- The growing reliance on non-PhD teaching staff signals a gradual shift away from the core academic standards and research-driven mission that define universities.
- Turning transitional academic roles into permanent positions risks weakening teaching quality, limiting research output, and reducing global competitiveness.
- Enforcing clear progression toward PhD attainment, alongside institutional support, is essential to safeguard the integrity and future of higher education.
Walk into any African university today and you will encounter a quiet but defining tension: who truly qualifies to be called “academic staff”? Is it anyone who stands before a class and delivers lectures, or is there a higher threshold that distinguishes a university academic from a mere instructor? Increasingly, the answer is converging toward one qualification—the PhD. However, across the continent, lecture halls, laboratories, and seminar rooms are filled with individuals who do not hold this terminal degree, raising fundamental questions about authenticity, standards, and the future of higher education in Africa.
To understand this debate, one must first appreciate the structure of academic staffing. In Kenyan universities, the hierarchy is well established: Graduate Assistant, Tutorial Fellow, Assistant Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, and finally, Professor at the apex. This ladder is not merely symbolic; it reflects a carefully designed progression of training, competence, and scholarly maturity. At its core lies an implicit principle: universities are spaces of advanced knowledge production, and those who teach within them must embody that intellectual depth. In principle, the system is clear. In practice, it is far more complicated.
Non-PhD academic staff in Kenyan universities fall broadly into three categories: Graduate Assistants (GA), Tutorial Fellows (TF), and Assistant Lecturers (AL). These are, by design, training positions—transitional roles meant to nurture promising individuals into fully-fledged university academics.
Graduate Assistants are typically fresh bachelor’s degree holders recruited under staff development programmes. Their mandate is straightforward: enroll for a master’s degree, grow academically, and progress upward as they support in assorted departmental roles commensurate with their qualification. GA contracts are usually short-term, renewable only a few times, annually. Failure to advance academically should, ideally, result in their exit from the system as an untrainable lot.
Tutorial Fellows represent the next stage. Armed with master’s degrees, they were historically introduced to support overstretched lecturers, particularly during the rapid expansion of university education in the 1990s and 2000s. Their role was not to replace lecturers but to complement them—conducting tutorials, assisting in laboratories, and offering remedial academic support to struggling students. Crucially, this was always understood as a temporary phase. Within three to four years, a TF is expected to complete a PhD. Continued employment is contingent upon demonstrable progress toward that goal. Otherwise, their contracts should go unrenewed at expiry.
Assistant Lecturers, however, present a more complex case. These are master’s degree holders who often join academia from industry or government, supposedly bringing with them valuable practical experience. Their inclusion was meant to bridge the gap between theory and practice, enriching university education with real-world insights. However, over time, this category has evolved into a structural dilemma. In some institutions, ALs are employed on permanent and pensionable terms—conditions that, while attractive, have inadvertently dampened the urgency to pursue doctoral studies. Many enter academia later in life, already professionally accomplished, and see little incentive to undertake the demanding journey toward a PhD. The result is a growing cohort of non-PhD holders who remain in these “transitional” positions indefinitely.
This reality sits uneasily with the foundational rules of university teaching. Traditionally, an academic is expected to teach at least one level below their highest qualification. A bachelor’s degree holder should not lecture undergraduate students; a master’s degree holder should not teach postgraduate classes. These rules are designed to safeguard academic rigour and ensure that students are taught by individuals with deeper mastery of the subject matter. However, across many universities in Africa, these principles have been routinely violated. Staff shortages, expanding student numbers, and the demand for specialized expertise have forced institutions to bend—and sometimes break—these standards. The consequences are not merely procedural; they strike at the heart of what a university represents.
In Kenya, the spirit of the Universities Act 2012 further complicates the picture. The Act envisions universities as institutions dedicated to degree-level training and research. Undergraduate diplomas, in principle, fall under the mandate of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) institutions. Universities in Kenya are only authorized to offer postgraduate diplomas. Yet, in practice, many universities continue to offer degree programmes, often taught by the very non-PhD staff whose academic standing is already under scrutiny. This blurring of institutional mandates and staffing standards creates a system that is both overstretched and internally inconsistent.
Beyond teaching, the limitations of non-PhD academic staff become even more pronounced in the core functions of a university: research, postgraduate supervision and consultancy. A PhD is not merely a certificate; it is evidence of one’s ability to conduct independent, original research. It is the minimum requirement for supervising master’s and doctoral students and for leading funded research projects as a Principal Investigator. Without it, an academic’s role in knowledge production is inherently constrained. Non-PhD holders, regardless of their teaching abilities, cannot fully participate in these critical aspects of university life, making them an incomplete human capital to their host institutions.
A new trend is emerging—one that challenges the very logic of the system. Across African universities, many non-PhD academic staff have become what might be termed “perpetual trainees.” The phrase “ongoing PhD student” has become a permanent feature in academic profiles, sometimes spanning decades. What was intended as a transitional phase has, for some, become a career endpoint. Even more striking is the growing push, often through academic staff unions, to secure permanent and pensionable terms for these transitional positions.
This development raises difficult questions. Can a role designed as a stepping stone be transformed into a permanent destination without undermining the integrity of the academic system? Can universities maintain global competitiveness while normalizing sub-terminal qualifications among their teaching staff?
The argument advanced by proponents of permanency is not without merit. They point to heavy teaching loads, limited funding for doctoral studies, and systemic barriers that make PhD completion difficult. They also emphasize the value of experience, particularly for ALs with extensive industry backgrounds. In a continent striving to expand access to higher education, they argue, flexibility is necessary. But flexibility, if unchecked, can easily become compromise.
The push for permanent and pensionable terms has been further reinforced by a growing trend in which non-PhD academic staff remain in academia for an entire working lifetime—sometimes spanning 40 years or more—ultimately retiring in the same entry or transitional positions. In Kenya, a recent notice dated 2nd March 2026 on the mandatory retirement age for academic staff in public universities, research institutions, and equivalent bodies -brings this reality into sharp focus. The Secretary/CEO of the Public Service Commission, clarified that non-PhD academic staff will retire at 60 years, in line with non-teaching staff. In contrast, PhD holders will benefit from extended retirement ages—65 years for Lecturers and Senior Lecturers, and up to 70 years for Associate Professors and Professors. This policy distinction sends a clear message and is a wakeup call: academic advancement is not optional, and non-PhD academic staff would be wise to treat it as an urgent priority if they wish to serve longer.
The uncomfortable truth is that GAs, TFs, and ALs are not, in the strictest sense, complete academic staff. They are works in progress—individuals on a defined path toward a PhD. To treat them otherwise is to dilute the very meaning of academic qualification. While they may competently deliver lectures, they cannot supervise postgraduate research, lead major grants, or anchor the research mission of the university. In this sense, they risk becoming liabilities rather than assets if their progression stalls.
What, then, is the way forward? A more disciplined approach is urgently needed. Non-PhD academic staff should remain on fixed-term contracts, with clear and enforceable timelines for academic progression. The maximum number of contract renewals should correspond to the standard duration required to obtain the next qualification—two to three years for a master’s degree, and four to five years for a PhD. Beyond this, continued employment without advancement should not be an option. Such a policy would restore the integrity of the training pipeline while preserving opportunities for emerging scholars.
At the same time, universities must address the structural barriers that hinder PhD completion. This includes providing adequate funding, reducing teaching loads for doctoral candidates, and strengthening mentorship systems. The goal should not be punitive enforcement but supportive progression.
Ultimately, the question of who qualifies as a “legitimate” academic is not merely semantic. It goes to the heart of the university’s mission. If universities are to remain centers of excellence, innovation, and critical inquiry, they must uphold the highest standards of academic qualification. In that context, the PhD is not an optional extra; it is the defining threshold. Anything less risks turning universities into glorified teaching colleges—busy, expansive, but intellectually diminished.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Rethinking Quality Assurance in Kenyan Universities
The Author is a Professor of Chemistry at University of Eldoret, a former Vice-Chancellor, and a Higher Education expert and Quality Assurance Consultant. Contact: okothmdo@gmail.com
