Abstract
‘Research capacity strengthening’ (RCS) is an umbrella term that can be used to describe a wide variety of activities conducted in support of diverse objectives premised upon distinct, potentially opposing, views. Despite this, the ultimate objective of RCS activities is rarely made explicit which can be problematic when diverse objectives are possible. By ‘ultimate’ objective we are referring to the overarching (often long-term) goal an RCS initiative is intended to contribute towards (e.g. better population health) as opposed to the more immediate ‘proximate’ (often short-term) objectives of any such activity (e.g. improved capacity to undertake infectious disease research). We argue a need for those funding, designing and implementing RCS initiatives to make clear statements as to the ultimate objective that they foresee their respective initiative contributing towards as well as the proposed pathway and associated assumptions that underlie their approach. Examples of distinct ultimate objectives for RCS initiatives are presented alongside fictitious examples of how they may be transparently reported from both a funder and implementor perspective. Such transparency should be routine within the scope of funding calls for RCS activities (even when such activities are only a minor component of the call), subsequent applications to those calls and any description of an applied RCS activity/ies and/or the associated outcomes thereof. The process of determining one’s ultimate objective will further cause funders and actors to think through their respective initiatives more thoroughly and make informed choices and better designed RCS projects. Doing so would reduce any ambiguity associated with the use of the term ‘research capacity strengthening’ and would provide a stronger foundation for robust programme evaluation.