The Ghana Institute of Management and Public Administration has firmly rejected allegations that it’s frustrating PhD candidates, insisting it won’t compromise academic standards even as doctoral students complain about barriers to graduation.
In a press release signed by Rector Professor Samuel Kwaku Bonsu, GIMPA described recent media reports as “misleading, unfair and lacking full context,” defending its rigorous doctoral process against claims that management is preventing students from the School of Public Service and Governance from completing their degrees.
The dispute centers on an ad hoc committee introduced by the Academic Board to vet student papers before public presentations. While SPSG doctoral students view this as managerial interference that delays their progress, GIMPA characterizes it as essential quality assurance that’s standard academic practice.
“The ad hoc Committee gives feedback to students and supervisors towards improvement of their work,” the institute stated, noting that all other schools within GIMPA have accepted this peer review mechanism without complaint. It’s only the SPSG students who perceive the additional vetting as a barrier rather than support.
The PhD students have petitioned the institute’s governing council, claiming administrative interference is blocking their progress, but GIMPA’s position is that a doctorate isn’t a race against time. It’s a rigorous process of producing original, high-quality research, and shortcuts aren’t acceptable regardless of student frustration.
Management expressed that it was “quite unfortunate” that SPSG students alone see quality control measures as obstacles. The institute confirmed awareness of the petition and said it will await the Governing Council’s outcome, but made clear that its standards won’t budge in the meantime.
“Management wishes to state that GIMPA cannot compromise on our academic integrity by graduating students who have not met the quality standards of a PhD programme,” the release clarified. The institute emphasized that core quality standards have remained unchanged since the programme launched in 2015, suggesting students knew what they were signing up for.
What makes this dispute interesting is the tension between institutional quality control and student expectations about timelines. PhD programmes worldwide struggle with completion rates and extended timelines, but students paying tuition and investing years of their lives naturally want clear pathways to graduation.
From GIMPA’s perspective, introducing an additional review layer before public presentations protects both the institution’s reputation and ensures candidates present work that meets doctoral standards. From students’ perspective, it’s another hurdle that wasn’t part of the original programme structure and delays already lengthy completion timelines.
The fact that other schools within GIMPA have accepted the ad hoc committee without complaint suggests either that SPSG students face unique challenges or that they’re more willing to voice concerns about what they perceive as changing goalposts. Academic institutions often introduce quality control measures that students experience as barriers, even when faculty view them as necessary safeguards.
GIMPA’s release concluded by reinforcing commitment to “producing world-class doctoral graduates” and standing for “rigour, integrity and relevance in research,” while promising necessary support for deserving students to succeed. That last phrase, “deserving students,” carries weight. It implies that some candidates may not meet standards regardless of how much time they’ve invested.
The dispute highlights broader questions about academic standards, student expectations, and institutional accountability. Should PhD programmes maintain fixed standards even if completion rates suffer? Or should quality control adapt to ensure students who’ve invested years and substantial tuition fees have realistic pathways to graduation?
For now, GIMPA has drawn its line. The institute won’t lower standards to accommodate complaints, and students who can’t meet requirements won’t graduate regardless of petitions. Whether the Governing Council upholds that stance or finds middle ground remains to be seen.
What’s clear is that this isn’t just about GIMPA’s reputation. It’s about whether Ghanaian institutions can maintain rigorous doctoral standards while managing reasonable student expectations about completion timelines and transparent requirements. Other universities watching this dispute will be paying attention to how GIMPA’s Governing Council responds.
The coming weeks should reveal whether the petition leads to procedural changes, whether students accept existing standards, or whether this becomes a protracted dispute about academic integrity versus institutional flexibility. For doctoral candidates caught in the middle, the uncertainty itself becomes another obstacle to the completion they’re desperately seeking.
