Victoria University Vice Chancellor Lawrence Muganga has reignited a fundamental debate within academia after questioning whether universities have become overly obsessed with publishing research papers at the expense of solving society's most pressing problems.
In a statement that quickly spread across academic and professional circles, Muganga challenged what he described as a culture of counting publications rather than measuring real-world impact.
"To my colleagues in academia, especially the professors. I think the time has come for us to stop counting publications. Right now, it is almost immoral. We are doing a disservice to our country. We should stop counting publications and start building things. We should focus on changing society. We should solve problems, and we should stand up and be counted for that," Muganga said.
He argued that universities should place greater emphasis on innovations, inventions and solutions that directly improve people's lives.
"We should be able to say, 'This is how I am solving society's problems,' not how many publications I have put out there in journals, on the internet, or wherever else. What matters is the impact we make, not the number of papers we publish."
The comments immediately drew responses from scholars, including philosopher and academic Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, who questioned whether publishing and problem-solving should be framed as competing objectives.
"Yes, but are the two mutually exclusive? Can't it be both? Knowledge production is part of problem solving. Perhaps we should say that we need to do more than publishing, but not to give the impression that publication is unnecessary in problem solving," Ssentongo wrote.
Muganga later clarified that he was not dismissing research itself but criticizing a system that rewards publication as an end rather than as a means to innovation and societal transformation.
"I agree, Prof. But such research should aim to create new knowledge that solves existing and anticipated problems, and to drive innovation or invention, not merely to count publications or secure promotion," he responded.
The exchange touches on one of the oldest and most consequential questions in higher education: What is a university ultimately for?
Historically, universities emerged as institutions dedicated to preserving, generating and transmitting knowledge. Medieval institutions such as Bologna, Paris and Oxford were primarily centres of learning, debate and scholarship rather than engines of industrial innovation. Their principal output was knowledge itself.
The modern research university evolved during the 19th century, particularly through the influence of the Humboldtian model developed in Germany, which linked teaching to original research. Under this model, universities became places where new knowledge was created through systematic inquiry and then shared with society through teaching and publication.
The rise of scientific journals transformed this process. Publications became the primary mechanism through which discoveries could be scrutinised, challenged, validated and built upon by other scholars. Peer review emerged as a quality-control system designed to separate rigorous scholarship from unsupported claims.
Following the Second World War, governments increasingly viewed universities as strategic national assets. Research output became linked to technological advancement, economic competitiveness and state investment.
Over time, publication records evolved into key indicators for promotion, tenure, funding allocation and university rankings.
The result was the emergence of what many academics now describe as the "publish or perish" culture.
Under this system, scholars are often assessed through publication counts, citation indexes, journal impact factors and research rankings.
Critics argue that these metrics can encourage quantity over quality and incentivise academics to focus on producing papers that satisfy scholarly requirements rather than addressing urgent societal challenges.
Supporters of reform argue that this problem is particularly acute in developing countries where universities face growing pressure to contribute directly to economic transformation, industrialisation and job creation.
For them, a professor who develops a new agricultural technology, helps improve public health systems, influences national policy or creates a commercially viable innovation may generate greater societal value than one who publishes dozens of journal articles with limited practical application.
Yet many scholars caution against creating a false distinction between knowledge production and societal impact.
Associate Professor Jude Ssempebwa, Dean of Makerere University's East African School of Higher Education Studies and Development, argues that universities and factories perform different but complementary functions within society.
"Notwithstanding their meeting points, it is not for nothing that universities are universities while factories are factories," Ssempebwa said.
He notes that publications themselves are among the most important products universities generate and have historically provided critical inputs for industries, governments, hospitals and businesses.
"Publications are one of the products that come out of universities and they have frequently formed indispensable inputs into the production processes of factories, hospitals, farms, firms and other institutions," he said.
According to Ssempebwa, many of the technologies, policies and business models that eventually transform societies begin as ideas generated through academic inquiry.
"The ideas professors produce may help entrepreneurs and policy makers and implementers. The professors do not have to first leave the libraries or laboratories for this to happen."
His argument reflects a broader understanding of universities as participants in a larger value-creation ecosystem. Knowledge creation, he suggests, is not separate from development but rather one of its foundational inputs.
"Knowledge workers occupy a bona fide node on the value creation chain. The idea that they are better off becoming manufacturers is simplistic," he added.
This perspective aligns with a growing body of international scholarship which argues that the real challenge is not publications themselves but the incentives surrounding them.
Many higher education experts contend that universities should not abandon publication metrics but should broaden the criteria by which academic success is measured. Increasingly, universities around the world are experimenting with models that evaluate research impact alongside traditional scholarly outputs.
In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, research assessment frameworks now consider evidence of policy influence, industry collaboration, commercialisation, community engagement and social impact in addition to publications.
The debate therefore may not be about choosing between publishing and problem-solving but about finding a better balance between the two.
For Uganda, the discussion arrives at a time when universities are under growing pressure to demonstrate their contribution to national development goals. Policymakers want institutions that produce graduates with practical skills, generate innovations that can be commercialised and contribute solutions to challenges ranging from healthcare and agriculture to governance and technology.
At the same time, universities remain custodians of knowledge and intellectual inquiry, functions that cannot be reduced solely to immediate commercial or social outcomes.
Muganga's intervention has therefore touched a deeper question facing higher education globally: should universities primarily be judged by the knowledge they create, or by the visible impact that knowledge has on society?
The emerging consensus among many scholars appears to be that the future lies not in abandoning publications, but in ensuring that research moves beyond academic journals and translates into tangible benefits for communities, industries and governments.
In that sense, the debate is less about whether universities should publish and more about whether publication should remain the ultimate measure of academic success.