Exploring early career academics’ barriers to effective research productivity in Zimbabwe Open Access

Research is crucial for the development of any society (Kadikilo et al., 2024). It has become one of the crucial measures of quality in higher education institutions. As such, many academic institutions emphasize the need for all academic staff members to publish. In addition to teaching, academics are expected to contribute to the advancement of knowledge through research. Therefore, faculty members have to excel in research-based knowledge generation (Yassinova, 2019). Early career academics (ECAs), however, face challenges that make it difficult for them to succeed in publishing. ECAs usually join the academic profession without being fully prepared, especially for the “publish or perish” demands. This entails denial of promotion or tenureship should research output miss the benchmark. Sometimes ECAs are faced with an established publishing landscape that is dominated by a structurally determined status quo (Teixeira da Silva, 2021). Resultantly, there is an urgent need for supporting ECAs since they are the future of the research and publishing fraternity. Mydin et al. (2021) advocates for the building of young academics’ research competencies at the early stage to enable them to be effectively embedded in the academic culture.

In most developed nations, higher education institutions contribute significantly to research production. However, many academics in poor developing countries perform badly in research. Research productivity has become one of the key measures used to assess the quality of a higher education institution (Yuan et al., 2020). This is similar to the views of Kapp et al. (2011), who viewed publishing research work as being a key indicator of academic quality. In Zimbabwe, most ECAs are Masters and PhD degree holders who are ordinarily engaged as assistant lecturers, lecturers, research fellows or teaching assistants. These are normally granted full tenureship after three years of service. Very few institutions pay much attention to the ECAs’ grooming during this career-defining period, leading to frustrations and sometimes early departure from their promising careers.

Africa accounts for 14% of the world’s population, with most countries considered to be growing. However, this is not reflected on the research front (Kumwenda et al., 2017). Studies have shown a negative attitude toward research as some academics struggle to publish in high-impact journals (Tierney, 2012; Kumwenda et al., 2017; Mbewe et al., 2020). This study looks at the experiences and barriers faced by ECAs in research and publishing. If research, teaching and community engagement fade away, knowledge production would be seriously affected (Mbewe et al., 2020). The study is crucial in that it helps in understanding the levels of skills and knowledge of ECAs and possibly addresses the challenges facing ECAs. If such skills are not imparted, they can easily be frustrated and lose interest in their jobs, thus contributing to low research productivity. The study findings can assist policymakers in higher education to structure policies that support the development of ECAs. The research is guided by the following research questions: How do early ECAs perceive publishing? What qualities should ECAs possess to be successful in publishing? What are the challenges faced by ECAs in publishing?

Universities in Zimbabwe fall under the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science, Innovation and Technology Development and there are currently 20 registered universities. The promotion and tenure of academics is mainly through sound track record of academic publications. Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education (ZIMCHE) is the government’s regulatory body that performs annual institutional audits to make sure that universities are complying with the minimum standards for recruiting and promoting academic staff. Thus, for ECAs to be tenured and promoted, they need to ensure that they follow the standards set by ZIMCHE. According to the Baseline survey carried by the Ministry in 2010, there were a myriad of challenges facing universities in Zimbabwe. One such challenge was declining research output due to serious brain drain that had led to universities hiring unqualified staff with limited teaching and research experience (Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, 2010). Chitsamatanga et al. (2018), Majoni (2014) and Bukaliya and Muyengwa (2012) noted the massive brain drain the country is experiencing has seen the death of senior academics who act as role models and mentors to junior scholars. Despite the survey having been carried in 2010, the challenges continue to present settings. Chirisa and Ngoepe (2024) further noted that Zimbabwe has a low research publishing output and although it ranks second in Southern Africa, it was lagging behind South African by an astounding 65%.

Garwe (2015) and Chinamasa (2012) recorded academics’ challenges in research and publication in Zimbabwe and found that there were high teaching loads and inadequate resources. They noted the challenge of rejection of papers by publishers due to poor research and writing skills, especially in the arts, education and social science disciplines. Chinamasa (2012) further noted the challenge of large classes, especially undergraduate, compelling academics to spend all the time marking assignments at the expense of research. Similarly, Chitsamatanga et al. (2018), researching on barriers to effective research productivity by female academics in Zimbabwe and South Africa, discovered that little research and publication emanated from heavy teaching workload, lack of scientific training, unavailability of workshops, inadequate funding, lack of confidence and lack of collaboration. Mutula (2009) found out that most African countries face challenges of brain drain, lack of adequate funding, poor research funding, poor research environment, absence of research incentives and heavy teaching loads, leading to limited time for research and poor research skills.

ECAs are generally defined as those individuals who are within five years of completing their doctoral studies (Lee, 2024; Spence et al., 2024). However, ECAs are not limited to recent holders of doctoral qualifications, but may be extended to other lecturing staff with lesser qualifications such as masters or honors degrees. These individuals face intense pressure to increase their research outputs despite having intensive teaching and learning duties as well as university and community engagement responsibilities (Stratford et al., 2024; Doğan and Arslan, 2024). The ECAs’ initial identities are characterized by liminality which refers to identity transitions often associated with the feelings of disorientation and uncertainty with regards to their roles with academic communities (Crutchley et al., 2024; Larsen and Brandenburg, 2023).

Transitioning from an ECA to a seasoned academic in Zimbabwe is challenging and deserves special attention in the academic journey. There is a myriad of challenges that ECAs such as teaching assistants, research fellows, assistant lecturers and newly appointed lecturers will encounter along the journey. Notable challenges in the context of Zimbabwe include lack of funding due to limited budgetary support, lack of mentoring, heavy workloads, lack of access to scholarly materials, poorly resourced laboratories, lack of data for Internet access, power challenges and lack of research writing skills.

Organizational theories have gained ground in higher education research (Bastedo, 2012). Some of the popular theories for studying organizations include the resource dependency theory by Pfeffer and Salancik (1974), garbage can model (Cohen and March, 1986), the institutional theory by Scott (2004), the constrains theory by Goldratt (1980). This work makes use of the institutional theory and the theory of constrains to research on the experiences of ECAs in publishing. The institutional theory states that institutions are society’s social structure that defines suitable behavior patterns for institutional and individual actions (Scott, 2004). It is often used to explain the adoption and spread of formal organizational structures, including written policies, standard practices and new forms of organization. Institutional theory has become a popular and powerful tool to explain the actions of both individuals and collective actors (Cai and Mehari, 2015). Kadikilo et al. (2024) used the institutional theory to study the research productivity of Tanzanian academics. This study was selected because of its power in explaining global socioeconomic and institutional challenges and can assist in explaining how institutional factors shape research-related behavior (Aksom and Vakulenko, 2023). Such factors may include the governance, funding structures and the regulations of higher education institutions (Kadikilo et al., 2024).

Similarly, the theory of constraints highlights that for any organization to be effective, it needs to understand the constraints it is likely to face. The constraints theory takes a scientific approach to improvement of challenges bedeviling organizations. It is imperative for organizations to understand their constraints and find ways of mitigating the constraints until they are no longer limiting them in production. The theory was used because of its power to suggest that for success in organizations to happen, there must be understanding of constraints. Similarly, the challenges facing ECAs can be regarded as Constraints that, when clearly understood by the management, can be effectively addressed, ensuring that higher education institutions support the growth of research and publishing. Once ECAs are capacitated, institutional research output is likely to increase, leading to increased student success.

The literature highlights a wide range of definitions for ECAs reflecting variations in experience, age and career stages (Teixeira da Silva, 2021). For this paper, ECAs are emerging researchers appointed in the last five years and who are yet to fully establish themselves. While there are variations in the types of contracts that ECAs have, all will be beginning a new career in academia where they will have their targets versus the institutional performance targets (Hollywood et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a need for a localized examination of how Zimbabwean ECAs navigate these employment conditions and whether institutional policies exacerbate or mitigate the challenges they face in research productivity.

Literature establishes some consistency on the barriers that are faced by ECAs such as lack of proper research infrastructure, lack of interest in research by policymakers, difficult work environments, too much administrative, teaching and community services workloads, lack of active research groups, lack of motivation by peers and lack of skills in securing research funds (Austin et al., 2007). Fussy (2017) also concurred by noting that heavy teaching loads, particularly on the ECAs undermine research productivity, a view supported by Acker and Webber (2017). This limits the time available for research as the concentration will be on teaching and sometimes administrative work. Bosanquet et al. (2017) used such descriptive terms as “shattered”, “suffering”, “worn out”, “swamped” and “stressed” to describe ECAs experiences with workloads (Hemmings, 2012; Cocal et al., 2017). In the African context, the situation is even worse as noted by Shinkafi (2020) who concluded that besides the heavy teaching workloads, ECAs are also expected to do some administrative work that includes project coordination, seminars coordination and industrial training coordination. While these studies establish a link between workload and diminished research productivity, they do not investigate how ECAs in Zimbabwe attempt to navigate these constraints. This study provides empirical insights into how Zimbabweans ECAs balance research with other institutional obligations.

Clare (2019) and Johnson and Weivoda (2021) argued that ECAs are experiencing challenges in grant funding because they do not have a track record of independent funding or publications. Lack or disproportionality of funding is one of the ECA’s greatest preoccupations and sources of stress (de Winde et al., 2021; Kumwenda et al., 2017). Even in cases where the ECAs are part of a group of investigators, the principal investigators (PI), who will be the senior researchers, get the recognition. Such lack of recognition reduces their confidence levels and results in dissatisfaction, frustration, anxiety and depression (Olsen and Sorcinelli, 1992; Olsen, 1993; Bielczyk et al., 2020). The literature discusses this issue from a Western or general African perspective but does not explore the specific funding landscape in Zimbabwe. This study bridges this gap by examining the funding mechanisms available to ECAs in Zimbabwe, assessing their accessibility and exploring alternative strategies used by academics to secure research support.

Hardwick (2005) purports that ECAs face challenges of proper mentoring by seniors or well-established researchers. Mentorship plays a vital role in the sustainability of research programs (Shettima et al., 2024). This is similar to the observations of Kumwenda et al. (2017) who concluded that there is a challenge of mentorship by senior researchers, who are sometimes busy with their own research and innovation projects hence have no time to mentor junior researchers. While the literature acknowledges the importance of mentorship, it does not provide localized data on the mentorship structures available in Zimbabwe. This study investigates mentorship programmes used to enhance research productivity by ECAs in Zimbabwean universities.

ECAs also face personal and professional challenges in trying to establish themselves in academia. Shettima et al. (2024) found that some of the barriers include work-life imbalances, lack of good quality training opportunities and insufficient research funds. Teixeira da Silva (2021) describes various factors that make ECAs more vulnerable than their seniors, which include lack of training and bureaucratic and unfavorable research and publishing practices and policies. ECAs can face what Teixeira da Silva (2021) referred to as the Matthew Effect, whereby there are rigid and bureaucratic infrastructure in research and publishing. Some impediments regarding research and publishing include organizational processes and cultures across the university’s national governance and influences (Stratford et al., 2024). These studies highlight the emotional toll of research struggles. However, there is limited research on the psychological well-being of ECAs in Zimbabwe.

In developing countries, academics face challenges of culture, politics, funding, lack of enthusiasm for research and structural barriers. Kadikilo et al. (2024) noted that research and publishing in Tanzania is hindered by cultural, political, institutional and structural barriers. In Nigeria, Simisaye (2019) identified variables that influenced research productivity as family, financial, information literacy and employer motivation. Challenges of financial research support have serious implications for the ECAs who will require article processing fees and money for data analysis software (Kadikilo et al., 2024). de Luca et al. (2015) further noted the challenge of technological capabilities to do research and negative attitudes towards research. While these studies cover general African contexts, they do not specifically examine the Zimbabwean higher education system, which has its unique historical and political dynamics. This study investigated how national policies, institutional cultures and resource constraints shape the research trajectories of EACs in Zimbabwe and whether policy reforms could create a more enabling research environment.

A sequential mixed methodology approach was taken where contextual data from interviews was used to assist in the interpretation of the online survey. Most research on the experiences, perceptions and situations of ECAs have been qualitative and very few quantitative (Marongwe et al., 2019; Stratford et al., 2024). This mixed methodology approach allowed the researchers to triangulate the results of qualitative and quantitative data. The target population for this research was newly appointed teaching assistants, lecturers, research fellows and assistant lecturers (Faridah et al., 2021). Though Zimbabwe has 20 universities, three were conveniently sampled to give representative data. Data were collected over three months from October to December 2024 using a survey and in-depth interview guide. A questionnaire was designed using Google Forms and had 10 open and closed ended questions. Before being administered, the questionnaire was pilot-tested with researchers’ peers, who were not to be included in the study. A link to the questionnaire was sent to the selected participants by email and through social media platforms like WhatsApp and Facebook. The questionnaire (Table 1) was distributed to sixty ECAs that were purposively selected from the three universities.

After administering the questionnaires, the researchers invited some selected participants for interviews. Structured interviews, as observed by Borg and Gall (1996), enabled the researcher to pre-plan the questions to be asked to the respondents about the problem under investigation. The interviews allowed the researchers to collect data that had a deep meaning regarding participants’ experiences, which they could not have been possible using the questionnaire only. Adams (2010) purports that because of the power of interviews to create guided conversations, participants feel free to express their views. The interviews were conducted in person and via the WhatsApp video conference platform. The interviews allowed the researcher to probe for further details into particular experiences of the ECAs in publishing. They lasted for an average of 20–30 min and were audio-recorded upon obtaining the participants’ consent. A total of 18 respondents were purposively selected. The pre-existing relationship with participants facilitated rapport between the interviewers and the interviewees (McConnell-Henry et al., 2010). Each university contributed six participants who were between one to five years of their careers. In analyzing qualitative data, the grounded theory approach was taken. Table 2 below shows what the participants from each institution looked like:

Ethical guidelines were followed rigorously as noted by Creswell (2003), making sure that participants’ confidentiality was granted and consent obtained. The participants were assured of confidentiality protection during data collection and their right to withdraw from the study at any given moment. Data from the recordings were transcribed verbatim and on written notes. To protect the identity of the participants, the researchers anonymized the participants. Finally, there was analysis and synthesis of data. This research did not require any ethical clearance because it was a non-invasive study. The study did not include any sensitive information or risk to participants. However, participants in this study were anonymized and no personally identifiable information was collected.

This survey captured responses from 39 (65%) ECAs from the three universities. Two questionnaires were removed from the analysis as the respondents did not complete the full questionnaire, leaving 37 questionnaires suitable for analysis. All the 18 targeted ECAs for interviewing managed to attend the sessions and their data were captured. Most of the respondents (13) had just started academia (less than one year experience), followed by those in the 1–2 years category (9), 3–4 years (8) and lastly 4–5 years (7). This is indicative of the preference of staff that the three universities were hiring. The presentation is shown in Figure 1.

There were more males (25) than females (12). The data also showed that most of the respondents had master’s Qualifications (20), followed by those with bachelors’ (14) and only three had PhDs. This shows that most universities preferred to hire lecturers with PhD and master’s degrees, though teaching assistants with bachelor’s degree were also hired but encouraged to pursue master’s degrees.

There were different areas of specialisation of the respondents. The majority of respondents were from the commercials discipline (9), followed by social sciences (8), arts (6), education (5) as shown in Figure 2.

Findings from this study showed that the ECAs were dominated by male lecturers, that is, 12 males and six females. Qualitative data from the structured interviews was systematically arranged and some thematic analysis was done to come up with emerging themes. Thematic analysis enables meaningful interpretation and discussion of data to gain insight and deeper understanding of the case under study (Mydin et al., 2021).

Those interviewed were asked to mention their research experience. It was established that the ECAs were aware that they were supposed to do research and try to be engaged in various research seminars and symposiums. The data showed that the ECAs noted that they were all just starting the publishing journey, but were finding it challenging. Participant UA1 said:

Another participant, UB2, was finding it difficult to grow in the publishing fraternity due to publishers’ attitude. She had this to say:

The data showed that on average, ECAs had to publish between one and five articles. Participant UA3 said, “I have 1 paper. It has been very difficult to publish”. Participant UA5 also said, “I only have 2 papers and I want to develop more and send them for publishing”. However, of concern was the constant rejection of their work by publishers. Participant UB4 from the social sciences had this to say:

Another participant from the arts noted that:

All the participants from the three institutions noted that there were no major incentives for publishing except for promotion or tenureship. Participant UA4 said, “Sometimes they just encourage us to publish for the sake of making the institution visible. There are no incentives at all”. Most participants (UA1, UA2, UA3, UA4, UA5, UA6, UB1, UB2, UB3, UB5, UB6, UC1, UC2, UC4, UC5 and UC6) had not yet participated in the application of research grants.

The researchers also wanted to find out if the ECAs were aware of what is required for one to publish as shown in Figure 3. The respondents observed that skills that were very important include writing, data analysis and knowledge of the publishing industry.

Other essential elements noted include language usage, critical thinking, teamwork, resilience and motivation to read. Participant UA2 said “I think one of the qualities required is resilience, especially when one is dealing with peer reviews”. One participant (UC1), specifically voiced that:

A question was posed on the “public or perish” philosophy, and if the participants were aware of it and whether it should be retained in the modern research world. The majority of the participants (UA1, UA2, UA3, UA4, UA5, UB2, UB3, UB5, UB6, UC1, UC2, UC4, UC5 and UC6) indicated that they were aware of it and there was need for universities and other research institutions to continue with the “publish or perish” philosophy. Participant UA5 said “Yes I have read about it and I think there is a need to provide funding to encourage research output”. Similarly, participant UC5 said, “Yes I am aware of it and we had been encouraged to publish to share knowledge and stay in the loop in terms of developments in our area”. Participants also noted that there was need for maintaining the philosophy as it assists institutions to grow. However, others noted that it does not have to remain rigid. Participant UA2 said, “Yes, I heard about it in the library and that’s why I am now working on my first paper”. Another participant, UB1 concurred and said, “Yes, I am aware but I feel that researchers should be provided with the necessary resources.”

Participant UC4 said;

The challenges noted include unfavorable research infrastructure, heavy workloads, lack of mentorship from seasoned researchers, low remuneration and longer processing time taken by publishing houses. Data from the participants have shown that poor research infrastructure at most Zimbabwean universities has a significant bearing toward ECAs’ low research productivity. From the 18 participants, 16 mentioned the challenge of infrastructure in their responses. Some of the noted challenges were inadequate and relevant library subscriptions to internationally recognized journals and books. Poor Internet facilities and poorly resourced laboratory were also cited as significant challenges that the ECAs faced. Regarding this, participant UC2 noted that:

Speaking on the same aspect of infrastructure, participant UB3 noted the following:

The ECAs also had challenges in securing the required article processing fees required by most publishing houses. For example, participant UC2 said:

Another significant challenge that emanated from this finding was the issue of workloads. The heavy teaching loads in Zimbabwe are attributed to the brain drain brought by the economic challenges bedeviling the country. This has led to serious shortages of teaching staff in universities. Participants (UA1, UA2, UA3, UA5, UB1, UB2, UB5, UC1, UC2, UC4) all mentioned the challenge of heavy workloads. Out of the 18 ECA participants, five indicated that they had enough time to do research as seen by what participant UC5 said, “I have enough time to do my research. I think that’s why you see research being part of our job descriptions. We are supposed to allocate our time equally so that we are able to do research”.

However, the data from the other 13 participants showed that most ECAs face challenges with too much teaching load. Some of the noted responses were as follows:

Participant UA4, from the sciences discipline observed that:

This research has also shown that effective research productivity is hindered by lack of mentorship by the established senior academics and professors. Participant UC6 had this to say:

One participant from the agriculture engineering fields observed that:

Participants also noted that there was a research skills gap. They noted that research training workshops were quite limited. Some participants noted that they join academia straight from college, while others join from industry and yet there are no proper orientation and training programmes on doing research. One participant, UB2, had this to say, “When I joined, I was never inducted on how to write a paper. I have never seen a call for training on research. I sometimes use Internet videos to get an appreciation of how publishing works.”

ECAs also noted the challenge of contracts. Some of the contracts given to them were unfavorable. For example, participant UA2, a teaching assistant in the commercials discipline said “I am on a three-year contract, I don’t know what will happen after the end of my contract. So, for me to give 100% effort in publishing is not worthy it sometimes. I can’t even apply for research funds because of my contract status.”

The issue of language was also noted. The vast majority of the scientific literature is published in English language and this was an advantage to those who can use the language well. One participant said “Some of us are not fluent and skilled in writing proper English. Our articles are then rejected because of that.”

Asked about possible strategies that could be implemented to enable a flourishing publishing environment, the ECAs provided a number of strategies to have better research systems and support like infrastructure, provision of grants, research training, provision of proper research tools such as laptops, Internet, power and also incentivizing researchers. On the issue of the dilemma of research infrastructure, one participant noted that, “There is need for proper funding of research work. There are a lot of our research ideas that are lying idle due to lack of funding”.

To alleviate the research skills gaps, ECAs suggested the need for systematic and well-coordinated research clinics and seminars. For example, one comment from the questionnaire on this aspect suggested, “Research seminars should be organised periodically. I have seen a lot of calls to attend research seminars offered by other institutions but very little from our own”. Another participant noted that “Please provide research funding, older researchers should be willing to collaborate with younger researchers and not abuse them or steal their ideas.”

On the personal challenges such as finance, there was a strong sense coming from the ECAs on the need for capacitating them with enough disposable income that would allow them to pay the required amounts by publishers. As one participant suggested, “I see a need for better remuneration of the ECAs. If you give someone a proper salary, they will be able to do their work properly. Giving them money, that is not enough to pay rent is a mockery …. where will they get the money to pay APCs?”

This research has shown that most ECAs face both institutional and individual challenges in their careers. The study identified institutional factors such as funding to be critical constraints that ECAs are facing. The institutional factors, as proposed in the institutional theory, have the power to influence the working conditions and resources that have been reported to be deplorable in this study. Besides funding, some of the critical factors noted include poor research laboratories, power challenges, lack of mentorship and lack of library subscriptions to high impact journals, low Internet bandwidth and unavailability of data analysis software. The results support the view of other scholars like Bell et al. (2016), Hollywood et al. (2020) and Stratford et al. (2024), who noted the experiences and need for addressing the challenges that ECAs are facing. The results of this study also mirror those of Kusure et al. (2006), who researched on teachers’ college lecturer’s research output in Zimbabwe and observed their research productivity was very low.

This study has also shown that there are weak support systems for the ECAs. This is similar to the observations of Sims et al. (2023), who noted that supervisors, mentors and institutional support have a strong impact in making ECAs succeed in the academic journey. The study has shown that institutional barriers are at the top in influencing publishing by ECAs. This is very critical when viewed in line with the institutional theory, which advances that institutional variables have the potential to influence the institution’s activities. Such findings corroborate well with those of Kadikilo et al. (2024) and Heng et al. (2020), who observed that institutional factors usually dominate individual factors in influencing research productivity for researchers in developing countries as most of the institutions are not fully resourced or prepared to assist the ECAs. Similarly, Kadikilo et al. (2024) noted that weak mentorship and support systems for ECAs was one of the stumbling blocks for success in publishing. Kumwenda et al. (2017) noted that ECAs in Malawi also faced the same challenge of mentorship where there was very limited support from the senior researchers.

Lack of research collaboration was also noted in the research and yet this, as observed by Mydin et al. (2021), has the capacity to empower the ECAs to have more confidence and work independently. Such individual factors as balancing of family interests, lack of interest in research by the ECAs and heavy workloads are also imperative in determining success in organizations. Research interest is crucial as research activities need mental energy typical of committed and passionate researchers (Sheihk et al., 2013). These, as put forward by the constrains theory, will be the barriers to the effective research production of an institution. The organization can only succeed if such constrains are addressed.

The challenge of research funding appeared frequently among the data presented yet resources are crucial to the success of ECAs (Bell et al., 2016). This is similarly noted by Mbewe et al. (2020), who observed the same challenge in Zambia where academic staff were failing to publish in high impact journals. This study established that there was low funding of research and limited access to research funds by the ECAs yet funding plays a pivotal role in sustaining the research process (Mbewe et al., 2020).

The findings of this study show that while the country adopted international practices of promoting publishing by the academic staff, support for such in severely compromised. Higher education in Zimbabwe which traces back to the colonial rule when the University of Zimbabwe has seen some tremendous growth since independence in 1980 with government making significant strides to increase the number of universities. Growing from one university to 20, demonstrates quite significant strides. However, such a rise was connected to the growth in number of academic staff. Universities were mandated to promote the development of knowledge thus leading to them focusing on the “publish or perish” philosophy. While following these international standard and practices of prioritizing scholarly publishing were noble, significant challenges as noted in the findings continued to be faced by lecturers particularly the ECAs. The country’s economic challenges have led to low support from central government leaving the ECAs with no research funds. The country’s unfavorable international relations with Western nations leading to expulsion from such bodies like Commonwealth which provided significant research grants made the situation worse. The severe brain drain that began in the 1990s till present has caused seasoned researchers departing the country leaving the ECAs with no proper mentoring.

In most developing countries, ECAs struggle to make the breakthrough in publishing. Much of what was shared by the ECAs in Zimbabwe show that they struggle in the publishing area due to enormous workloads, poor research infrastructure, applying for heavily subscribed research grants, lack of proper mentors, personal issues such as work–life balances and lack of training. Therefore, ECAs in the universities need to be supported and government officials in higher education settings need to provide them with adequate resources that support their research needs.

Universities need to upscale their training of ECAs. Training programs can be local or international and should be adequately funded. The need for workload adjustment can be addressed through recruitment of staff and offering of balanced workloads to academic staff. We also propose the need for ring fencing research funds that could be applied for by ECAs. Even though access to online journals articles can be possible through open access, there are still other journals that require subscriptions. If ECAs have access to such research funds, then the monies could be used for paying article for access to such journals.

Research in Africa can only flourish if there are sufficient researchers at junior and senior levels (Chitando and Mateveke, 2012). The current situation and experiences of ECAs in publishing in higher education institutions in Zimbabwe had not been properly documented and too little is known that can help make them flourish. ECAs are critical in a nation for their potential to generate and advance knowledge in their research and teaching (Park et al., 2023). While efforts to look at the general academic’s obstacles to publishing have been attempted (Garwe, 2015; Chitsamatanga et al., 2018; Chirisa and Ngoepe, 2024), no efforts have been made to address the publication experiences of the early career researchers, who form a critical component of academia. This study has indicated that besides the challenges noted by Garwe (2015) for the general academics, young career researchers have other issues peculiar to them. These range from lack of mentorship by senior researchers, lack of skills to participate in calls for research funding, poor orientation and induction in research. The research serves as a call for collective action by policymakers to prioritize the challenges of ECAs as they are vulnerable when compared to their senior colleagues.

Our study may be limited by the sampling strategy we used. Purposive sampling has challenges of bias and generalizability since the sampling may not be adequately representative. While the data we presented here are reflective of the three universities sampled, which are public, it may not be the position at other universities, especially private ones. The practices and support given at the other universities may be favorable for ECAs. The presented findings may change with time due to the dynamism of universities.