The Knowledge-for-Development (K4D) approach has been characterized by a marked concentration of the production of research on development in developed countries. The underlying utilitarian approach to social science research misrepresents the nature and making of policy, raises entry barriers for developing country researchers, and focuses on the production of research to the detriment of its use. Using such research in developing countries requires informed debate, consideration of the local environment, and sufficient local research capacity. Foreign assistance should focus on research capacity building as a specific objective, distinct from the production and publication of research, with its own management, implementation, and monitoring. This is essential if the objective of the K4D approach, namely the better use of scientific knowledge to enhance the quality of policies, is to be achieved.

Health research remains a vital activity of Indigenous health workforces. This paper reports on the main findings of yarning interviews with 14 Indigenous researchers, that was central to a project analysing the role of research training infrastructures in strengthening the Indigenous health research workforce in Australia. The findings highlighted Indigenous researcher peers as core sources of inspiration, moral support and sustenance in academia and in life. Peer generative power arising from peer groups provide a unique enriching to the educational and research experience. Indigenous researcher peers have a strong shared aspiration to champion change to health research and higher education as a key pathway to widespread positive impacting on health and well-being. We suggest the (revived) development at a collective level of a strategic and planned approach to capitalising on the positive outcomes of peer generated leadership and support.

The South Asian Hub for Advocacy, Research and Education (SHARE) was a five-year National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded program that aimed to stimulate the research base for task-shifting mental health interventions to address the mental health treatment gap in low and middle-income countries. During its 5 years (2011–2016) SHARE made notable accomplishments, including providing 20 studentships for short courses and ten fellowships to conduct mentored study, developing a new humanitarian research training course, implementing distance learning courses, creating an online repository of training materials, creation of a network of public health researchers at different career stages in South Asia, strengthening of partnerships amongst institutions of SHARE network and supporting its member's to produce peer reviewed publications. Furthermore, additional research capacity building and research grants leveraged on SHARE network were secured. The salient lessons learned in the 5-year program were that research capacity-building opportunities need to be tailored to the local context, as SHARE sought to develop and support courses that can build the capacities in specific areas identified as weak in the South Asian region. Mentoring was recognized as a critical component for which innovative and effective models of mentoring in the region need to be developed. Diverse platforms and mediums ought to be utilized to deliver the research training programs. Finally, research capacity-building program requires collaborative efforts of multiple stakeholders working locally, nationally and globally to attain the maximum impact in a region.

Aim: To describe the scope and nature of research capacity building activity within academic departments of general practice and rural health in Australia. Method: Document review of Annual Reports for the years 2000 and 2003 of 17 university departments of general practice and rural health, funded through the Research Capacity Building Initiative (RCBI) of the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development (PHCRED) Strategy. Results: The review indicated that from 2000 to 2003, departments increased their activities in all areas of research capacity building activities. Mentoring and/or supervision other than higher degree students increased from 14 in 2000 to 266 in 2003. Twenty-two research networks involving over 1377 participants were operating in 2003. All departments were involved in collaborations either as part of grant applications, research projects or educational activities. Over 3630 people participated in 189 educational activities in 2003 compared to over 624 people attending 103 activities in 2000. Compared to $10.98 million in 2000, departments had obtained more than $15.6 million for research projects in 2003. While there were more peer reviewed papers published in 2000 (n = 178) compared to 2003 (n = 130), these 17 departments gave 187 conference presen-tations. Conclusions: This review shows that the RCBI has contributed towards a considerable increase in research activities in these university departments of general practice and rural health. This has provided a major boost to primary health care research in Australia. These activities would have been unlikely to occur without the support and assistance of the PHCRED Strategy. Clearly, the full impact of the RCBI will take some time to evolve.

Trent Focus, a Research and Development Support Unit, have introduced the ‘Designated Research Team’ (DRT) approach to building research capacity. This approach funds protected time to develop research ideas and skills for a team with limited research experience. This paper uses the example of a successful team of podiatry researchers to illustrate the approach to, and outcomes of, a DRT. It draws on documentary analysis of meeting notes and annual reports, and team members' views collected during a recorded reflective session of the team at the end of the funding period. The DRT were successful in achieving agreed outcomes, including completing the project, submitting and publishing in peer reviewed journals, and presenting at conferences. They were also able to attract further funding, and engage with international collaborations and research activity. The unique contribution of this paper is that it focuses on facilitating factors to building research capacity based on a practice example. These include: enabling protected time, effective managerial support, applied and timely research training at relevant levels to expertise, immediate access to supervision and mentorship, a critical mass of research expertise within the team, and an encouraging workplace environment. Importantly, research undertaken was seen as a means to improve practice and the status of the professional group. ‘Accessible’ academic support including outreach work and attitudes of the team members and supervisors towards teaching and learning were important. Process factors enabling success include the use of project management techniques, clear delegation of tasks, effective lines of communication and accountability, and high levels of social capital and commitment between team members. The paper highlights ways forward to using these facilitating factors to build further research capacity, and to use this approach to highlight other areas of research capacity outcome measures.