Research Readiness Synthesis
The Evidence Base
Continental Capacity Matrix
Average readiness score by capacity domain, per country in scope. Scores expressed as percentage of maximum (0–100). Heat colouring: ≥70% 40–69% <40%
Comparative Lens
Who is leading, who is lagging, and which clusters emerge once the matrix is read horizontally rather than vertically.
Regional Distribution
Where are the continent's capacity gaps geographically concentrated? Each row is a UN Africa region; each column a capacity domain. The Gap column shows the spread (best − worst region) per domain — high values flag dimensions where the regional disparity is widest.
Sector Disaggregation
Universities, research institutes, and other organisations carry different roles in the research-to-impact pipeline. Their capacity profiles diverge accordingly.
Profiles
Composite readiness score, top three strengths, three highest-leverage gaps, and a narrative read for each entity in scope.
Indicator Deep-Reads
A handful of binary indicators carry outsized strategic weight. These are the readings worth pausing on.
Innovation Readiness Tiers
Institutions classified by composite score and the two highest-leverage governance dimensions (ethics + grants management). Listings show up to 12 institutions per tier.
Risks & Opportunities
Structural risks that could undermine readiness investments, alongside the asymmetric opportunities visible in the data.
Strategic Recommendations
Concrete actions, each grounded in a specific gap and routed to a realistic owner with a timeline.
Audience Briefs
The same evidence, framed for the two audiences who can act on it.
Areas for Further Research
Open questions and knowledge gaps that the current dataset surfaces but cannot yet answer.
Annex — Indicator Reference
Per-domain breakdown of binary indicators. Percentages report the share of institutions answering "Yes" — non-responses and "I don't know" included in the denominator.
