The Multiplier Effect of Mentorship in Policy-relevant Research

This is Part 2 of this blog series on Building Local Research Capacity through Time, Trust, and Knowledge Transfer. Read part 1 here.

In this edition, we unpack the real costs and inputs of mentorship and how these investments translate into measurable outcomes, giving a clear picture of the “cost curve” from mentorship to impact.

If you want more policy-relevant research from the Global South, fund mentorship.

That was the core insight from the first Africa Climate Mobility Academy (ACMA) held in 2024.

There is broad consensus that we need more southern-led, policy-relevant research on the evolving impacts of climate change. What is much less clear to funders is the real cost curve of getting that research written, refereed, published and converted into policy traction. ACMA made the costs and process visible and the outputs measurable.

Let’s start with the inputs. Size and money matter — but sometimes these can be small. The ACMA 2024 cohort involved just 10 fellows and 10 mentors, each supported with a micro-grant of USD 500. The lion’s share of value, however, came from time, structure, and networks.

Fellows engaged in months of virtual mentoring, bilateral exchanges with their assigned mentors, and preparatory exercises, culminating in a week-long in-person write-shop hosted by partner, Masinde Muliro University for Science and Technology, in Kenya. During this intensive event, participants benefited from “shut up and write” sessions, manuscript presentations, mock peer reviews, and targeted input sessions on research methods and policy engagement.

Two other inputs are often invisible on budgets but proved decisive:

1. Networks as infrastructure — Access to senior scholars and to aligned peers with different disciplinary lenses allowed for accelerated learning, new perspectives and reflections on the quality of writing. The network that resulted from this interaction at the Academy comes in the form of an alumni group and several new, professional ties. These are not a side effect of the initiative, but one core outcome.
2. Editorial and pathway clarity — Deciding early where each paper should be published (e.g., special issue, policy brief series) is critical. It helps writers stay focused, developing their manuscripts in a way that matches the agreed brief while editors know what range and quality of manuscripts to expect. This lesson was learned the hard way: for the Academy we did not have this “home” from the start and as a result, are still handholding fellows through the submission process with relevant journals.

Mentorship, momentum and payoff

Mentorship was the backbone of the programme. The small cohort of 20 participants amplified benefits: everyone had personal access to mentors over many months, and cross-pollination between fellows exposed each researcher to diverse methodological approaches. We also had a CGIAR “mentor-of-mentors”, who provided mentors with support on any unexpected issues with mentees and offered a space for reflection, ensured that bottlenecks were unblocked along the way. In practice, each manuscript accumulated dozens of mentor-hours plus hundreds of peer-to-peer hours in the room and online.

What came out the other end?

First, a tangible pipeline of publishable manuscripts — fellows attested that the in-person cycle was a “game changer” for pushing drafts from idea to submission-ready shape.

Second, the time spent together and the many exchanges on a range of topics and disciplines, generated a shared “research agenda”.

Third, the Academy produced institutional spillovers: a durable alumni network, future editorial collaborations, and new mentor–fellow relationships as well as peer groups.

Critical notes for funders

The ACMA experience shows that the marginal cost of moving one research idea to policy-relevant output is not linear in dollars. Providing for sufficient coordination and mentoring time can accelerate productivity and feed new momentum back into the process.

Of course, this time costs money, but it does not have to be a lot, particularly over the long-term. Once those platforms are built, the cost of additional cohorts falls, completing the cost-curve story: mentorship is expensive to start up, but – if done properly – relatively cheap to repeat.

What’s important here is the timeframe: you need to be in it for the long haul!

For CGIAR and its funding partners, the lesson is straightforward: the marginal cost of mentorship to measurable output is highly favourable. The total micro-grant budget—USD 10,000 (20 participants × USD 500 each)— plus costs to host an in-person write-shop, produced multiple manuscripts, conference participation, communication pieces and policy briefs, and professional relationships and a network capable of sustaining future outputs. But dedicated time for ongoing support is needed to accompany the mentees and the growing network. This does not have to come at an extra cost. Many CGIAR staff are already mentors or being mentored, while others would be happy to build it into their work portfolios given the right incentives.

The Capacity Sharing (CapSha) Accelerator provides a unique opportunity now for the many impactful mentorship initiatives under different CGIAR Science Programmes. Its forthcoming Marketplace platform can act as a catalyst for system-wide mentoring and support, converting research intent into actionable and policy-relevant outputs, generating a steady supply of talent and expertise, and building a strong community of practice.

The ACMA 2024 experience illustrates a key principle that the CapSha Accelerator will take to the next level: mentorship is not just a one-on-one, short-term relationship – it is a long-term and deliberate investment in human capital and social infrastructure.

Authors: Bina Desai, and Ibukun Taiwo, Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT