ASSET 2016 Report

asseta g r i c u l t u r a l s c i e n t i s t
S u p p o r t E x c h a n g e T e a m
2015 - 2016

Table of Contents
Programme Outline 1
Application & Selection Processes 5
The Participants 12
Activities 30
Feedback & Evaluation 48
Appendix 66
“We all do better when we all do better”
- Paul Wellstone

Programme Outline
The 2015/16 Agricultural Scientist Support & Exchange Team (ASSET) was part of a JIC initiative
to increase collaboration and exchange between our region and sub-Saharan Africa as
supported by the BecA-JIC Alliance (coordinated by Christopher Darby, Director of International
Strategy and Liaison). It was one of several activities outlined in the Alliance’s initial work-
programme centered on developing relationships between scientists in the two regions early
in their careers. With approval from the JIC leadership, ASSET was devised and coordinated by
a postdoc in Professor Giles Oldroyd’s team, Jodi Lilley. The programme was part of the Crop
Engineering Consortium (CEC) developed by Christian Rogers to mobilize in areas of technology
transfer and scientific community building. The programme was also supported by the JIC’s
BBSRC 2015 Impact Acceleration Account.
Participation in ASSET was subject to approval by the primary supervisor/line-manager. Due
diligence for the safety of the programme’s participants was coordinated by Chris Darby and HR.
Every effort was made to ensure fair and impartial selection using best practices as advised by
HR.
ASSET Facilitators
• Jodi Lilley - JIC International Development Coordinator (People
Partnerships) & JIC Postdoc
• Christian Rogers - ENSA Scientific Programme Manager
• Matt Heaton - ENSA Communications Specialist
Programme Assistance Provided by:
• Valerian Aloo - BecA-ILRI Hub Capacity Building Officer
• Jonathan Clarke - JIC Head of Business Development
• Christopher Darby - JIC Director of International Strategy and Liaison
• Appolinaire Djikeng - BecA-ILRI Hub Director
• Tilly Eldridge - ENSA Connections Liaison, JIC Postdoc, BecA-ILRI Hub Visiting Scientist
• Jagger Harvey - BecA-ILRI Hub Senior Scientist
• Lynne Mayne - Norwich Research Park Doctoral Training Partnership Director
• Vanda Morgan - NBI Learning and Development Specialist
• Giles Oldroyd - ENSA Project Leader & JIC Group Leader
• Eleni Soumpourou - ENSA Research Assistant
1

Goal
Build agricultural development capacity by increasing early career scientist
effectiveness through international feedback exchange, coaching, and
leadership training.
Targeted Outcomes
• Leadership and management skills improved
• Witten productivity increased
• Feedback skills improved
• Productive international peer relationships established
• African Agricultural Development potential increased
Method
Professional development of Ag scientists in UK and Sub-Saharan Africa through
leadership training and the formation of a peer-review exchange network.
Participation Principles
All participants are;
1. Students of the peer review process
2. Leaders of their professional success
3. Experts in their own backgrounds and project areas

The challenges of today’s agricultural
scientists are increasingly ambitious, complex
and worldwide. Many of these challenges
were presented by members of the C4 Rice,
ENSA and RIPE projects at the 2015 Crop
Engineering Consortium (CEC) conference. As
was evident at the conference, our solutions
and strategies must also be increasingly
effective, integrative and international.
These types of solutions require a
new level of connectedness and
collaboration.
We can create a collaborative and productive
community by giving the future leaders of
our fields strong foundations in relationship
building and cultural translation.
The peer-review process itself brings
people together. Review and constructive
criticism are fundamental skills required for
integration into the scientific community that
are not necessarily taught in grad school. The
processes build other skills such as critical
evaluation, problem solving and effective
communication.
When these skills are then underpinned by
strong characters such as leadership and self-
management the result is a highly effective
agent of change.
Mission Statement
3

2 Core Activities
Leadership Training
A workshop was held in Kigali, Rwanda November 23-27, 2015 at the Serena Hotel (http://www.
serenahotels.com/serenakigali/default-en.html). The training was conducted by HFP Consulting
(http://www.hfp-consulting.de). At the end of the workshop, participants visited a Kigali
marketplace and the Kigali Genocide Memorial with the professional tour guide Magezi Sauveur.
All expenses for attending the workshops including travel, accommodation and workshop
registration were covered.
After the workshop, the JIC participants had two additional lunchtime development workshops
with Vanda Morgan exploring Appreciative Inquiry, Active Listening and the Myer’s Briggs Type
Indicators.
Digital Peer-review Network
Peer-review was exchanged between participants from January to June 2016. Participants
identified a written document crucial for their professional success during the application
process and dedicated to its development during the course of the programme. This could
be a grant proposal, manuscript, or thesis chapter. Contents were be kept confidential within
the group. The document was specified in each application and the participant’s advisor was
contacted to approve the choice if selected for the programme.
At the end of the leadership training workshop in November, each participant developed a
strategy for their document with their primary review partner. The primary review partners were
selected by the Team Facilitator.
During the programme there were 3 rounds of peer-review for each participant’s document.
Each round consisted of 2 reviewers per document, one from the primary partner and one
from a secondary partner. Primary partners were the same for each round while the secondary
partners changed.
Motivational Materials
During the programme, participants were sent materials designed to motivate and
encourage them through the process. Shortly after the initial meeting in Kigali, they were
sent a custom postcard in the mail (example pg. 45). During the review rounds they were
emailed a participant map poster (pg. 13) and profile pages for each participant (pgs. 14
– 29). At the end of the programme, each participant was sent a completion certificate
(example pg. 46).
1
2
4

Application Process
The participant pool from the JIC included students who registered their interest after being
provided information about the programme.
Participant pool from inside Africa included scientists put forth by the BecA-ILRI Hub capacity
building team.
8 participants from outside Africa and 8 from inside Africa were to be selected from the 33
applications received. However, logistical constraints necessitated the selection of 7 JIC
participants and 9 participants from Africa. The online application can be seen on pages 8-10.
Selection process
The selection panel consisted of Valerian Aloo, Jodi Lilley and Christian Rogers.
Each panel member received the applicant responses without names or country of origin.
Within online surveys, panelist chose either ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, or ‘disagree’ for the
hyphened points within each selection criterion for each applicant:
Criterion 1: The Programme will have an Immediate Impact on the Applicant’s
Success.
• Selected document is appropriate, crucial and timely
• The applicant is at a turning point in their development where new skills are required
• An achievable goal to strive for during the programme has been identified
• The applicant is at an optimal career stage for the programme
Criterion 2: The Applicant will have a Positive Impact on the Team.
• Applicant has demonstrated a keen interest in developing relationships with early career
scientists in the counterpart group
• Identified strength is likely to improve team effectiveness
• Selected document will have at least one other of its type in the pool
• Writing skills are at an appropriate level for meaningful exchange
• The applicant’s participation builds capacity for agricultural development
• The applicant’s science will likely contribute to African agriculture in the future
• The applicant views the ASSET experience as a possibility to enter or progress in
translational or applied science
The choices were automatically recorded on a spreadsheet and converted to a points total
(Strongly agree = 2 points, agree = 1 point, or disagree = 0 points).
The applicants were then ranked based on their total points resulting in a list for either UK
or SSA applicants. The applicant numbers were then matched back to their names and the
applicants were notified of the selection result.
We had thought there could be a meeting to discuss any major discrepancies between
individual panelist rankings but that ended up not being necessary.
5

6
The Following Pages Contain the Online Application
Form for the 2015 ASSET Cohort

2015/16 ASSET cohort Application
Due September 15th 2015
* Required
1. Surname *
2. First name(s) *
3. What country are you from? *
4. Please indicate any degrees you have completed beginning with Bachelor’s degrees *
Indicate when and where they were obtained.

5. Where is your current position? *
Provide the name of the University, Institute,
Station, etc
6. In what country is your current Institution? *
7. In what city is your current Institution? *
8. What is your current position? *
Mark only one oval.
PhD Student
MSc Student
Research Assistant/technician
Postdoc
Other:
8

9. If you currently a PhD or MSc student, how far into your program are you?
Please provide the year of your expected completion

10. If you plan to enter a PhD or MSc in the near future please provide the details and timing
of your plan.

11. If you have recently completed a PhD or
MSc, when did you complete it?
12. Who is your current adviser or manager? *
13. What is the email address for your current
adviser or manager? *
14. Please summarize your current area of research *
1000 character limit

15. Please indicate why you would like to join this year’s ASSET cohort *

9

Powered by
16. What is your best developed strength you will contribute to the team? *

17. What professional advancement document
would you commit to developing over the
course of this year’s programme? *
grant proposal, manuscript, thesis chapter, etc.
18. Why is the document indicated above crucial for your professional success? *

19. Can you attend the workshop in late November 2015 in Rwanda?
Mark only one oval.
Yes
No
Not sure
20. Can you attend a workshop in June 2016 (African location and timing unconfirmed)?
Mark only one oval.
Very Likely Yes
No
Not sure
10

13Nationalities
a s s e ta g r i c u l t u r a l s c i e n t i s t
16 Participants
Sandra Uganda
Nadia Malaysia
Olu Nigeria
Ihuoma Nigeria
Kenneth Ghana
Jodi California
Biniam Eritrea
Leonie SwitzerlandDonna UK
Nuno Portugal Dawit Ethiopia
Guru India
Godfrey Kenya
Anne Kenya
Samwel Kenya
Mercy Nigeria
Javier Spain
“Don't aim at success. The more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to
miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue, and it only does so as
the unintended side effect of one's personal dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as
the by-product of one's surrender to a person other than oneself. Happiness must happen,
and the same holds for success: you have to let it happen by not caring about it. I want you
to listen to what your conscience commands you to do and go on to carry it out to the best
of your knowledge. Then you will live to see that in the long-run—in the long-run, I
say!—success will follow you precisely because you had forgotten to think about it”
- Viktor E. Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
13

I'll always do my best, and in so doing keep making my best
even better.
Passionate mentor; Team player
Molecular Plant Virology & Biotechnology
Eliminate hunger from Africa through biotechnology
Anne Ndanu Muia
Jomo Kenyatta University, Kenya
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
Future Goals & Interests
Current Research Area
ASSET 2015 was sponsored by the Engineering Nitrogen Symbiosis for Africa program funded by the Bill & Malinda Gates Foundation.
ASSET is supported and hosted by the John Innes Centre in collaboration with Biosciences Eastern Central Africa.
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesAnne
Anne focused on developing a strategy to control the Maize Lethal Necrosis Disease. The disease, caused
by two viruses working synergistically, threatens this important food crop in Africa. Her current project
aimed to clarify the molecular mechanism of the disease. This is of significant importance in the on going
efforts, at different levels, to curb the disease and its spread.
ndanuann@gmail.com
Contact Anne
14

Biniam Mesfin Ghebreslassie
In responding to today's agriculture and food security challenges,
building an internationally composed team such as ASSET is of
paramount importance.
Experienced horticultural leadership with a confident
people-approach
Crop Molecular Biology
Plant molecular and nutritional characterisation
Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, Kenya
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesBiniam
Biniam characterised Eritrean potato accessions using molecular markers. Accessions from Eritrea,
Kenya and Rwanda were examined for genetic diversity. Data analysis employed a variety of
bioinformatics tools.
bmghebreslassie@gmail.com
Contact Biniam
15

Dawit Kidanemariam
“It always seems impossible until it’s done.”
– Nelson Mandela
Dedicated Team Player
Molecular Plant Virology
Enhancing plant (taro) resistance to viruses through
molecular biology, establishing and leading my own
dedicated research team and teaching students
Queensland University of Technology, Australia & BecA-ILRI Hub, Kenya
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesDawit
Dawit focused on identiﬁcation and characterization of viruses infecting taro in East Africa. Taro is one of
the staple root crops in sub-Saharan Africa. Dawit aims to develop highly sensitive and reliable
diagnostics tools for the detection and management of taro viral diseases.
dawiteth@gmail.com
Contact Dawit
16

In order to achieve agricultural sustainability, the health of the soil
must be paramount; optimising crops alone cannot achieve it.
Passion for crops and soil research
Plant Symbiosis
I am entering a teaching career. I would like to use what I
have learned to make plant science relevant to students.
Donna Cousins
John Innes Centre, United Kingdom
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesDonna
Donna worked with the model legume Medicago truncatula and its interaction with both nitrogen ﬁxing
rhizobia and arbuscular mycorrhiza. Donna hopes this knowledge will be used to develop crops with
optimised symbiotic relationship alongside sustainable farming practices.
donnacousins50@gmail.com
Contact Donna
17

Godfrey Mutero Ngure
There are problems where I come from, there are problems where you
come from, but if we work together there will be less problems where we
come from.
Effective Presentation
Crop Biotechnology
Elucidation of protein-protein interaction between plants
and their biotrophic parasites in an effort to unravel better
controls to various crop parasitism.
Jomo Kenyatta University, Kenya
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesGodfrey
Godfrey's work centered on bio-engineering tomato crop for resistance against the sedentary plant
parasitic nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) by eﬀector protein function inhibition.
nguremutero@gmail.com
Contact Godfrey
18

Guru Radhakrishnan
The best way to tackle the challenges we face in agriculture is through collaboration.
The variety of problems we face makes it all the more important that we solve these
problems by embracing our diverse set of skills, backgrounds and experiences.
'Big-Picture' dedication to the greater goal
Plant Biotechnology & Evolution
Using a combination of informatics and experimental
approaches to solve agricultural challenges
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesGuru
Guru has focused on understanding the mechanisms involved in symbiosis signalling with the goal of
engineering nitrogen ﬁxing symbiosis in cereals. Guru addressed this issue by analysing the evolution of
the symbiosis signalling components across all plants.
guruvradhakrishnan@gmail.com
Contact Guru
19

Ihuoma Chizaram Okwuonu
A strong collaborative network amongst scientists from different parts of
the world is the mainstay for agricultural, environmental and economic
sustainability.
Dedicated Mentor
Improvement of Root and Tuber Crops
I wish to study more on plant-microbial relationships to
understand the mechanism underlying susceptibility and
resistance to most diseases of root and tuber crops and
to develop/apply novel genome editing tools in
engineering disease resistant root and tuber crops.
National Root Crops Research Institute, Nigeria
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesIhuoma
Ihuoma worked toward engineering resistance to Cassava Bacteria Blight. Methods of developing safe
GM products are essential for the development of cassava varieties with improved agronomical traits.
Ihuoma’s approach used CRISPR technology which is safer, faster and overcomes many limitations of
conventional transgenic technology.
ihuomaumezurumba@yahoo.com
Contact Ihuoma
20

"The reality today is that we are all interdependent and have to co-exist on this small
planet. Therefore, the only sensible and intelligent way of resolving differences and
clashes of interests, whether between individuals or nations, is through dialogue."
- The Dalai Lama
Innovation fostered by wide-ranging cultural and
scientific experiences
Plant Development
I plan to learn as many skills as possible, exploring different
fields to have a taste of the different opportunities ahead.
I have a keen interest in International Agriculture and I
would love my job to have some degree of involvement in
this field.
Javier Galdon-Armero
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesJavier
Javier worked to discover QTLs controlling the formation and speciﬁcation of trichomes in tomato. Trichomes
are relevant due to the wide range of secondary metabolites they secrete and also due to their multiple
physiological roles. Especially, they can provide resistance to pests and drought.
javier.galdon-armero@jic.ac.uk
Contact Javier
21

I can do all things through Christ
who strengthens me
Tenacious trail-blazing with humility
Plant Breeding
Focused on plant breeding research and teaching. Vision
of developing a botanical garden with multi-purpose
recreational facility in the next ten years.
Kenneth Fafa Egbadzor
CSIR - Plant Genetic Resources Research Institute, Ghana
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesKenneth
Kenneth used marker assisted breeding in developing high yielding, consumer accepted cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata) varieties tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses. Cowpea is the most cultivated and consumed
legume in sub-Saharan Africa feeding millions of families.
kegbadzor@wacci.edu.gh
Contact Kenneth
22

Leonie Luginbuehl
Science and art belong to the whole world, and before them
vanish the barriers of nationality.
- Goethe
Scientific Writing
Plant Molecular Biology - Symbiosis
In the future, I would like to learn more about the process
of scientific publishing and how it can be improved to
make science more effective.
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesLeonie
Leonie investigated how mutually beneﬁcial symbioses between plants and microbes are established.
She particularly focused on the role of transcription factors during both mycorrhization and nodulation.
leonie.luginbuehl@gmail.com
Contact Leonie
23

I like to think of the soil as one of the world's greatest agricultural resources - a natural
sustainable system for food production. Addressing food insecurity issues MUST include a
program for soils. With the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt 'The Nation that destroys its soil
destroys itself'.
Passion for crops and soil research
Agronomy - Soil Chemistry
Areas of interest include and is not limited to Plant
Nutrient Dynamics in Natural and Managed Ecosystems,
Horticulture and forest soils management, molecular
technique application in Soil and Plant research, Green
economy; Environmental chemistry.
Mercy Anetor
PhD Awarded from the University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesMercy
Mercy's research centered on improving plant nutrient availability in farmed soils, soil phosphorus
fertility, and the eﬀectiveness of organic and/or inorganic soil amendment in modifying the chemistry of
infertile soils. In her research she focused on rural farms (arable and tree) in the Southwestern part of
Nigeria to address phosphorus fertilizer unresponsiveness and nutrient deﬁciencies .
mercy2178@yahoo.com
Contact Mercy
24

Nadia Radzman
If we want to change the world, we need to start changing how we produce
our food -- as the great botanist, Norman Borlaug once said, "You can't build
a peaceful world on empty stomachs and human misery."
Lateral thinking to solve problems
Root Development
Nadia aspires to continue her research in lateral organ
development on roots, which includes tubers and galls,
using interdisciplinary approach that includes
mathematical modelling and synthetic biology.
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesNadia
Nadia focused on lateral organ development in plant roots. This included lateral roots and nodules using
the model plants Arabidopsis and Medicago. Understanding the developmental mechanism of these
structures could provide an insight for improving root architecture. Nadia is passionate about utilizing
this information to improve agriculture in developing countries.
nadia.radzman@gmail.com
Contact Nadia
25

Nuno Leitão
We face global challenges that require a global, coordinated effort. If we want to be
successful in responding to this call, we must learn to effectively hear and communicate
across language barriers, as well as cultural and political borders.
International Community Building
Molecular Biotechnology
I am really interested in biotechnology and in all the
possibilities that plant biotechnology offers. I want to focus
on immediate applications, so industry/startup is most likely
my next step.
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesNuno
Nuno investigated mechanisms of intra- and intercellular signalling that occur through the modulation
of the calcium concentration in the cytoplasm. Nuno aimed to identify and understand the mechanism
of action of the encoders of the calcium signal elicited upon innate recognition of pathogens by plants.
josenunoleitao@gmail.com
Contact Nuno
26

Oluwaseyi Shorinola
Science in its purest form is simple, engaging, beautiful,
practical, collaborative and public (for all).
Experienced and knowledgeable bridge-builder
Research for Development
Development of genomic, genetic and germplasm resource
for the African cereal crop. Participatory breeding for
drought tolerance.
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesOlu
Olu researched the genetic improvement of wheat. His work used genetic, physiological, genomic and
bioinformatic approaches to develop a resistance to a grain defect in wheat called pre-harvest
sprouting. This yield-diminishing defect is characterised by too early germination of grains while still on
the mother plant.
shorinolao@yahoo.com
Contact Olu
27

Samwel Kariuki
Success of a scientist is measured by the
number of mentees
Idealistic and critical thinker
Crop Biotechnology and Genetics
Application of genetics, molecular biology and
biotechnology to fight plant diseases
University of Nairobi, Kenya
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesSamwel
Samwel worked on a proposal to knock-out viruses integrated in yam (Dioscorea spp) genome using
CRISPR-Cas9 gene constructs. Yams with silenced viruses are hoped to produce more and be easily
moved within growing regions without fear of spreading viruses.
samymuiruri@yahoo.co.uk
Contact Samwel
28

Sandra Ndagire Kamenya
Peer-mentoring is invaluable in building a scientific career. It has
provided an extra set of eyes and mind which has given direction and
speed towards achieving my goals.
Independent initiative
Genomics
Capacity building scientist. To mentor, encourage and
guide young scientists in their areas of research. Develop
my skills in genomics and bioinformatics
Uganda Christian University, Uganda
Focus During ASSET
Favourite Strength
2015 ASSET CohortProfiles PagesSandra
Sandra developed genomic tools for two diﬀerent cultivars Shum and Gilo of African eggplant (Solanum
aethiopicum) breeding programs. Sandra's work helps move this important indigenous plant into the
global genomics arena.
snkamenya@gmail.com
Contact Sandra
29

I feel like I am now empowered and I am fully aware
of situations and approaches to use to be able to
move forward positively.
– Pauline Asami, BecA-ILRI hub
ASSET 2015, Kigali, Rwanda
ASSET (Agricultural Scientist Support Exchange Team) is a new programme that seeks to
promote agricultural development through graduate student capacity building.
Additionally, ASSET aims to increase effectiveness of agricultural scientists in the United
Kingdom as well as Sub-Saharan Africa by forming lasting collaborative links between the
two areas. The programme pairs students from the UK and Sub-Saharan Africa by
assessing areas of study and identifying students with similar interests. Both students are
then encouraged and supported in professional development of scientific writing
through a peer-based network centred on peer-review exchange.
31

On the 23rd of November, newly selected participants were invited to attend a leadership and
management workshop conducted by HFP Consulting in Kigali, Rwanda. Dr Jodi Lilley, the
program lead coordinator, introduced coaching methods and their practical application in peer
review.
This year’s programme included 16 agricultural scientists of 12 different nationalities across the
group. Prior to the workshop all participants identifed a personal goal for the week to aim
towards. At the end of the course, personal reflection and review forms were handed out to gain
insight into which areas of the course students particularly found helpful. The following points
were noted;
• Participants particularly enjoyed training in active listening as they felt it was a
fundamental part of all the other communication skills. Similarly, many members of the
group mentioned particularly enjoying the personality assessment and conflict
management seminars.
• Every participant stated that they felt they had achieved, and often surpassed, the
personal goal they had set for the week.
• Many of the participants reported that they made unexpected personal discoveries about
themselves during the course and that these left them able to better
understand or communicate with others.
• Very view of the participants listed any negative comments about the course. Where
these were mentioned, they focused on the negotiation session.
Since returning from the training and management course, the first stages of peer review are
being co-ordinated to begin in early 2016. Members of ASSET have already started arranging
group sessions to work on the documents they are preparing for peer review.
32

The areas I wanted to learn most about were covered
so well, even beyond my expectations.
– Anne Muia, Kenyatta University
Review Stage 1
Author
1st Draft + Cover sheet
Author
Review Stage 3Review Stage 2
Primary
Reviewer
Reviewer’s
Cover Sheet
x2
2nd Draft
+
Response to Review
Secondary
Reviewer 1
Author
2nd Draft + Cover sheet
Author
Primary
Reviewer
Reviewer’s
Cover Sheet
x2
3rd Draft
+
Response to Review
Secondary
Reviewer 2
Author
3rd Draft + Cover sheet
Author
Primary
Reviewer
Reviewer’s
Cover Sheet
x2
4th Draft
+
Response to Review
Secondary
Reviewer 3
Advisor
Outside ASSET
Programme
!
ASSET Peer Review Stages
33

ASSETPairASSETPair
ASSETPairASSETPair
ASSETPairASSETPair
ASSETPair
Anne Ndanu Muia
Kenya
ndanuann@gmail.com
Dawit Kidanemariam
Ethiopia
dawiteth@gmail.com
Javier Galdon-Armero
Spain
javiergaldon-armero@jic.ac.uk
Samwel Kariuki
Kenya
samymuiruri@yahoo.co.uk
Kenneth Egbadzor
Ghana
kegbadzor@wacci.edu.gh
Nuno Leitão
Portugal
nuno.leitao@jic.ac.uk
Biniam Ghebreslassie
Eritrea
bm95913@yahoo.com
Guru Radhakrishnan
India
guru.radhakrishnan@jic.ac.uk
Shorinola Oluwaseyi
Nigeria
oluwaseyi.shorinola@jic.ac.uk
Mercy Anetor
Nigeria
mercy2178@yahoo.com
Sandra Kamenya
Uganda
snkamenya@gmail.com
Donna Cousins
UK
donna.cousins@jic.ac.uk
Leonie Luginbuehl
Switzerland
leonie.luginbuehl@jic.ac.uk
Ihuoma Okwuona
Nigeria
ihuomaumezurmba@yahoo.com
Nadia Radzman
Malaysia
nadia.radzman@jic.ac.uk
Godfrey Ngure
Kenya
freyg6@gmail.com
ASSETPair
ASSET Participants
34

Peer-Review Process
Feedback exchange for document development was conducted over the course of 6 months.
Coversheets incorporating the GROW coaching model accompanied each phase of the review
(pgs. 39-44). Feedback on the process was collected after the first and second rounds.
The ‘GROW’ coaching model (John Whitmore) was embedded into the ASSET peer-review
rounds in conjunction with Vanda Morgan to achieve several objectives. Firstly to transform a
process that can be a negative exercise in pulling each other’s work apart into a truly beneficial
constructive criticism exchange. Secondly to provide supportive and meaningful feedback
designed to help team members reach their goals as efficiently as possible. Finally, the method
helped make sure the effort spent on document development was strategically aligned with the
participant’s career goals.
‘GROW’ is a Mnemonic
Goal - What do you want your document to do for you?
Reality - What is the current state of the document?
Options - What could be done to strengthen the document?
Will - What will you do to move the document closer to your goal?
Goal
This statement helps the reviewer know the final target for the document. The statement should
include:
• What is the desired destination for the document?
• What journal will you be submitting to?
• What funding agency will you apply to?
• Who will be approving your thesis chapter?
• Why is this goal important for your future success?
• How much personal control do you have over your document’s goal?
• What are some short term steps on the way to your goal?
• When do you want to achieve it by?
• Do you feel positive? / How challenging / attainable is your goal?
Reality
This helps either the author or the reviewer gain a better understanding of the current situation.
The aim is to assess how close document is to the final goal:
• What is the major argument or aim of the paper or proposal?
• Are these arguments or aims well supported?
• What impact will the results or proposed work have on the field?
• What are the major challenges this document has in reaching the goal?
• What is the document’s major strength?
• What is working really well in the document?
• Is the goal realistic?
35

Options
This is where the reviewer will suggest changes to the document. If the goal is unrealistic,
alternative goals should be suggested:
• Can what’s working well be used more in the document?
• How can the document be changed to bring it closer to the goal?
• Are there missing experiments?
• Do interpretations need to be changed?
• Are there unsupported claims?
• Does the author need to take greater care with spelling and grammar?
• Is the proposed work feasible?
• Should the document’s organization be adjusted?
Will or Way forward
This stage is an action plan devised by the author to bring the document closer to the goal.
After synthesizing the realities provided by reviewers and considering all your options, what will
you do?
• How will you address each major concern brought up during review?
• Do you need to adjust your goal?
• Do you have the resources you need for the suggested options?
• What challenges do you face in your plan?
• What can you do to overcome these challenges?
• What support do you need?
• How will you get that support?
Peer-Review Schedule
36

The Following Pages Contain the Coversheets for
Peer-Review
38

Author’s Cover Sheet
Document type (Manuscript/thesis chapter/grant proposal)
Author’s Goal
Provide an up to date statement to help your reviewers know the final target for the document.
Include info such as:
 What is the desired destination for the document?
What journal will you be submitting to?
What funding agency will you apply to?
Who will be approving your thesis chapter?
 Why is this goal important for your future success?
 How much personal control do you have over your document’s goal?
 What are some short term steps on the way to your goal?
 When do you want to achieve it by?
Do you feel positive? / How challenging / attainable is your goal?
Asset Member:
39

(Author’s Goal Continued)
Author’s Reality
Help your reviewer understand the current situation.
 What is the major argument or aim of the paper or proposal?
 What impact will the results or proposed work have on the field?
 What is the document’s major strength?
 What is working well in this document?
 What are the major challenges this document has in reaching the goal?
40

Reviewer’s Cover Sheet
Reviewer’s Reality
Help the author see their document from another perspective.
 What is the major argument or aim of the paper or proposal?
 Are these arguments or aims well supported?
 What impact will the results or proposed work have on the field?
 What is working well in the document?
 What are the major and minor challenges this document has in reaching the goal?
 Is the goal realistic?
Asset Member:
41

Options
Suggest changes the document. If the goal is unrealistic, alternative goals should be suggested:
 Can what works well be used more in the document to make is stronger?
 How can the document be changed to bring it closer to the goal?
 Are there missing experiments?
 Do interpretations need to be changed?
 Are there unsupported claims?
 Does the author need to take greater care with spelling and grammar?
 Is the proposed work feasible?
 Should the document’s organization be adjusted?
42

Author’s Response to Reviewers
New Reality
Describe a new reality based on the perspectives provided by your reviewers:
 Is the goal realistic?
 Does your goal need to change?
 What is the document’s major strength?
 What is working well in the document?
 What are the major challenges this document has in reaching the goal?
 What are the minor challenges?
Asset Member:
43

Will or Way Forward
Describe your action plan to bring the document closer to the goal.
 How will you address each major concern brought up during review?
 Do you have the resources you need for the suggested options?
 What challenges do you face in your plan?
 What can you do to overcome these challenges?
 What support do you need?
 How will you get that support?
44

A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n t i s t S u p p o r t E x c h a n g e T e a m
Dear Sandra,
Thank you for bringing so much to the team during the Kigali
workshop.
Keep up the great work putting all your new leadership and
management skills into practice!
A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n t i s t S u p p o r t E x c h a n g e T e a m
a s s e t
You are an
Follow-up Materials
45

This is to Certify that
Guru Radhakrishnan
Completed the
2015 - 2016 ASSET Programme
And is an Asset to the Scientific Community
The programme included HFP::Consulting Leadership and Management training in Kigali, Rwanda
(November 23-27, 2015) as well as a 6-month peer-review exchange.
By completing the programme, each participant dedicated many hours to the success of others. This
commitment to agricultural development and international relationship building is a true achievement.
Jodi Lilley
ASSET Founder & Facilitator
46

Outcome & Impact Evaluation
The anonymous feedback provided by the participants and their advisors suggests the
programme has achieved the desired outcomes. All but 1 of the 9 advisors who responded
would encourage others in their group to participate in the future and found the programme
well organized, well executed and a good use of time. There have also been many great
suggestions on ways to improve the programme. More early engagement with the advisors
would help clarify expectations in the future. Each targeted outcome will be discussed in turn.
It is worth noting ASSET was featured as the symbol of the JIC’s winning bid for the BBSRC
Excellence with Impact competition. The institutions application was represented at the award’s
ceremony by the number 16 – the number of ASSET members. Participant testimonials can be
found at the end of this section and a proposal for a future ASSET programme can be found in
the Appendix.
Targeted Outcome 1 Leadership and Management Skills Improved
All 14 participants providing feedback stated their skills in this area had improved. This
was supported by the advisors who agreed with the exception of one (8/9). Many participants
gave specific examples of these skills in their written comments. It is clear the Kigali workshop
was well received and made a big impact. All participants indicated it was the right length of
time, relevant and well supported, organized and executed. There were some participants
who wished the workshop was longer and delved deeper into certain topics. The workshops
at the JIC with Vanda brought the training to the next level for the JIC participants. In the future,
it would be valuable to find a way to incorporate the African participants in this continued
learning. It would be optimal to have another workshop for all participants at the JIC at the end
of the programme to reinforce skills and introduce new topics. In the future, the leadership and
management training can make more use of the JIC’s in-house expertise via Vanda. A greater
emphasis on coaching should be incorporated to increase leadership and management skills in
addition to strengthening relationships and feedback skills.
Targeted Outcome 2 Written Productivity Increased
This was perhaps the strongest outcome for the programme. This is not surprising
given the team’s commitment to peer-review over six months. All responding participants
and advisors indicated an improvement in scientific writing skills and stated the documents
developed faster and with higher quality due to the programme. All responding participants
agreed their reviewing skills had improved and the process had been well organized. All
participants found the GROW model useful during feedback exchange and many (10/14) found
the format more useful than they expected. Most thought the duration of the peer-review
adequate, with 1 participant finding it too long and 1 too short. Overall, approximately 80% of
participants were able to meet the deadlines for each round. The duration of each review stage
(draft, review, response) was agreed upon by the group during the Kigali workshop and most
(12/14) found these timings optimal. Some wanted longer time for review. It may be good in
the future to limit the progamme to 2 review rounds, giving more time for each of the stages.
Many participants did not submit a draft in the third round because they felt their draft had not
changed substantially from the previous round. There was a lot of variability in how long people
took to review documents. On the shorter end, some spent only a couple of hours for both
documents in each round. On the longer end, some participants spent upwards of 20 hours for
49

both documents in a single round. Generally, reading and understanding the document took
the most time. The facilitator maintained flexibility as long as there was communication between
the partners. It was obvious people were doing their best to meet the deadlines. Having primary
partnerships between people with closely aligned scientific areas will help make the review
more efficient.
Targeted Outcome 3 Feedback Skills Improved
All participants reported they had increased confidence when giving feedback and a
greater ability to accept and integrate feedback from others. Likewise, all but 1 responding
advisor agreed their team member had improved in the areas of giving and receiving feedback.
Feedback skills were emphasized both by HFP Consulting and by Vanda. These skills were then
practiced multiple times in each review round. An unexpected pattern emerged where some
participants had a difficult time giving tough developmental feedback in the review rounds. This
area should be explored as critical feedback is key for effective improvement.
Targeted Outcome 4: Productive international peer relationships established
This critically important outcome is very difficult to assess. It was stated in the BecA-JIC
Alliance meeting the success of ASSET will be judged by its ability to form lasting relationships.
This can only be determined in the long-run and so we can presently only speculate on this
outcome. It is clear however that productive relationships were formed for the duration of the
programme as the partners successfully worked together to produce their documents. All
the participants that responded indicated the programme had developed meaningful and
productive relationships and all but 1 advisor agreed connections to international partners had
been made. All participants felt they had increased understanding of other cultures due to their
experiences and would reach out to ASSET members in the future for assistance. Most (11/12),
felt more comfortable reaching out for assistance in general. For many, the cultural translation
session of the Kigali workshop was the highlight of the programme.
Targeted Outcome 5 African Agricultural Development Potential Increased
All responding participants and advisors found the programme increased awareness
of agricultural challenges in Africa. All participants and most advisors (8/9) agreed awareness
of scientific challenges outside of the participant’s field were also increased. Having rotating
secondary reviewers likely contributes to the increased exposure to new fields. Finally, all
participants believe they are now more likely to engage in or diversify their work in African
agricultural development. Approximately 70% strongly agreed with this outcome.
50

Participant Testimonials
‘ASSET is a brilliant programme. From the diversity in the participants (both in culture and
research fields), the efforts of the programme controllers and the dedication employed in the
review process, all bundled up to a complete success for everyone. I personally gained so
much from participating, I am honored to have been involved in the process. I hope this will be
the first of many.’
‘I’ve grown, others around me have grown, and will definitely continue to grow because of this
programme. Thank you so much.’
‘…this kind of gathering is vital in tackling today’s agricultural challenges.’
‘I have to say that the peer-review process, at this really early stage of my career, has had a real
impact in my confidence and motivation. The fact that my thoughts are heard and considered,
and that they have an effect on other people’s work has really been a booster and I feel more
confident when speaking up and making decisions. So, I have to thank that to ASSET, and I am
sure that similar feelings are common in other ASSET members. Thanks!!’
‘Oh my God, it has been amazing for me. My leadership abilities have been greatly impacted. I
am more confident in leading my team and precisely my communication is more effective by
using what works to get people to do more. I am more efficient in delegation and also demands
I am being empowered when duties are delegated to me. The peer-review process has been
so helpful. I see my document is taking very good shape through the wonderful contributions
of my review partners. I must say I am greatly delighted to have my primary review partner I
am indeed learning from his style of writing while reviewing his paper. I actually look forward to
participating in this process.’
‘I have many improvements in my performance from attending the Kigali workshop. 1. I have
tried to work on my SWOT analysis which showed me my weakness of shyness or fear of my
superiors is becoming a hindrance to my opportunities for growth and promotion. 2. I bought
the book Seven Habits of Highly Effective People to help understand and improve my time
management and prioritizing skills. 3. I am using the publications at the end of the workshop
book to better my presentations and gain confidence as a woman in leadership. 3. I also
borrowed the use of one of ice breakers from the workshop of, giving a ball to the next speaker
to lead a group in my church. From the peer-review, due to the commitment to ASSET I have
been forced to embark on writing my document which I had procrastinated about for some
time. I have had to push myself to write and add more sections to the previous draft so that
my reviewer will have more sections to read through. I am glad that I am finally going to have a
publication out. Also because of lack of expertise in the field of my study at my institute, it has
benefited me to get reviews from people who understand my work other than my supervisor
which has helped me enrich my document. Specifically, I had overlooked a lot of stuff like the
source of the scripts and software used in my study which were highlighted … so others can
duplicate my work in the future.’
‘LOVE YOU ALL’
51

Participant Feedback
Responses in italics
By Particpiating in the Programme, your Leadership and
Management Skills have Improved.
The Speed of your Document’s Development has Improved
The Quality of your Document’s Development has Improved
Your Reviewing Skills have
Improved
Your Confidence when
Providing Feedback
71.4% Strongly Agree
28.6% Agree
0% Disagree
0% Strongly Disagree
14.3% Agree
0% Disagree
35.7% Agree
0% Disagree
21.4% Agree
0% Disagree
21.4% Agree
0% Disagree
Your Ability to Accept and Integrate Feedback from Others has
Improved
The Review Process was Well
Organised
42.9% Agree
0% Disagree
64.3% Agree
0% Disagree
52

The GROW Coaching Model Enhanced the Constructive
Critism Exchange
The GROW Coversheets Provided a Useful Structure to the
Exchange Process
64.3% Agree
0% Disagree
64.3% Agree
0% Disagree
If the timings were not optimal for some or all of the review phases,
please suggest changes
Draft – 4 weeks, review – 2 weeks, response – 1 weeks
The timing allocated for each components of the reviewing were OK, but I think six month for
the whole process is too much. May be by reducing the rounds of reviewing in to two cycles
we might reduce the whole period by at least a month or even two. I remember for the last
round almost everyone was saturated. I felt the review time was a bit short. An extra week or
two would have provided more ample time to read, understand and give even more productive
contribution.
Draft – 4 weeks, review – 3 weeks, response – 2 weeks. With this schedule, we can have two
round of review rather than 3
How did the Format Conform to your Expectations?
How did you Feel About
the Peer-review Exchange
Duration? (Jan - June)
71.4% It was More Useful
0% It was Less Useful
28.6% It was What I Expected
Each of the Review Round
Components were Given an
Optimal Amount of Time
57.1% Agree
14.3% Disagree
7.1% Too Short
7.1% Too Long
85.7% The Right Duration
53

The Programme Fostered the Development of Meaningful and
Productive Relationships
You have Increased Understanding of Different Cultures due to
your Participation
You will Reach out to ASSET Members in the Future when you
Need Assistance
You Generally Feel More Comfortable Reaching out to
Potential Collaborators at your Own or Other Institute
28.6% Agree
0% Disagree
28.6% Agree
0% Disagree
14.3% Agree
0% Disagree
35.7% Agree
7.1% Disagree
You Have an Increased
Understanding of Scientific
Challenges and Projects
Outside of your Field
You Have a Greater
Understanding of Agricultural
Improvement Efforts in Africa
42.9% Agree
0% Disagree
28.6% Agree
0% Disagree
You are More Likely to Engage in or Diversify your Current
Engagement in African Agricultural Development Work
28.6% Agree
0% Disagree
The Kigali Workshop was Well
Organised
7.1% Agree
0% Disagree
14.3% I was Unable to
Attend
54

The Right Length of Time
Conducted Well by HFP::Consulting
Supported Well by the ASSET Team
50% Strongly Agree
35.7% Agree
0% Disagree
Attend
50% Strongly Agree
35.7% Agree
0% Disagree
Attend
7.1% Agree
0% Disagree
Attend
The Kigali Workshop was Well Organised
21.4% Agree
0% Disagree
Attend
55

Positive Feedback
Please Indicate Something from any Part of the Programme that
Worked for you
The Kigali workshop was a real eye opening experience to how many day-to-day interactions with
colleagues/friends/family can and should be managed, and how important decisions should be
made.
One thing that is working well for me after the conference is dealing with different workers in my
team. I still have challenges with some, but I am better because of ASSET.
The peer review process has greatly empowered me to produce quality scientific publication as well
as provide efficient feedback to other people’s publications.
Serial reviews. The review format of having my document reviewed by one primary reviewer and
three secondary reviewers worked very well for me. The diversity in peer review input worked very
well in improving my document. Also, the one-on-one Skype sessions with the primary reviewer
were very helpful.
In general the organization of the workshop was very successful. I can say it was well planned
and executed properly on time. The cultural diversity included in the workshop and the session
conducted was so nice. I like the GROW model very much and all the topics covered by HFP
consulting was very nice. Also I really like the communication and engagement done by Jodi and
the rest of the team after the workshop, which is very unique of this workshop. A big congratulation.
I learnt a lot from the Kigali workshop. I had several favorites: SMARTIES, Personalities and
strengths/ weaknesses, leadership styles and learning about different cultures and how things I
may consider trivial are significant for others. From the review process I learnt the importance of
giving feedback in the right manner. A statement or even a word can encourage or discourage;
motivate or demotivate. I’ve also learnt to receive feedback objectively.
I particular like the leadership training workshop we had at the beginning of the programme. I
learnt a lot from the training which I now use on a day-to-day basis
I am very pleased with the whole programme and I am so glad I could join in. I think the assignment
of a specific primary reviewer was a great idea as it keep you attached to a document and a
specific personal situation, which helps develop reviewing skills.
I really appreciate the opportunity to meet and work together with amazing researchers from Africa.
I have learned a lot especially regarding the agriculture needs in Africa and how I could contribute
to the field.
I appreciate the travel arrangements by ASSET which were organized well to allow me travel from
Nairobi to Kigali then Entebbe conveniently. The leadership training was very useful to me and I
have applied some of the knowledge acquired not only in the agricultural academic career but also
used it to serve my community. I really appreciate this training because such training is normally
availed to our superiors and not junior staff like me. Exposure to young scientists from Europe gave
me an insight on how they are disciplined and hard-working, this challenged me to work harder.
56

Two things: 1-The peer review process which was an eye opener and helped me be a better peer.
2-The training in Kigali that made me meet people and learn a lot about myself and others.
The training in general and the peer review process in particular has lifted up my career skills in
communication and providing as well as receiving feed backs. Having the chance to interact with
people of different cultural and educational backgrounds had made me think out of the box.
It was great to meet all the participants during the workshop and to spend a whole week together
in this beautiful hotel. It really helped to build the trust between the ASSET members that was
required to talk about more personal problems.
The peer review part of this program was amazing. The reviews from others helped me to improve
my manuscript and see it the way others see it. The feedback part was also great as it helped me
communicate to my reviewers. At the onset of the program, Skype calls with my primary reviewer
helped to clarify the process and establish relationship.
Developmental Feedback
Please Indicate Something from any Part of the Programme that
Organize group writing sessions. The one we did at JIC was really useful and good fun.
If possible, one week should be added to the workshop for the first review to be done. In that case,
the participants spend another week actually reviewing documents. The challenge here would be
the cost component. I also suggest that the additional week could be spent in a cheaper hotel.
The duration for the review could be extended to 3 weeks.
Maybe the kick-start workshop could be announced a little bit earlier so people with current
engagements can have ample time to plan for it and make reschedules where needed.
Things which I would recommend to include in the future for such types of workshop are: 1-To have
someone with live experience to share with young scientists, preferably someone from research/
science background and who is/was working in leadership and management position. 2-To give
a bit of emphasis for the GROW model, it was a bit short. 3-I would also encourage to keep the
momentum of this workshop the way it is.
This programme was excellent. If it could happen often many more scientists would be impacted.
And perhaps allocate a longer time duration.
The programme was well organized and managed and due credit must be given to the organizer
for this. However, for the future it will be important to have a website/portal dedicated to the ASSET.
This way participants (current and alumni) can have a common portal for interaction. This can also
be used in place of dropbox to submit documents and reviews.
The follow-up sessions with Vanda were really important to keep the community spirit up, so finding
a way of integrating the African participants in these events would be great.
Could be Improved in the Future
57

It would be really beneficial if there was a day dedicated to discuss about the scientific projects of
the ASSET participants. This is to promote the knowledge exchange between UK and Africa and
provide a good platform for potential collaborations too.
Nothing it was all great!!
There were aspects about the training in Rwanda that need to be allocated more time, example, I
feel the coaching bit needs more time given its importance.
Everything worked well for me.
I thought at times that providing feedback to two people per round was maybe a bit too much - it
meant that I could spend less time for each of the individual manuscripts. Maybe for the future it
would be good to only give feedback to one person, but change that person every time. Although
I see why it would be good to have one permanent reviewer, it is difficult to give useful feedback
on the same document three times in a row, especially when the document doesn’t change that
much over time. Also, although I liked to structure of the feedback forms, the sections and the
suggestions on the forms made it easy to give a more superficial review.
Pairing reviewers in same or close area of specialization will produce greater benefit for reviews.
58

Review Round 1 Participant Feedback
How long did you spend reviewing your PRIMARY partner’s document?
including the reading, text edits and cover sheet fill in?
• A week, not full-time, but with a bit of time spent every day
• It took me a week to review with 2 hrs solid every day working on it.
• 1 hour
• A total of about 6 hours
• Around 3 hours
• 8hrs
• 5 days
• 3 hours
• 4 to 5 hrs
• 2 hours
• 5 days
• 3 days
How long did you spend reviewing your SECONDARY partner’s
document including the reading, text edits and cover sheet fill in?
• In this case, it was shorter, so it took me an afternoon, but I imagine it could be longer
• More or less the time but the secondary was a bit difficult and time consuming because of
specialization difference. This is apart from the fact that i have been able to learn new science
and technology.
• 1.5 hours
• A total of about 3 hours
• Around 3 hours
• 4hrs
• 4 days
• 2 hours
• 2 - 3 hrs
• 4 hours
• 4 days
• 1 day
Were you Able to Make the Review Deadline (29th Jan) on
Time?
83.3% Yes
16.7% No
59

What Part of the Process Took you the Most Time?
• Gathering my ideas to write the cover sheets and making them as useful as possible
• Reading, making sense out of it and editing
• Correcting written English with track changes
• Phrasing my comments so that they are most constructive
• Editing the text
• Materials and Methods
• Reading
• Reading/correcting in text
• Reading, one document was too concentrated on the scientific part only so I spent more hours
on it
• Reading the manuscripts and thinking about possible changes to improve it
• Reading the work
• Reading the manuscript
Do you have any suggested changes for the next round of review?
• I understand that timing was ok for me this time, but if for any reason people are especially busy
one week they might struggle to have the reviews on time. I guess a bit of flexibility might be
desirable, but it obviously can have a bad impact in the whole process, so I don’t see room for
much change.
• I am concerned that those who struggle to write English may need help, rather than left alone to
do it.
• Tract changes should be encouraged. Makes the work easier
60

Review Round 2 Participant Feedback
How many hours did you spend reviewing your PRIMARY
partner’sdocument including the reading, text edits and cover sheet
fill in?
- 4
- 1
- 8
- 2
How many hours did you spend reviewing your SECONDARY
partner’s document including the reading, text edits and cover
sheet fill in?
- 2
- 4
- 6
- 3
- 10
What part of the process took you the most time or was most
challenging?
- Reading and abstracting the main ideas of the paper
- Discussion
- Reading and text editing
- Reading the document and trying to get the concept of the content
- Getting to understand the topic to provide an adequate feedback.
Were you able to make the review deadline (18 March) on time?
80% Yes
20% No
61

Advisor Feedback
Your team member has shown improvement in the
following areas as a consequence of their participation in the
programme…
Leadership
Connections to International
Partners
Awareness of Agricultural
Challenges in Africa
Awareness of Scientific
Challenges Outside of their
Field
Scientific Writing
66.7% Agree
11.1% Disagree
44.4% Agree
11.1% Disagree
66.7% Agree
0% Disagree
33.3% Agree
11.1% Disagree
44.4% Agree
0% Disagree
55.6% Agree
11.1% Disagree
77.8% Agree
11.1% Disagree
Recieving Feedback
Giving Feedback
62

By engaging in the program’s peer-review process, the following aspects of your
team member’s document were increased…
Please provide your perception of the logistics of the
programme.
55.6% Agree
0% Disagree
44.4% Agree
11.1% Disagree
44.4% Agree
11.1% Disagree
22.2% Agree
0% Disagree
44.4% Agree
11.1% Disagree
11.1% Agree
11.1% Disagree
Speed of Development
The Programme was Well Organised
Quality
The Time Commitment
Required of my Student
was Appropriate given the
Benefits of Participation
You Would Encourage
Other Team Members to
Participate in the Future
The Programme was Well Executed
63

Please provide any additional feedback you would like to share
here:
I understood that this was a programme engaging my student and your reviewers in
report writing. Your expectations of my part in this programme were not clear to me
on the onset. As such I have not been much aware of what was going on in terms of
the time frame and deliverables of the programme specific to my student for follow
up. I occasionally received mail on the progress of the student’s paper. This is a
nice initiative however and I would like to commend the assistance provided for the
student to complete her paper.
The thesis chapter that went through the ASSET programme required considerably
less editing effort on my part, keep up the good work!
The programme is good in that it encourages interactions among early career
scientists who forge linkages for future collaboration.
64

ASSET 2nd
Generation
Goal
Empower Agricultural Scientists to Improve the Livelihoods of
African Rural Farming Families
3 Strategic Pillars
1. Develop each participant’s peer-coaching to drive change in their community
2. Embed participants within a solutions-focused peer-coaching community working towards
shared goals through document exchange
3. Build relationships between early career scientists working inside and outside Africa
Strategy at a Glance
ASSET will support the resourcefulness of scientists working to improve African agriculture to
overcome obstacles they face in their institutions, scientific work and personal circumstances.
Participants will utilize coaching skills within a peer-coaching community to develop written
projects crucial for their success. Examples of target projects could include grant proposals,
manuscripts, community engagement events, or institutional change goals.
The peer-coaching community will consist of early career scientists from both inside and
outside Africa. Inclusion of scientists from outside Africa will raise the profile of African
agricultural challenges at developed world scientific institutions and foster collaboration with
scientists in Africa.
3 Phases
A cohort of participants will meet in Africa and attend an experiential learning workshop
centered on coaching and mentoring. Special attention will be paid to skills required for
relationship building, communication and networking. Presentations will be made for each
participant’s goal.
Following the workshop, primary partners will develop their target projects by engaging in
virtual coaching (virtual 1:1s and digital document exchanges) over the course of 6 months.
The cohort will meet again after the peer-review exchange at the JIC for workshops reinforcing
skills and introducing new tools.

67

Outcome Assessment
The program will be successful if it accomplishes gains in the areas described in the 3 strategic
pillars surrounding peer-coaching community development and international collaboration.
Success will be measured using the following criteria:
1. Each participant gained significant peer-coaching experience and is using it to benefit their
community.
2. The written projects of each participant have reached their ‘goal-state’ with significant benefit
from the peer-review process.
3. Participants have increased likelihood of international collaboration through a better
understanding of the challenges and opportunities their counterparts experience in other
countries.
Assessment Method and Milestones for Each Criterion:
Criterion 1: The First Milestone is Attending the Training Event at the Outset of
the Program.
During the following six-months, each participant will submit 3 Coaching Reflection
Questionnaires capturing the coaching progress and experiences they have had with their
ASSET partner and in their institutions. The second milestone will be the completion of the
coaching-centered peer review.
Criterion 2: At the Outset of the Program each Participant will have a Clear Idea
of the Written Project they want to Feed through the Peer-review Process.
The selection process will particularly select for participants with well-defined ideas. During the
event, participants will determine the ‘goal-state’ they would like their project to reach by the
end of the 3 rounds of peer-review in the following 6 months. Each completed review round is
therefore a milestone and the participants will score the state of the project at the end of each
round, with the ‘goal-state’ scoring 10.
Criterion 3: Participants will be asked to fill out a brief survey concerning their awareness of
circumstances experienced by scientists in other countries before the initial event and after the
end of the program. Success will be gauged by the extent to which increased understanding
has made them feel confident to reach out to international partners and propose collaboration.
68

69
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have been privileged to be involved in this experience. Everyone who supported, encouraged
or facilitated the project was absolutely necessary and deserves huge appreciation. Special
thanks is due to the advisors, JIC leadership and graduate student advocates who supported
the team members, showed patience and kept an open mind.
Immense appreciation goes out to the Giles Oldroyd and Christian Rogers for pledging their
resources and commitment. The programme would have been a shadow of itself without Matt
Heaton and Vanda Morgan who extroverted their enthusiasm and creativity to the benefit of all.
The biggest debt of gratitude is owed to the team members who committed the hours to each
other’s development and pushed themselves out of their comfort zone.
This Report was Written by Jodi Lilley
Matt Heaton Provided Graphic Design for all materials.

“Science and art belong to the whole
world, and before them vanish the
barriers of nationality.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
70

ASSET 2016 Report

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a ASSET 2016 Report

Semelhante a ASSET 2016 Report (20)

ASSET 2016 Report