Screenshot
Makerere University has long stood as Uganda’s premier institution of higher learning, and one of Africa’s most respected universities.
Its policies often set the tone for the country’s higher education landscape. It is, therefore, expected that recent discussions surrounding the university’s requirement that retired academics must have secured a research grant to qualify for post-retirement contracts have generated considerable debate.
At first glance, the policy appears both rational and progressive. Universities across the globe are under increasing pressure to diversify their sources of funding, enhance research productivity, improve global rankings, and demonstrate societal impact.
In this context, attracting external grants has become a valuable academic currency. Research grants finance laboratories, support postgraduate students, facilitate innovation, and contribute to institutional visibility.
From this perspective, requiring retired professors seeking contract renewal to demonstrate grant-winning ability could be interpreted as a way of ensuring that those retained continue to add measurable value to the institution.
Yet, beneath the surface lies a more complex question: Should the ability to secure a grant become the defining criterion for extending the service of retired academics? Makerere’s retired professors are not merely employees seeking an extension of employment.
They are custodians of institutional memory, mentors to younger academics, builders of departments, supervisors of doctoral candidates, and repositories of intellectual capital accumulated over decades. Their contributions cannot always be quantified through grant portfolios.
The modern university increasingly celebrates what can be counted: the number of grants won, publications produced, citations accumulated, and funds generated. While these indicators matter, they tell only part of the story of academic excellence.
Some of the most impactful academics are outstanding teachers, gifted mentors, ethical leaders, and influential public intellectuals whose greatest contribution lies in shaping people rather than attracting funding.
The grant requirement also raises important questions about equity and disciplinary diversity. Opportunities for external funding are unevenly distributed across fields of study.
Academics in medicine, engineering, agriculture, and the natural sciences often have greater access to large international grants compared to their counterparts in the humanities, arts, law, and some social sciences.
Applying a uniform grant criterion across all disciplines may unintentionally disadvantage scholars whose fields traditionally attract fewer funding opportunities. Moreover, grant acquisition itself is influenced by factors beyond individual competence.
Success often depends on international networks, access to research support offices, collaborative teams, previous funding history, and the priorities of donors. To reduce the value of a distinguished academic career to the ability to secure external funding, risks oversimplifying what universities exist to achieve.
This is not an argument against accountability. Universities have legitimate reasons to ensure that post-retirement contracts are awarded strategically rather than automatically. Institutions must avoid situations where contract extensions become entitlements disconnected from institutional needs and performance.
However, accountability should be multidimensional. This means that a more balanced approach may be necessary. Instead of relying solely on grant acquisition, Makerere University could adopt a broader set of criteria for post-retirement engagement.
These might include postgraduate supervision, publication records, mentorship of early-career academics, leadership contributions, curriculum development, community engagement, international collaborations, and demonstrated contributions to institutional priorities.
Grant success could remain an important consideration without becoming the sole gatekeeper. The debate ultimately speaks to a larger question confronting universities worldwide: What do we value most in our academics?
If universities define excellence exclusively through financial metrics, they risk undervaluing scholarship’s human dimensions, teaching, mentorship, wisdom, and stewardship. If they ignore performance altogether, they compromise accountability and institutional competitiveness.
The challenge lies in finding the right balance. Makerere University has an opportunity to lead this conversation thoughtfully. As an institution that has shaped generations of leaders across Africa, it can develop policies that recognise both productivity and experience, innovation and wisdom, measurable outputs and intangible contributions.
The issue, therefore, is not whether retired academics should continue to earn post- retirement contracts. Rather, it is whether the criteria used reflects the full spectrum of what universities are called to preserve and promote.
In the pursuit of global competitiveness, Uganda’s oldest and most prestigious university must ensure that it does not lose sight of one of its greatest assets: the accumulated knowledge, mentorship, and institutional commitment of those who helped build it.
As Makerere refines its policies for the future, perhaps the question should not simply be, “Did you win a grant?” but rather, “How will your continued service advance the University’s mission in all its dimensions?”
Only then can excellence be measured not merely by the resources academics bring into the institution, but also by the legacy they leave behind.
The writer is a PhD candidate
nyajamor@gmail.com
