the existing myths about this
organisation… People speculated that whatever
happens there is something that is very bad. But when
we interacted and had a word with you, we shared
moments and also we visited the lab, when we came
back we told people ‘No, whatever you are saying is
not true’. We have gone there and we have seen what
actually happens at KEMRI is very different from
what people discuss (Teacher #17).
I just imagined that scientists are just people who are
not normal. I used to think they were beings who [just
want to] get blood from human beings. But later when
I came to KWTRP I found that scientists are very
ordinary and very helpful people (Student #61).
Figure 1 Frequency of correct responses to knowledge about research and KWTRP at baseline and post intervention
Correct baseline responses Correct post-intervention responses
Correct responses (out of 15 questions)
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
30
20
10
0
Frequency
IDS Bulletin Volume 43 Number 5 September 2012
65
3.3 Effects of the intervention on attitudes towards
science subjects
Across all interviews and focus group discussions
there was a perception that this pilot intervention
was successful in raising students’ attitudes
towards science subjects more generally, although
the surveys only show evidence of a modest but
statistically significant improvement in biology
(see Table 1).
Comparison of discussions with students before
and after the interventions reveal a shift in the
way students described scientists from being
mostly male and European or as historical
figures such as Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin,
to an appreciation of the presence of female and
African scientists. The increase in words such as
‘ordinary’, ‘normal’, and ‘hard-working’ in
students’ descriptions of scientists suggest a
lessening in the remoteness previously expressed
towards scientists.
According to teachers and students, exposure to
scientists inspired confidence in some students to
work harder in the science subjects and to make
careers in science seem more plausible and
attainable. Across the majority of post
intervention Focus Group Discussions, teachers,
students and stakeholders talked about the
potential young scientists had to be role models
for students. In addition, exposure to the
KWTRP laboratory seemed to contribute
positively to the credibility of science through
allowing the students to witness scientific
phenomena visually rather than ‘from books’.
I got to see real things with my own eyes. This made
me understand things better and it gives me motivation
to continue working hard because I see the scientists
have made it; and even the young scientists, especially
African scientists. So now I know that I can be one of
them, [or] even better than them! (Student #22)
We saw carbon dioxide in solid form which we only
read in the books. It also broke the monotony of sitting
in the class just reading. We saw it in real life
situation whereas in class you just cram the things not
knowing what they really look like. You will think it’s
just writings in books but after seeing them we knew
that these things are really there (Student #77).
4 Discussion
Community engagement is increasingly promoted,
particularly in international collaborative health
research (Nuffield 2002; Tindana et al. 2007). In
this article we describe the implementation and
impact of a pilot participatory intervention
involving schools, being considered as one
potential component of a wider programme-wide
set of community engagement activities.
Through incorporating a range of methods,
including surveys and qualitative work, and
discussion and reflection throughout the project,
this article offers a rare, albeit small-scale,
documentation of implementation and impact of
a community engagement programme.
The initial emphasis of the SEP project was to be
an additional mechanism to the broader
community engagement programme to
demystify research and science and to ‘give back’
in an appropriate way to the community. The
focus on schools was in response to community
member requests and informed by evidence that
students can influence their family’s health
knowledge and behaviour (Christensen 2004;
Mwanga et al. 2008; Onyango-Ouma et al. 2005).
While these goals were realised to a certain
extent, discussions with scientists and teachers
highlighted that other outcomes not fully
anticipated at the outset were at least as
important, including regular meetings providing
a forum for dialogue where concerns could be
raised and opinions expressed. Office- and
laboratory-based researchers were given an
opportunity to appreciate these concerns and
opinions and develop a respect for community
members’ ability to analyse and critique research
practice. This may have allowed – as described
elsewhere for other stakeholders (Gikonyo et al.
2008) – social relationships to develop, which in
turn allow more critical discussion and debate of
the issues raised at baseline. Ultimately it
allowed for greater mutual learning about who
the institution’s staff are, how they are selected,
what they are funded to do, and the potential
value of research for Kenya.
Over the course of this intervention we have
therefore understood it less as filling in deficits in
students’ and teachers’ knowledge of research and
science (Leach and Scoones 2005), and more as
one of mutual learning and reducing our own
deficits in information and understanding through
being given an opportunity to be reflexive about
the context in which we work (Leach et al. 2005).
Thus, the SEP project appears to have had both
instrumental value to researchers and community