General
Guidelines for Online Research Proposal and Thesis Defence
The higher education landscape is rapidly changing, the technological rise of the 21st-century and widespread integration of those technologies into our society, combined with access to the internet has integrally changed graduate research proposal and thesis examination/defence approaches. The rapidly changing landscapes call for a review of the research proposal/thesis examination methods in order to keep up with the times and incorporate integrated technologies into the learning modal, these technologies aren’t going to go away, they’ll continue to be integrated into our society and it’s time to embrace them for the advantages they bring. With the heavy integration of online technologies, the University will be able to improve the teaching and learning processes, information retention, engagement, responsibility and academic integrity.
Virtual and blended approaches have become important because they help to break down the traditional walls of examination, and now with access to present day technologies and resources we can tailor the examination experience to the prevailing conditions.
The Makerere University policy and regulations for the examination of research dissertations and theses provide for three forms of defense, namely, face-to-face; blended; and/or online technology. Traditionally, the Makerere University’s thesis examination policy required that all participants be physically present in the room where the thesis defense is taking place, however, under exceptional circumstances, videoconferencing is permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- The general University regulations governing graduate research proposal and thesis examination/defence will apply (ref. Mak Graduate Hand book available at www.rgt.mak.ac.ug)
- A suitable space and technology for the videoconference should be designated before the proposal and thesis defense. The technology should ensure system stability and quality of sound and image during the examination.
- Contact the Directorate of Information and Communication Technical Services (DICTs) for audio and videoconference technical support for the duration of the defense.
- Inform the Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate Training in advance of an upcoming online research proposal or thesis examination. In this notification letter, the Principal/Dean/Chair should indicate in writing he/she has read and understands the regulations and rules for online examination/defence.
- Videoconference software must be used that allows all participants to see and hear each other during the entire examination/defense.
- Online participants must connect using hardware and network connections that ensure that all participants are visible and audible and that the connection is stable and available throughout the scheduled time of the defense.
- Examination by ordinary cellular telephone (Audio only) is not permitted under any circumstances.
- Conducting a practice run one week prior to the defense to ensure that participants are comfortable using the technology is highly recommended.
- Maintain a good balance between web-conference security (to avoid disruptions, i.e. ‘web-bombing’) and allowing for an open public participation in the defense.
General Considerations
- It is the responsibility of the Department to facilitate the web/teleconference-based defense;
- To ensure that the candidate knows how to use the software platform, the Chair and candidate should conduct a test meeting prior to the defense.
- Virtual research proposal and thesis defenses should adhere to the normal University requirements and procedures as much as possible;
- The candidate and the examiners are encouraged to use a headset to reduce audio feedback, and to use an ethernet connection to the internet instead of WiFi.
- The PhD Thesis defenses are open to the public audiences, and specific video connection instructions will be distributed to the University community in advance of the defense.
- At the discretion of the Chair of the examination committee, a defense in progress may be stopped and rescheduled, ideally within one week if technical difficulties prevent the student, Chair or examiners from participating.
Before the Examination/defense
- The Chair opens the meeting 15 minutes before the scheduled start of the defense. All participants should join the meeting at least 10 minutes before the defense begins.
- The Chair should ensure that late participant arrivals do not distract the candidate once they start their oral presentation. Alternatively, the Chair can lock the meeting after the oral presentation begins.
- At the start of the defense, the Chair will explain the format of the defense, including the time allowed for the oral presentation and set the ground rules for participation.
- It is advisable that the candidate should send their presentation materials to the Supervisor and Chairperson ahead of time in case technical difficulties prevent projecting them during the teleconference.
- To avoid distracting the candidate during their oral presentation, examiners and audience members’ microphones and camera should be turned off.
During the Examination/defense
- The Chair should reminds the candidate and examination committee of the regulations. The Chair could project the slides on behalf of the candidate.
- Audience members can either ask their question via the tool, in which case the Chair can turn on their video and microphone and invite them to interact directly with the candidate.
After the examination/defense
- At the end of the question period, the Chair will ask the audience to leave the meeting and invite the candidate to either leave the meeting or isolate them from the other participants in the “lobby” depending on the software platform used.
- Each examiner will individual assess and score the candidate’s performance. No vote will be recorded for an examiner who was not able to attend the defense. If an examiner must leave early due to technical difficulties, they can be allowed to vote via email at the Chair’s discretion.
- The Chair will ask the examiners to sign the Examination Report. More details on digital signatures shall be provided by the DRGT.
- The Chair will invite the candidate to return to the meeting and inform them of the outcome of the examination/defense.
- If the candidate passes but revision of the thesis is required, the Chair will provide written comments to the candidate. All examiners must agree on the required changes. Optional changes that the candidate should consider prior to submitting the final report to the DRGT.
- If the candidate fails, the Chair will provide written comments on the oral defense performance.
- At the committee’s discretion, the candidate may be given a second attempt to defend the proposal or thesis.
Guidelines and best practices for the Principal/Dean/Chair
In advance of the examination/defense, the Chair
- Consult with the student to select the video conference program to be used. At the time of the defense, the Chair should be the host/point person for any technology difficulties. Please do not leave this to the student, even if Chair is sure the student is more adept at technology.
- Be knowledgeable of the ICT facility especially on how to allow the student to share slides and control the presentation.
- Consider offering a “test run” with the student to ensure that the technology works and that they are comfortable using it to present their findings and answer questions.
- Ensure that the student maintain audio-video connection throughout the examination.
- Be responsible for ensuring that the requirements for online participation are met and that the online participation was uninterrupted or, if interrupted, that the defense was paused until the situation was fully restored.
At the defense
- All participants should be in the examination room at least 15 minutes before the scheduled start time.
- Don’t multitask during the research proposal or thesis defense. Many examiners often do this in the online environment, but this is not a regular online meeting, it is an examination. The student defending has spent years in anticipation of this examination/defense.
- Chair has the authority to discontinue the online defense at any time if they judge that online participation is interfering with the proper conduct of a rigorous and fair defense.
- If one or more participants is dropped from the connection, or if audio is lost, the defense must be paused until the connection is restored. If the connection cannot be restored, the Chair must suspend the defense until it can be rescheduled.
- Chair will introduce the candidate and the examination committee members; just as you would in a live defense (this is also a final check that all the audio/visuals work).
- Put a brief the agenda/rules in the chat window as a reminder of the examination rules.
- Audio-only participation by either the examination committee members and the student is not permitted.
Guidelines and best practices for the candidate/student defending
In advance of the defense
- The student should arrange to distribute all visual materials in advance of the defense
- Make sure you know how to use the chosen video conferencing site (WebEx, Zoom, Microsoft Teams).
- Share your slides with your Supervisor before the start of the defense. Ensuring someone else has them and could potentially share them if necessary is a good back up plan.
- If you have notes or a presentation, practice how you will setup and deliver that beforehand. You may want to arrange your screen so that you can see your committee
- To ensure high quality and full access to web-conference features, the candidate should participate in the defense using a laptop or desktop computer.
- Plan your physical space for the defense to ensure that there is enough light so that you can be seen without a shadow; avoid glare, shadows, or an overly cluttered backdrop, and Use headphones is encouraged, to reduce any potential background noise.
At the defense
- When delivering the presentation, sit and be sure that your webcam has a good shot of you from the shoulders up. In a live defense, you would probably be standing, but that will not work here since you will not be as clearly visible.
- Even though you are, sitting and you are communicating via videoconference, your gestures and nonverbal communication still matter. Just as in a face-to-face examination, practice to avoid all those verbal fillers that may clog your communication.
Guidelines and best Practices for the examination committee members/Panelists
- Do a test run, and consult DICTs and time to arrange the camera and lighting in advance.
- Use your video to the extent that your internet connection allows, rather than a still image or your name.
- Please mute your microphone unless you are speaking.
- The examination committee members evaluate the candidate’s presentation, the quality of the research proposal or thesis as well as the candidate’s response questions.
Guidelines and best practices for the public audience:
- After the defence, examination committee members have completed their rounds of questioning, and if time permits, the audience will have an opportunity to submit questions in writing using the chat feature.
- Please keep the microphone muted at all times.
Troubleshooting
- Ensure there is a back-up phone number for all required participants in case there is a problem with the technology. While University policy does not allow for participation via phone, being able to reach participants by phone can help troubleshoot a solution.
- If all else fails, notify the Director DICTS of the issue by other means (e.g., email, text).
Please follow these directions for planning and conducting an online/virtual proposal or thesis examination. These directions provide procedures and technical guidelines for running a virtual oral research proposal or thesis examination using videoconferencing technology. These directions do not replace the University regulations governing research proposal or thesis examination. Then Chair is responsible for understanding and conducting examination in accordance with the University regulations.
The following recommended directions explain how to set up a video-conference examination, and ensure that the defense runs smoothly and securely.
Process for planning and conducting a videoconference for Graduate Research proposal and Thesis examination/defence
Contact point in case you need further clarification of these regulations and procedures:
The Makerere University Vice Chancellor, Prof. Barnabas Nawangwe has today, Friday, 26th June 2026 handed over the CCE (Complex) Hall of Residence Site to National Enterprise Corporation (NEC) Managing Director and CEO, Lieutenant General James Mugira for renovation and overhaul works. The UGX 12billion Government of Uganda-funded works, expected to be completed within a year, are the fourth project to be undertaken by NEC. They were preceded by; construction of the University Perimeter Wall, Renovation of Lumumba Hall, and Renovation of Mary Stuart Hall.
NEC’s Record Lauded
Prof. Nawangwe in his remarks at the handover ceremony lauded these projects. “The quality of work done by NEC makes us proud because we can finally say that we have Ugandans who can do the things, which we previously depended on foreigners to do.” He therefore thanked the Government of Uganda for fully funding the projects and the First Lady and Minister of Education and Sports, Hon. Janet Museveni, whose visit set the renovation projects in motion.
The Vice Chancellor added that as the Alma mater for most members of both the Contractor and Project Management Teams, this was a moment of great pride as their expertise and skills have saved the country billions of taxpayers’ money. “Thank you for being patriotic”, he commended.
Prof. Nawangwe concluded by noting that CCE Hall, by virtue of its location, provides a first impression of Makerere University as a whole. He therefore urged the contractor to ensure that upon renovation, CCE Hall would create a memorable and lasting first impression, exceeding even that of the renovated Mary Stuart Hall.
A Project Fueled by Nostalgia
Speaking of impressions, Lt. Gen. Mugira, with nostalgia recalled that close to 42 years ago, he not only attended his first lectures in Hall 1 of the CCE Complex but also, on a more personal note added, “my wife was a resident, and so I have every motivation to put in a lot of effort and make sure that I deliver more than was done with Mary Stuart and Lumumba.”
He therefore extended heartfelt appreciation to his Alma mater Makerere University for the trust and confidence bestowed in NEC, which underscored their ability to deliver. “Trust is earned through performance, through integrity and consistency, and your decision to engage us motivates us to work even harder to exceed your expectations.”
In his remarks, the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Finance and Administration) Prof. Henry Alinaitwe reechoed the need to ensure that the project is executed with adherence to the cost, quality, specifications and safety related issues as earlier shared by the Acting (Ag.) Chief Engineer of Estates and Works, Eng. Ezra Sekadde.
“NEC has already demonstrated this (with previous projects), and that is why we have all the confidence that you can deliver this project within 12 months” remarked Prof. Alinaitwe. He equally lauded the Project Management Team (PMT) led by Arch. Dr. Kenneth Ssemwogerere whose supervision ensures timely project completion.
Relatedly, Arch. Dr. Semwogerere was on 25th June 2026, the eve of the handover, promoted to the rank of Associate Professor, a milestone Prof. Alinaitwe attributed to his track record as Head of PMT. He therefore, on a light note, urged him to keep up the good work as this could equally contribute to his promotion to the rank of full Professor.
Also present at the handover ceremony was the Principal, College of Education and External Studies (CEES) Prof. Anthony Mugagga, whose unit will be greatly affected by the renovations. He nevertheless welcomed and reiterated his full support for the project, noting that just as renovation of Lumumba and Mary Stuart Halls had resulted in many alumni revisiting, the CCE Complex would upon renovation attract former residents and teaching professionals to give back or forge new partnerships.
Student Welfare at the Forefront
On her part, the Dean of Students Dr. Winifred Kabumbuli lauded the renovations of Halls of Residence as a clear demonstration of Government’s dedication to the improvement of student welfare, and creating an environment conducive for nurturing responsible citizens who can contribute to national development. She pledged her Office’s and the Student Leadership’s readiness to ensure that the renovated facilities used responsibly for the benefit of future generations.
As a resident of the recently renovated Mary Stuart Hall, 92nd Guild President H.E. Kadondi Gracious could not help but appreciate how impactful the renovation of CCE Hall would be to student welfare. “The female students will be very excited (to occupy CCE Hall) but the male students will be left complaining – so we shall be expecting more renovations, not just for the female but also the male students,” she amiably concluded.
General
Makerere University Leads EU-Funded MAGNETISE Project to Strengthen Gender Equality in Higher Education Across Sub-Saharan Africa
A consortium of African and European universities has intensified efforts to mainstream gender equality in higher education through the MAGNETISE project, with Makerere University taking a leading role in hosting a high-level workshop that brought together policymakers, researchers, and gender experts to reflect on institutional progress, persistent gaps, and future strategies.
The initiative, focused on Mainstreaming Gender in Higher Education Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa (MAGNETISE), is supported by the European Union and implemented through a multi-country partnership involving institutions in Uganda, South Africa, and Europe. It aims to move beyond policy formulation to practical implementation, monitoring, and institutional accountability in gender equality.
At the heart of the discussions was a shared concern: while universities across the region have developed gender policies over the past decades, translating these frameworks into measurable, lived institutional change remains uneven.
A Consortium Approach to Gender Mainstreaming in Academia
Opening the workshop, held at Makerere University recently, the project lead, Professor James Acai Okwee who is also deputy Principal CoVAB, described MAGNETISE as a collaborative effort designed to strengthen institutional capacity for gender equality planning across higher education systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.
He explained that the consortium includes Ugandan partners such as Makerere University and Muni University, alongside South African institutions including University of KwaZulu-Natal, Rhodes University, and Nelson Mandela University. European partners include Katholieke Hoge school VIVES Zuid (VIVES) and KMOP Policy Centre from Belgium, as well as Research Innovation and Development Lab (ReadLab) and University of Peloponnese. The consortium also includes additional European academic collaboration through the University of Applied Sciences and related policy and research networks.
According to Acai, the core objective is not simply to produce policies, but to ensure universities develop functional gender equality plans supported by implementation tools, monitoring frameworks, and institutional accountability systems.
“We have had policies since the early 2000s, but the real question is: where is the implementation plan, and how do we track progress?” he noted. “If a policy says 40 percent representation for women in leadership, we must be able to measure whether that is being achieved.”
He emphasized that MAGNETISE would support training, capacity-building exchanges with European institutions, student engagement programmes, and the development of a digital knowledge hub for gender equality.
Makerere University’s Institutional Position on Gender Equality
Representing university leadership, Dr. Suzan Mbabazi of Makerere University’s Gender Mainstreaming Directorate reaffirmed the institution’s commitment to advancing gender equality across its academic, research, and community engagement mandate. She highlighted significant progress made over more than two decades, citing policies such as the Gender Equality Policy and the Regulations Against Sexual Harassment, alongside governance frameworks that have institutionalized gender equity. Makerere has also established key structures, including the Institute of Gender and Development Studies and the Gender Mainstreaming Directorate, to coordinate initiatives across faculties. Yet, Dr. Mbabazi cautioned that structural achievements do not erase systemic challenges. “Despite progress globally and locally, we must acknowledge persistent gaps, biases, and inequalities within higher education institutions,” she said, stressing the need to bridge policy and practice. She urged participants to prioritize awareness creation, institutional analysis of existing gaps, and deliberate action to dismantle structural barriers. Reaffirming management’s support, she called for continued collaboration among institutions and stakeholders to sustain momentum in gender mainstreaming.
Preliminary Survey Findings Reveal Mixed Progress
Presenting the initial findings of a university-wide survey, Dr. Peace Musiimenta of the School of Women and Gender Studies at Makerere University revealed that responses from 82 participants across various units highlight both progress and persistent challenges in advancing gender equality. While many acknowledged strides in gender mainstreaming, structural and cultural barriers remain entrenched. The study found that although gender policies exist, their implementation is often inconsistent, and initiatives risk being treated as isolated projects rather than integrated institutional practices. Dr. Musiimenta noted that some staff perceive gender programs as overly focused on women, fueling resistance and ideological tensions within academic spaces. She emphasized that the challenge is no longer the absence of policy but the need to ensure visibility, ownership, and effective application of existing frameworks to embed gender equality across the institution.
Gender Audit Highlights Structural Gaps and Progress
Expanding on the institutional audit, Dr. Florence Ebila outlined the methodology and preliminary findings of the gender audit conducted between May and June 2026.She explained that the audit examined institutional policies, governance systems, practices, organizational culture, and perceptions of gender equality.
The study drew data from multiple administrative units including human resources, academic registrars, estates and works departments, and student leadership structures. Ebila reported that Makerere University has made significant institutional progress, including the establishment of gender-focused units and integration of gender considerations into teaching, research, and governance. However, she identified persistent disparities in representation, particularly in science-related disciplines where male staff and students remain dominant.
She also highlighted infrastructural gaps, noting that while newer buildings are increasingly accessible, several older facilities lack adequate support for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.
Another concern raised was limited gender-responsive budgeting, with insufficient allocation of resources to sustain gender mainstreaming activities across all units. “The challenge is not just policy design, but operationalization at all levels of the institution,” she said.
Gender, Identity, and Institutional Culture: A Critical Reflection
A keynote reflection by Dr Josephine Ahikire introduced a deeper theoretical lens to the discussion, situating gender mainstreaming within broader questions of institutional power, identity, and cultural norms.
Ahikire emphasized that gender mainstreaming is not a technical exercise but a structural transformation process that challenges entrenched systems of privilege.
She used the example of Makerere University’s centenary monument, where a male graduate is prominently positioned in front view while a female graduate is placed at the rear, to illustrate how symbolic representations can reflect deeper institutional biases.
“What appears natural often hides embedded inequality,” she argued. “Even symbolic structures matter because they reflect how institutions imagine gender.”
Ahikire acknowledged Makerere University’s progress in policy development and institutional frameworks but cautioned that deeper cultural transformation is still required.
She emphasized the need to interrogate curriculum design, research systems, and informal institutional practices that may perpetuate inequality despite formal commitments to inclusion.
She further argued that gender discourse must retain its political dimension, noting that terms such as feminism should not be avoided but engaged critically in order to address structural inequality.
“Gender equality work is not about comfort,” she said. “It is about questioning established norms and rethinking how power is distributed.”
Institutional Achievements and Remaining Challenges
Across presentations, several common themes emerged.
Participants acknowledged that Makerere University has developed one of the most advanced gender mainstreaming frameworks in the region, including:
- A dedicated gender equality policy framework
- Sexual harassment regulations and safeguarding policies
- Institutional gender mainstreaming structures
- Student engagement programmes and gender clubs
- Scholarships supporting women in science and disadvantaged backgrounds
- Increasing integration of gender into teaching and research
However, speakers consistently highlighted persistent challenges, including:
- Limited implementation of gender policies at departmental level
- Uneven representation of women in senior academic ranks
- Infrastructure gaps affecting accessibility and inclusion
- Weak gender-responsive budgeting mechanisms
- Resistance and misunderstanding of gender equality concepts
- Fragmentation of gender work across isolated units
Towards a Comprehensive Gender Equality Plan
A key outcome of the MAGNETISE project is the development of a comprehensive institutional gender equality plan for Makerere University, supported by monitoring tools and a sustainability framework.
The plan is expected to consolidate existing policies into a coherent implementation strategy, linking institutional commitments to measurable outcomes.
It will also include a handbook for monitoring gender equality initiatives and a digital platform for knowledge sharing among students and staff.
Project leaders emphasized that sustainability will depend on institutional ownership beyond donor funding, particularly through integration into university governance systems.
A Continuing Institutional Journey
The workshop concluded with a shared recognition that gender equality in higher education remains a work in progress, requiring sustained institutional commitment, cultural transformation, and accountability mechanisms.
While Makerere University has made notable progress over the past decades, speakers agreed that the next phase of gender mainstreaming must focus on implementation, visibility, and structural change.
As the MAGNETISE project continues across partner institutions in Africa and Europe, it positions itself not only as a research initiative, but as a long-term institutional reform effort aimed at reshaping how universities understand and operationalize gender equality in higher education.
-
Law2 weeks agoMakerere hosts Chief Justices of Zambia and Uganda
-
General5 days agoMakerere University Set to Develop Curriculum to Transform Graduate Supervision and Mentorship
-
Business & Management1 week agoMakerere Vice Chancellor tasks CoBAMS to Change Africa’s research trajectory through graduate training
-
General5 days agoRevised Advertisement for Positions of Principal and Deputy Principal at Makerere University
-
Education5 days agoMakerere University Signs MoU with Fukui University to enhance Research, Teacher Development and STEM Education