Research in Higher Education

In the last few weeks, I read quite a lot of posts on two separate but interdependent issues. The first issue was the relevance of NIRF rankings. The second issue was the state of research in India. The two issues are related because most of the criticism of the NIRF rankings was directed towards the perceived irrelevance of research for the enrolling students. On the other hand, most of the discussion about India’s research was centred on the perceived increase in unethical practices, which in turn was attributed to the focus on research in NIRF and other ranking frameworks. Thus, if we synthesize the content of most original posts, the conclusion emerged that research in Indian higher education sector, especially management, was not required and led to increased unethical practices.

With respect to the first point, I would counter that students are not the only stakeholder in higher education. Education, at all levels, is a social good and hence society is also a stakeholder. By generating new knowledge, research enriches society and hence a holistic framework of the evaluation of education must take into account the research output. Therefore, research is important. However, the importance of research may vary across domains and hence informed discussion should lead to contextual weightage of research across domain. This is in principle opposed to the uniform weightage of research across domains that NIRF prescribes. For example, no ranking framework in the world that I am aware of, except NIRF, accords 30 percent or more weightage to research for ranking management institutions.

The second objection regarding the increased prevalence of unethical processes in research is apparent to anyone in the higher education sector. Buying authorship, rigging the peer-review process and jacking up citations are all regular processes. The prevalence of these processes can be gauged from the fact that the quality (measured through citations) and quantity of publications in India are highly correlated, a finding that flies in the face of common sense. As I believe research is the most noble and sublime activity of humanity, I cannot condone unethical research and agree that this issue needs to be tackled strongly. However, one must remember that before the mandated push for research most Indian academicians had no internal motivation for conducting research.

Given the state of affairs, it is necessary for the mandarins behind the ranking process to thoroughly evaluate the pros and cons of mandating research. It is quite possible that mandated research has not only led to increased unethical processes but also unearthed true advances in knowledge and enabled at least some academicians to rediscover their intellectual curiosity and internal motivation for research. In that case, the mandate may be worthwhile even while taking into account the costs. However given the wide prevalence of misdemeanors in research, the lack of a reckoning cannot be excused.

Ideally, an evaluation of the benefits and costs of mandated research should lead to some recommendations for curbing unethical processes. However, it may so happen that any changes would lead to increased costs, such as reduction in research output and research motivation, that would outweigh benefits in terms of ethicality of research. But the absence of non-action needs to be argued and justified rather than glossed over.

Suggesting institutional changes is easy, especially when one does not have to implement them. Hence, as an academician who takes pride and interest in research, it behooves me not only to suggest institutional changes but also individual-level actions. I personally respect a person as a researcher only if he/she fulfills the following conditions:

1.???? Can identify the boundaries of his/her domain and justify the delineation and demarcation process

2.???? Can justify the epistemic relevance of their research

3.???? Can advance a cogent evaluation of the epistemic contribution of published research

4.???? Is aware of and adheres to ethical standards

If a well-published author of articles cannot adhere to these standards, I do not consider him/her to be a researcher. I consider such people to be publishers. Alternatively, if some one has not been able to publish his/her research but adheres to these standards, I hold the person in high esteem as a researcher. I personally feel that ethical problems in research will mostly disappear if research is primarily recognized, rather than tangibly rewarded.