Limbikani Matumba1*
Patsani Kumambala2
Maurice Monjerezi3
Samson Katengeza4,5
Timothy Nthaziyake Gondwe2
Sera Gondwe6
Beston Maonga4
Sheila Okoth7Rogerio Chiulele8
Hussaini Makun9
Agnes Mwangwela5Emmanuel Kaunda5Levis Eneya10Patrick Okori11- 1FoodPlus Research Group, Faculty of Life Sciences and Natural Resources, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR), Lilongwe, Malawi
- 2Faculty of Agriculture, LUANAR, Lilongwe, Malawi
- 3Centre for Resilient Agri-Food Systems (CRAFS), University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi
- 4Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Bunda College, LUANAR, Lilongwe, Malawi
- 5University Office, LUANAR, Lilongwe, Malawi
- 6The Africa Center of Excellence in Transformative Agriculture Commercialization and Entrepreneurship (TACE), LUANAR, Lilongwe, Malawi
- 7Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
- 8Centre of Excellence in Agri-Food Systems and Nutrition, University Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique
- 9Africa Centre of Excellence for Mycotoxin and Food Safety, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria
- 10School of Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi
- 11RUFORUM Secretariat, Makerere University Main Campus, Wandegeya, Kampala, Uganda
Graduate research in Sub-Saharan Africa remains fragmented, largely driven by student-initiated topics that often lack alignment with institutional expertise or national development priorities. This model represents a missed opportunity to harness graduate education as a strategic tool for innovation and policy-relevant knowledge production. This paper calls for a structural shift toward faculty-led research ecosystems. In this model, graduate students, regardless of funding source, are embedded in ongoing thematic research hubs. Students contribute to faculty-defined agendas through structured proposal incubation and interdisciplinary co-supervision, ensuring coherence, quality, and applied relevance. The paper outlines reforms needed to support this shift, including institutional incentives for mentorship, integration of supervision into quality assurance systems, and funding frameworks that prioritize collaborative and development-linked research. A faculty-led approach offers a scalable and contextually grounded pathway to elevate research capacity, enhance developmental impact, and reposition graduate education at the heart of Africa’s knowledge economies.
1 Introduction
Graduate research in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) faces significant challenges due to its distinct model, which often requires students to independently develop their research proposals without the support of structured research groups or alignment with institutional research agendas (Coker-Kolo, 2023; Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014; Mabasa and Makondo, 2024; Ayee, 2023). This model contrasts sharply with the more integrated and resource-rich environments found in developed countries. The challenges in SSA are compounded by limited funding (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014; Bharadwaj et al., 2025), inconsistent supervision (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014), and weak research infrastructure (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014; Omoya et al., 2025), which collectively impact research training outcomes and institutional coherence (Catlow and Pickett, 2024; Mohamedbhai, 2014).
SSA contributes less than 1% of global scientific research output, despite accounting for over 14% of the world’s population, highlighting a significant underutilization of its intellectual capital (Akudinobi and Kilmarx, 2022; Confraria and Godinho, 2015). This quantitatively captured disparity is also observed as deeply structural, reflecting challenges in research governance, capacity development, and policy alignment across the continent (Cronjé et al., 2015; Sooryamoorthy, 2023). The uneven distribution of research output, among African countries, with countries like South Africa, Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria, and Algeria dominating publication metrics while many others lag behind, further exacerbates this imbalance (Mouton et al., 2008; Sooryamoorthy, 2018). To address these challenges, strategic investment in collaborative, institutionally anchored, and thematically focused research ecosystems is crucial for fostering equity, enhancing productivity, and advancing sustainable development outcomes in the region (Akudinobi and Kilmarx, 2022; Confraria and Godinho, 2015).
This perspective analyzes the Sub-Saharan African graduate research model in relation to global approaches, highlighting key strengths and limitations to uncover the structural barriers that constrain research productivity in the region. It asks: how can SSA institutions reconfigure graduate research to improve alignment with national priorities, strengthen mentorship, and foster innovation? The paper proposes a pragmatic reform framework aimed at transitioning SSA graduate education toward a more structured, thematically organized, and impact-oriented model. By articulating actionable strategies for institutional and policy change, the paper contributes to the broader discourse on higher education reform and the role of graduate training in driving inclusive development across the continent.
2 Challenges of the current graduate research paradigm in SSA
In SSA students virtually enter their programs without integration into established research laboratories or externally funded projects (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014). In this region, graduate research emphasizes early academic autonomy, where students independently identify research questions and design proposals, often with minimal institutional support (Oliinyk, 2024). Professors often act as academic supervisors rather than principal investigators, primarily due to heavy teaching loads and administrative responsibilities, which limits their capacity to lead grant-funded research agendas and build coherent research programs (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014). Furthermore, weak institutional incentives for research leadership and inadequate financial support hinders the development of research clusters and centers of excellence and hence discourage sustained engagement in long-term research initiatives (Atuahene, 2011; Sawyerr, 2004). This situation results in graduate research efforts that are often redundant, poorly aligned with institutional missions, and disconnected from national development priorities (Atibuni, 2020; Sharma and Gupta, 2025; Blair et al., 2020; Iwara, 2023; Omoya et al., 2025).
Faculty members often supervise students research thesis projects outside their areas of expertise due to limited research engagement and a lack of structured mentoring systems (Clement et al., 2020; Jacobsen et al., 2024). In many institutions, professors receive honoraria for each graduate student they supervise, a practice that often incentivize quantity over quality. Rather than recruiting students based on thematic alignment or shared research interest, some professors take on multiple supervisees primarily to increase their honoraria. This transactional model undermines the integrity of the supervisory relationship, as it does not ensure meaningful academic engagement or mentorship (Rathilall, 2024). It raises a critical question: how can a faculty effectively guide research in a field where they lack both subject-matter expertise and genuine interest? When both student and supervisor are unfamiliar with the topic, supervision becomes peer-like and superficial, weakening the quality of research and prolonging time to graduation (Salk et al., 2019; Stynes and Pathak, 2022).
The lack of reliable laboratory facilities, ICT infrastructure, and field equipment is another major constraint (Atuahene, 2011; Bolu et al., 2022). This is further compounded by broader infrastructure gaps in power supply and telecommunications, which are critical for supporting modern research activities (Calderon et al., 2018).
Limited and unsustainable research funding remains a major challenge undermining the institutionalization of graduate research in SSA. Most African governments allocate less than 0.5% of GDP to research and development, a figure well below the global average, forcing universities to rely heavily on external donor funding (Mohamedbhai, 2014; Akuru, 2019; Lakati and Masibo, 2023; Pakker et al., 2013; Mohamedbhai, 2014). While such funding supports critical research, it often comes with pre-defined priorities that may not align with institutional missions or national development agendas. Without programmatic support from universities, graduate students, many of whom are self-funded, are compelled to independently develop and finance their research projects. This shifts control of the research agenda to individuals rather than institutions, often resulting in fragmented topics that are misaligned with faculty expertise, departmental priorities, or national development goals (Avery and Nordén, 2021; Blair et al., 2020; El-Jardali et al., 2018; Rodny-Gumede, 2018; Iwara, 2023). Faculty, instead of leading coherent, institutionally anchored research agendas, often play a peripheral supervisory role with limited influence over research direction. Faculty, instead of leading coherent, institutionally anchored research agendas, often play a peripheral supervisory role with limited influence over research direction. Additionally, disjointed policy frameworks with limited emphasis on competitive funding, interdisciplinary collaboration, or industry partnerships create a fragmented research landscape where agendas are uncoordinated and ultimately unsustainable.
3 Lessons from thematic research models in high-income countries
Graduate research in high-income countries is often integrated into structured, thematic ecosystems that align with institutional and national innovation priorities (Cheng et al., 2020; Bienen et al., 2018; Graddy-Reed et al., 2017). This model is characterized by faculty-led, externally funded research agendas that provide a cohesive framework for research training and development (Liu, 2024; Bernat et al., 2000; Wishart et al., 2024). Graduate students are typically recruited into these ongoing research programs, where they contribute to team-based objectives and are compensated through research assistantships, recognizing their role as embedded research staff rather than peripheral learners (Göransson et al., 2016; Liu, 2024; Zhao, 2024; Hunter, 2022; Souza, 2014). This approach ensures ownership, operational efficiency, shared access to infrastructure and resources, and professional development through real-world research engagement (Bitsios et al., 2023). Moreover, it facilitates continuity in mentorship and project direction, ensuring that students receive consistent academic guidance and are integrated into collaborative knowledge production processes (Cassell et al., 2022; Hellström et al., 2017).
High-income regions offer several thriving models of doctoral supervision that illustrate how structure and coordination enhance research quality and completion. These models emphasize faculty leadership, collaborative supervision, and thematic alignment between student research and institutional priorities. High-income countries have institutionalized structured supervision models that strengthen mentorship quality, thematic alignment, and institutional coherence in doctoral education. The faculty-led research group model, common in the United States and Europe, embeds students within research teams led by principal investigators who coordinate supervision through project-based collaboration and regular lab meetings, ensuring topic coherence and continuous feedback (Wichmann-Hansen and Herrmann, 2017; Bao et al., 2018; Hasgall et al., 2019). The cohort-based supervision model, used in the United Kingdom and Australia, organizes students into thematic clusters under multiple supervisors, promoting peer learning, supervisory continuity, and collective accountability (Wrigley et al., 2021).
The structural disparities between Sub-Saharan Africa and high-income regions reveal how systemic organization, funding, and faculty engagement shape postgraduate research outcomes. While SSA systems remain largely student-driven and fragmented, high-income regions have institutionalized faculty-led, theme-based, and well-funded ecosystems.
The foundational contrasts underpinning differences in research productivity, supervision quality, and institutional coherence emerge clearly from these key distinctions, as summarized in Table 1. These structural differences motivate a rethinking of how graduate research is organized in SSA.
Table 1. Contrasting postgraduate research systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and high-income regions.
4 Designing a faculty-led, thematic graduate research model for SSA
To resolve the structural weaknesses outlined above, we propose a faculty-led, thematic framework for organizing graduate research in SSA. In this model, academic departments define strategic research themes that reflect institutional priorities and ongoing faculty-led projects. Graduate students are admitted based on academic merit, without needing to submit self-designed proposals; instead, they are required to provide a motivation statement indicating their interest in joining the departmental graduate program and aligning with one or more of the advertised faculty research themes. After admission, they select a theme and are assigned a main supervisor already working within that area. Together, they co-develop a specific research focus during an incubation phase, ensuring it contributes to the broader program. The main supervisor then recruits co-supervisors based on disciplinary relevance and team compatibility, drawing from both internal and external experts as needed. Once the research focus and supervisory team are finalized, the student submits them for formal approval by the departmental graduate committee. This framework ensures that all graduate research, whether self-funded or not, is embedded in coherent institutional programs, enhances the quality of mentorship, and re-establishes academic leadership in shaping research aligned with long-term developmental goals (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Proposed flow of faculty-led, thematic graduate research engagement in sub-Saharan Africa.
5 Discussion
Despite decades of investment in expanding postgraduate education across SSA, graduate research systems remain fragmented, overly individualized, and disconnected from institutional or national development priorities. This paper has argued for a shift from student-driven, self-financed projects to faculty-led, thematically aligned research ecosystems. The proposed model positions faculty as the drivers of research direction while embedding students into ongoing, multidisciplinary hubs. This section outlines key strategies for operationalizing this model, focusing on strengthening supervision systems, building inclusive research ecosystems, and enhancing institutional capacity.
5.1 Strengthening graduate supervision systems
To operationalize the proposed model, graduate supervision must be professionalized and explicitly recognized as a core academic responsibility. Although fundamental to postgraduate training, supervision is often treated informally across institutions. Structured mentorship training is especially crucial for early-career academics who may lack prior experience. Drawing on international co-supervision models, such training should address inclusive practices, research ethics, intellectual ownership, and the cultivation of independent scholarship (Robertson, 2025). Once supervision is formally institutionalized, quality assurance frameworks should be extended to include it, enabling monitoring through student feedback, progress tracking, and completion timelines (Golding and Kapenda, 2024). This would support accountability, promote consistent mentorship, and justify performance-based incentives such as promotion and professional development. Early-career academics could first be embedded in research groups before being assigned supervisory roles.
Co-supervision models that draw on diverse disciplinary expertise can further strengthen this ecosystem. When faculty from complementary fields collaboratively mentor students, the quality and scope of guidance improve, particularly in interdisciplinary and applied research. Such models are widely implemented in high-performing academic systems and are increasingly recognized for their role in enhancing mentorship, especially in interdisciplinary and applied research contexts (Robertson, 2025). However, to ensure coherence and effectiveness, the inclusion of co-supervisors should be determined by the lead supervisor rather than imposed arbitrarily by departments. This approach respects disciplinary alignment and promotes supervisory chemistry, which is vital for productive collaboration and consistent guidance. Co-supervision should not be treated as a procedural requirement but as a substantive, collaborative engagement with clearly defined roles, joint supervisory meetings, and shared accountability for student progress. Beyond academic advantages, this structure expands students’ professional networks and enriches their capacity to frame problems, interpret data, and disseminate findings across contexts. Institutional policies should mandate and support co-supervision, especially for research aligned with national development priorities or cross-sectoral innovation agendas.
5.2 Building inclusive and collaborative research ecosystems
A proposed faculty-led model, where institutional mentorship and resource pooling are embedded, can build on existing initiatives rather than starting from scratch. Across SSA, efforts such as regional graduate centers (Hayward and Ncayiyana, 2014), field attachment programs like RUFORUM (Egeru et al., 2016), and specialized training networks such as SSACAB (Chirwa et al., 2020) already demonstrate context-sensitive approaches to research capacity building. These initiatives provide critical foundations for broader institutionalization of faculty-led research ecosystems. To fully realize their potential, graduate participation must be both inclusive and strategic. Entire graduate cohorts may be mobilized around pressing and faculty-defined thematic challenges, such as climate shocks or public health emergencies, where coordinated cohort-based research enables timely and scalable problem-solving (Blashki, 2016; Garcia et al., 2024). This mirrors successful models seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, where unified academic responses produced innovative solutions through interdisciplinary collaboration and shared accountability (Garcia et al., 2024; Tonti, 2023).
5.3 Investing in infrastructure and faculty capacity
To sustain the proposed model, universities must prioritize faculty engagement by offering performance-based incentives, reducing teaching loads, and providing institutional support for grant writing and research management (Howard et al., 2023; Rom, 2023). National and regional policies should complement these efforts through development-linked funding mechanisms that emphasize applied, interdisciplinary research. In addition, governments, industries, and research councils must co-invest in co-supervised graduate programs that integrate academic rigor with practical outcomes, ensuring that research findings are translated into actionable interventions and innovations (El Hassan, 2024). This alignment of research with implementation pathways not only boosts impact but also attracts external partnerships and funding.
While the proposed model holds strategic promise, its success depends on addressing entrenched academic structures and fragmented institutional cultures. Interdisciplinary research often encounters resistance due to rigid departmental silos and evaluation systems that reward specialization rather than collaboration. This environment makes it more difficult for faculty to receive recognition or advance professionally (Friedman, 2013; Singh, 2023; Szostak, 2024; Bammer, 2017; Singh, 2023; Wiersma, 2013). Funding agencies frequently favor conventional proposals, further complicating support for cross-cutting initiatives, especially when expectations and budgets must be coordinated across departments (Earnshaw, 2020; Mirmohammadi et al., 2024). These institutional and epistemological barriers are compounded by disciplinary norms that limit collaboration across sectors. Overcoming these challenges will require consistent investment in interdisciplinary training, professional development, and incentive systems that value and reward collaborative research (Bammer, 2017; Singh, 2023; Koroleva and Tomasova, 2024).
To operationalize this model, universities must invest in both the physical infrastructure and leadership capacity required to sustain faculty-led, programmatic research ecosystems. Public and donor funding should prioritize capital investment in research infrastructure and treat it as a vital component of national development, comparable to roads, energy, or health systems (Daniels et al., 2022; Darley and Luethge, 2016; Bharadwaj et al., 2025). Universities should establish research hubs that bring together mentorship, data systems, and thematic expertise. These hubs would create shared spaces where graduate students and faculty collaborate on interdisciplinary and applied projects (Kasprowicz et al., 2020; Paina et al., 2013). They should also serve as platforms for building skills in grant writing, data stewardship, and research communication. While infrastructure provides the physical backbone for research ecosystems, it must be complemented by sustained human capital development. Faculty, especially early-career academics, need the leadership and project management skills required to lead complex, multi-year research initiatives. Institutional support, including leadership fellowships, capacity-building programs, and senior mentorship, is essential to cultivate this expertise and drive long-term research innovation (Jackson et al., 2022; Nchinda, 2002).
6 Conclusion
To move from promise to performance, institutions must reimagine graduate research not as a peripheral academic pursuit, but as a central engine for Africa’s development. Despite the expansion of postgraduate education in SSA, research remains constrained by fragmented training models, limited supervision capacity, inadequate infrastructure, and insufficient alignment with national development priorities. These systemic weaknesses have undermined research quality, slowed scholarly output, and diminished the contribution of African universities to both global knowledge production and local innovation.
In the coming years, strengthening postgraduate research in Sub-Saharan Africa will require coordinated and forward-looking reforms. Universities will need to establish faculty-led thematic programs that connect student research with institutional missions and national development priorities. Supervisors will have to undergo structured mentorship training and peer-support initiatives to ensure consistent guidance and accountability. Governments and funding agencies will prioritize sustained research investment and infrastructure that enables collaborative, data-driven scholarship. Collectively, these measures will build a coherent, faculty-driven graduate research ecosystem capable of producing skilled researchers, advancing innovation, and driving inclusive development across the region.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
This manuscript does not involve any research with human participants, animals, or sensitive data requiring ethical approval. It is a conceptual and policy-focused analysis based on secondary sources and institutional practices. All sources and citations have been duly acknowledged. The authors affirm that the content adheres to the ethical standards of academic publishing.
Author contributions
LM: Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. PK: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. MM: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SK: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. TG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. SG: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. BM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. SO: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. RC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. HM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. AM: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. EK: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. LE: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. PO: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by the Centre of Excellence in Transformative Agriculture Commercialization (TACE) at Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources (LUANAR).
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Akudinobi, E. A., and Kilmarx, P. H. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of sub-Saharan African and US authorship in publications about sub-Saharan Africa funded by the Fogarty International Center, 2008–2020. BMJ Glob. Health 7:e009466. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2022-009466,
Akuru, U. B. (2019). Research funding issues in African universities: penalties and pathways. J. Sustain. Dev. Stud. 12, 305–327. doi: 10.28924/ip/jsds.1911
Atibuni, D. Z. (2020). Institutional support and student-faculty interaction for postgraduate research engagement. Es. D. Z. Atibuni, Postgraduate research engagement in low resource settings: Emerging research and opportunities (pp. 219–245). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-0264-8.ch012
Atuahene, F. (2011). Re-thinking the missing mission of higher education: an anatomy of the research challenge of African universities. J. Asian Afr. Stud. 46, 321–341. doi: 10.1177/0021909611400017
Avery, H., and Nordén, B. (2021). We Can Only Do It Together: Addressing Global Sustainability Challenges Through a Collaborative Paradigm,” in Universities, Sustainability and Society: Supporting the Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, eds. W. Leal Filho, A. L. Salvia, L. Brandli, U. M. Azeiteiro, and R. Pretorius (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 239–252. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-63399-8_16
Ayee, J. R. A. (2023). “Public sector reform and innovation in sub-Saharan Africa: the case of Ghana,” in Handbook of Public Management in Africa, (Cheltenham Glos: Edward Elgar Publishing), 279–299. doi: 10.4337/9781803929392.00031
Bammer, G. (2017). Should we discipline interdisciplinarity. Palgrave Commun. 3, 1–4. doi: 10.1057/S41599-017-0039-7
Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., and Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process: the reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Stud. High. Educ. 43, 524–541. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1182481
Bernat, A., Teller, P.J., Gates, A., and Delgado, N., 2000. Structuring the student research experience, in: Proceedings of the 5th Annual SIGCSE/SIGCUE ITiCSEconference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. pp. 17–20.
Bharadwaj, H. R., Gaur, A., Ahmed, K. A. H. M., and Dahiya, D. S. (2025). Postgraduate gastroenterology training and continuing medical education in Africa: challenges, opportunities, and future directions. Annals Med. Surg. 87, 8490–8495. doi: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000004075,
Bienen, L., Crespo, C. J., Keller, T. E., and Weinstein, A. R. (2018). Enhancing institutional research capacity: results and lessons from a pilot project program. J Res Adm 49, 64–90. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1194937.pdf
Bitsios, I., Martone, F., Ricci, R., and Arfi, A. (2023). The innovative dimension of the research training programmes under H2020-MSCA-ITN: a methodological approach to track, measure and analyse innovative aspects and provide policy-feedback conclusions. F1000Res 12:1020. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.138482.2,
Blair, E., Watson, D., and Raturi, S., 2020. Graduate research supervision in the developing world: policies, Pedagogies, and Practices. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429282232
Blashki, G. (2016). The big challenge: climate and health. EcoHealth 13, 824–825. doi: 10.1007/S10393-016-1174-0
Bolu, C.A., Domfang, C., Obiazi, A., Falade, F., Musa, T.A., Alinaitwe, H., et al., 2022. Appropriate online Laboratories for Engineering Students in Africa, in: 2022 IEEE IFEES world engineering education forum-global engineering deans council (WEEF-GEDC). IEEE
Calderon, C., Canales, M. C. C., and Chuhan-Pole, P. (2018). Infrastructure development in sub-Saharan Africa: a scorecard. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Cassell, H., Rose, E. S., Moon, T. D., Bello-Manga, H., Aliyu, M. H., and Mutale, W. (2022). Strengthening research capacity through an intensive training program for biomedical investigators from low- and middle-income countries: the Vanderbilt Institute for Research Development and Ethics (VIRDE). BMC Med. Educ. 22:97. doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03162-8,
Catlow, C. R. A., and Pickett, J. (2024). Science and innovation in sub-Saharan Africa: an introduction. Interface Focus 14:20240020. doi: 10.1098/rsfs.2024.0020
Cheng, J. L. C., Love, E. G., and Chhillar, D. (2020). National Innovation Ecosystems in the G-20 countries: institutions, knowledge infrastructure, and firm capabilities. Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3682175
Chirwa, T. F., Matsena Zingoni, Z., Munyewende, P., Manda, S. O., Mwambi, H., Kandala, N.-B., et al. (2020). Developing excellence in biostatistics leadership, training and science in Africa: how the sub-Saharan Africa consortium for advanced biostatistics (SSACAB) training unites expertise to deliver excellence. AAS Open Res. 3:51. doi: 10.12688/aasopenres.13144.2,
Clement, L., Leung, K. N., Lewis, J. B., and Saul, N. M. (2020). The supervisory role of life science research faculty: the missing link to diversifying the academic workforce? J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ. 21:10. doi: 10.1128/JMBE.V21I1.1911,
Coker-Kolo, D. (2023). Doctoral training and higher education in Africa by Christine Scherer and R. Sooryamoorthy (review). J. Glob. South Stud. 40, 456–459. doi: 10.1353/gss.2023.a917377
Confraria, H., and Godinho, M. M. (2015). The impact of African science: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 102, 1241–1268. doi: 10.1007/S11192-014-1463-8
Cronjé, F., van Wyk, J., Losango, J. D., and Lule, S. (2015). Social Science Infrastructure: Africa. Int. Encyclopedia Soc. Behav. Sci, 604–614. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.41083-4
Daniels, C., Mba, J., and Teferra, D. 2022 Mapping research infrastructures to enhance the resilience of science systems in sub-Saharan Africa. Accra. Available online at: https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2efc4e3a-67ef-400f-80dd-0b68ca336e76/content (Accessed January 7, 2026).
Darley, W. K., and Luethge, D. J. (2016). The role of faculty research in the development of a management research and knowledge culture in African educational institutions. Acad. Manage. Learn. Educ. 15, 325–344. doi: 10.5465/amle.2013.0337
Earnshaw, R. A. (2020). Interdisciplinary Research and Development—Opportunities and challenges. Cham: Springer, 373–387.
Egeru, A., Nampala, P., Massa-Makuma, H., Osiru, M., and Ekwamu, A. (2016). Innovating for skills enhancement in agricultural sciences in Africa: the centrality of field attachment programs. Gateways 9, 159–171. doi: 10.5130/IJCRE.V9I1.4868
Hassan, B.M.El, 2024. Climate change and health: preparing for the future. Allied Med. Res. J. 2, 1–3. doi: 10.59564/amrj/02.02/001
El-Jardali, F., Ataya, N., and Fadlallah, R. (2018). Changing roles of universities in the era of SDGs: rising up to the global challenge through institutionalising partnerships with governments and communities. Health Res Policy Syst 16:38. doi: 10.1186/S12961-018-0318-9,
European Commission (2024). Marie Skłodowska-curie actions: Doctoral networks. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Friedman, K. (2013). The challenge of interdisciplinary research. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity & Cognition, (New York, NY, USA: ACM), 11–11. doi: 10.1145/2466627.2485920
Garcia, E., Eckel, S. P., Silva, S., McConnell, R., Johnston, J., Sanders, K. T., et al. (2024). The future of climate health research: an urgent call for equitable action- and solution-oriented science. Environ. Epidemiol. 8:e331. doi: 10.1097/ee9.0000000000000331,
Golding, J., and Kapenda, H. M. (2024). “Doctoral supervision in southern Africa: challenges, achievements, and the way forward” in Doctoral supervision in southern Africa. From Theory to Practice. eds. J. Huisman, M. Tight, and K. Kandiko Howson (Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland), 193–200. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-46899-5_13
Göransson, B., Brundenius, C., and Aguirre-Bastos, C., 2016. Innovation Systems for Development: Making research and innovation in developing countries matter. Lund: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Available online at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/8309453
Graddy-Reed, A., Lanahan, L., and Ross, N. M. V. (2017). Influences of academic institutional factors on R&D funding for graduate students. Sci. Public Policy 44, 834–854. doi: 10.1093/SCIPOL/SCX017
Hasgall, A., Saenen, B., Borrell-Damián, L., and Van der Vaart, R. (2019). Doctoral education in Europe today: Approaches and institutional structures. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association (EUA-CDE).
Hayward, F. M., and Ncayiyana, D. J. (2014). Confronting the challenges of graduate education in sub-Saharan Africa and prospects for the future, 1, 173–216. doi: 10.6017/IJAHE.V1I1.5647
Hellström, T., Jacob, M., and Sjöö, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Sci. Public Policy 44, 599–608. doi: 10.1093/SCIPOL/SCW087
Howard, C., Moineau, G., Poitras, J., Redvers, N., Mahmood, J., Eissa, M., et al. (2023). Seeding a planetary health education revolution: institutional sign-on challenge. The Lancet 402, 2173–2176. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(23)02526-6,
Hunter, G. (2022). Conceptualizing student affairs graduate preparation as activity system(s). Ga. J. Coll. Stud. Aff. 38, 1–26. doi: 10.20429/gcpa.2022.380101
Iwara, I. O. (2023). Research model canvas: a strategic response to graduate dropout in South Africa. E-J. Humanit. Art Soc. Sci. 4, 89–108. doi: 10.38159/ehass.20234149
Jackson, J., Neba, A., Viney, C., Mtwisha, L., de-Graft Aikins, A., Mitchell, A., et al. (2022). Pathways to research leadership for early career researchers in Africa: a potential role for African and global funders. S. Afr. J. High. Educ. 36, 151–172. doi: 10.20853/36-2-4697
Jacobsen, M., Friesen, S., and Becker, S. (2024). Learning doctoral supervision in education: a case study of on-the-job development of effective mentoring practices. Int. J. Doctoral Stud. 19:12. doi: 10.28945/5375
Kasprowicz, V. O., Chopera, D., Waddilove, K. D., Brockman, M. A., Gilmour, J., Hunter, E., et al. (2020). African-led health research and capacity building- is it working? BMC Public Health 20:1104. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08875-3,
Koroleva, D., and Tomasova, D. (2024). Institutional redesign and dynamics of collaborative ties in the educational ecosystem. J. High. Educ. Theory Pract. 24. doi: 10.33423/jhetp.v24i1.6783
Lakati, A. S., and Masibo, P. (2023). A call for African universities to define their research priorities. Lancet Glob. Health 11, e1505–e1506. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00366-2,
Liu, H. (2024). Research on the path to enhancing graduate education quality through new productive forces. World J. Educ. Res. 11:p48. doi: 10.22158/wjer.v11n5p48
Mabasa, F., and Makondo, L. (2024). Fostering innovation in higher education: the symbiotic relationship between postgraduate research and supervision. J. African Educ. 8, 107–116. doi: 10.70875/v8i2article9
Mirmohammadi, H., Fahmy, M. D., Bidabadi, F. S., and Liang, H. (2024). Editorial letter 1. Sci. Hypotheses 1, 1–3. doi: 10.69530/fc49qm51
Mohamedbhai, G. (2014). Promoting developmental research: a challenge for African universities. Journal of Learning for Development 1:n2. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1106113.pdf (Accessed January 7, 2026)
Mouton, J., Boshoff, N., Waal, L.De, Esau, S., Niekerk, D.Van, and Ritter, M., 2008. State of public science in the SADC region. Stellenbosch: Southern African Regional Universities Association. Available online at: https://hedbib.iau-aiu.net/pdf/Towards%20a%20Common%20Future%20SARUA_Chapter4.pdf
Nchinda, T. C. (2002). Research capacity strengthening in the south. Soc. Sci. Med. 54, 1699–1711. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00338-0,
Oliinyk, I. V. (2024). Educational autonomy as an important prerequisite for the formation of future phds’ research competence in the conditions of postgraduate studies. Bull. Alfred Nobel University Series Pedagogy and Psychology 1, 114–122. doi: 10.32342/2522-4115-2024-1-27-13
Omoya, O., Jacob, U. S., and Odeyemi, O. A. (2025). Exploring perspectives: a scoping review of the challenges facing doctoral training in Africa. High. Educ. 89, 1103–1127. doi: 10.1007/s10734-024-01264-4
Owino, E., and Lwala, D. D. (2024). Unified growth: empowering university graduate students through online supervision, collaboration and mentorship 1, 1–2. doi: 10.71060/ptwwth11
Paina, L., Ssengooba, F., Waswa, D., M’Imunya, J. M., and Bennett, S. (2013). How does investment in research training affect the development of research networks and collaborations? Health Res. Policy Syst. 11:18. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-11-18,
Pakker, N. N., Gomo, E., Kyamanywa, P., Mandala, W., Katabira, E., Klatser, P. R., et al. (2013). Research capacity development for Africa: Consolidation, Ownership and Independence. Bull. Netherlands Soc. Tropic. Med. Int. Health 51:4.
Rampersad, G. C. (2015). Building university innovation ecosystems: the role of work integrated learning as a core element in the university-industry nexus. Journal of Research in Business, Economics and Management 4, 231–240. Available online at: http://scitecresearch.com/journals/index.php/jrbem/article/view/323
Rathilall, R. (2024). Transitioning from postgraduate student to postgraduate supervision. in Cultivating Creativity and Navigating Talent Management in Academia, (Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing), 493–518. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3693-6880-0
Robertson, M. J. (2025). Global perspectives on enhancing doctoral co-supervision. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 62, 760–761. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2025.2466312
Rodny-Gumede, Y. (2018). Bridging critical and administrative research paradigms in the interest of a social and politically engaged African research agenda. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 177–194.
Rom, W. N. (2023). Annals of education: teaching climate change and global public health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 21:41. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21010041,
Salk, K. R., Tomaswick, L., and Rober, A. R. (2019). Peer mentoring: the missing piece in graduate professional development. Fine Focus 5, 15–21. doi: 10.33043/FF.5.1.15-21
Sawyerr, A. (2004). African universities and the challenge of research capacity development. J. High. Educ. Afr./Rev. Enseign. Supér. Afr. 2, 213–242. Available online at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24486132 (Accessed January 7, 2026).
Schaeffer, P. R., Fischer, B. B., and de Queiroz, S. R. R. (2018). Beyond education: the role of research universities in innovation ecosystems 12, 50–61. doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2018.2.50.61
Sharma, M., and Gupta, S. (2025). “Research Supervision in African Higher Education,” in Enhancing research output in higher education: research proposals, profiles, and publishing, (Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing), 131–168. doi: 10.4018/979-8-3373-0806-7.ch006
Singh, A. (2023). Challenges of a multidisciplinary approach in higher education. Int. J. Adv. Acad. Stud. 5, 30–32. doi: 10.33545/27068919.2023.v5.i9a.1049
Sooryamoorthy, R. (2018). The production of science in Africa: an analysis of publications in the science disciplines, 2000–2015. Scientometrics 115, 317–349. doi: 10.1007/S11192-018-2675-0
Sooryamoorthy, R. (2023). “Science Production in Africa: Analysis of Scientific Publications,” in Independent Africa, Dependent Science: Scientific Research in Africa, ed. R. Sooryamoorthy (Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore), 63–104. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-5577-0_3
Souza, L. E. P. F. (2014). Graduate studies in health and the entrepreneurial state. Cad. Saude Publica 30, 1599–1600. doi: 10.1590/0102-311XCO020814,
Stynes, P., and Pathak, P., 2022. A research supervision framework for quality and scalability. International Conference on Computer Supported Education 395–403
Szostak, R. (2024). Interdisciplinary and Integrative Research, in The Cambridge Handbook of Research Methods and Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 261–282. doi: 10.1017/9781009000796.013
Waldron, J. J. (2021). Institutional strategies to enhance graduate student success through mentoring. Kinesiol. Rev. 10, 410–415. doi: 10.1123/KR.2021-0049
Wichmann-Hansen, G., and Herrmann, K. J. (2017). Does external funding push doctoral supervisors to be more directive? A large-scale Danish study. High. Educ. 74, 357–376. doi: 10.1007/s10734-016-0052-6
Wiersma, Y. F. (2013). What kind of scientist are you? Science and interdisciplinary research. Scholarly Res. Commun. 5, 1–9. doi: 10.22230/SRC.2014V5N1A135
Wishart, A. E., Boudreau, M. R., and Menzies, A. K. (2024). Graduate student experiences and perspectives related to conducting thesis research within long-term ecological projects. Facets 9, 1–12. doi: 10.1139/facets-2023-0041
Wrigley, C., Kiley, M., Aitchison, C., and Lee, A. (2021). Supervising cohorts of higher degree research students: challenges and possibilities. High. Educ. 81, 1141–1158. doi: 10.1007/s10734-020-00605-3
Xie, H., and Li, Y. (2024). Study of mentor guidance behavior and learning motivation on master’s students’ innovation capability. J. Educ. Educational Res. 9, 426–431. doi: 10.54097/kmrjrw15
Keywords: faculty leadership, faculty-led research, graduate research reform, graduate thesis design, supervision models
Citation: Matumba L, Kumambala P, Monjerezi M, Katengeza S, Gondwe TN, Gondwe S, Maonga B, Okoth S, Chiulele R, Makun H, Mwangwela A, Kaunda E, Eneya L and Okori P (2026) Fixing graduate research in Sub-Saharan Africa: faculty must set the agenda. Front. Educ. 11:1719568. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2026.1719568
Edited by:
Elizabeth S. Rose, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United StatesReviewed by:
Tobi Olajide, University of Ibadan, NigeriaCopyright © 2026 Matumba, Kumambala, Monjerezi, Katengeza, Gondwe, Gondwe, Maonga, Okoth, Chiulele, Makun, Mwangwela, Kaunda, Eneya and Okori. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Limbikani Matumba, bG1hdHVtYmFAbHVhbmFyLmFjLm13