By Sourajit Aiyer
Sourajit Aiyer is a researcher for the South Asia Fast Track
In recent months, I have attended few academic conferences in India and abroad to present my working papers. Most of them were events by top-ranked institutions. Such events are now frequent as they help academicians garner performance scores. For measuring research, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) looks at criteria like faculty publications, facilities, activities, resource mobilisation, consultancy, extension activities and collaboration. But the points on quality seem inadequate. In the events I attended, it was not tough to see why the quality of India’s research output is still mostly below-par. I am from the industry myself and not from academics, so that helped me take an outside-in view. Below are the observations on why the quality lags, and suggestions thereof!
Should relevance be measured disproportionately?
While the current performance scores capture if an academician published or presented a paper, it still raises two questions. First, should scores be disproportionately based on reaching a threshold number of citations as a percent of papers published? After all, citations indicate the research’s relevance and applicability. It is now one of the several items in the scoring criteria, however, scoring it disproportionately could push quality further. In a lot of paper-presentations, the literature-review section included mostly Western names. Not just the West, the ISTI report globally ranks China in the second position in citations vs India’s 14th; with a higher citation to paper ratio to China. Research quality is one reason why Chinese universities are ranked amongst the Top-50, globally, as per QS World Rankings.
Second, should scores be disproportionately given if a paper is published in only a top-ranked journal or presented in a top-ranked university? Since popular rankings that are used as a benchmark run into several-hundreds, one might expect below-par quality in the lower-ranked ones. Academic performance scorers can learn from corporates on both these questions, wherein managers give a periodic review of their projects to show the key-accounts they cracked as well as the continuity of results from their past projects. That stringency helps push quality.
Should utilisation be measured disproportionately?
Every research should have a utility to citizens, if not to justify its grant. Broadly speaking, the motive of any research is to test a hypothesis, contribute insights and ideas to policy-makers to devise solutions or break new-ground with innovations. However, in most paper-presentations, the question that often arises is—what next? Should most discussions end with the presenting/publishing of that paper or should there be a conference to show what became of the papers presented in the previous event, to highlight the on-ground utility that research had?
In any case, a lot of papers deal with correlation and regression of data using fancy statistical software. That is useful, but what next? Did it eventually solve a real-life problem or help in thinking the next-big-thing? Or did it just occupy a few minutes and pages in an event and journal? This questions the need to measure the follow-ups done by that researcher to ensure its eventual utility in solving a problem. Measuring long-term utility may be outside the realm of current academic systems, but a nation like India, with its specific development situation, needs a lot of innovative solutions and support. Otherwise, the crores of grants spent would not yield benefits for citizens. Again, academic scorers can learn from corporates, where people give detailed item-wise utilisation and result from their budgets. This helps ensure the utility of the investment.
Should participation be measured disproportionately?
In most events, a lot of participants involve themselves only for their 20-minute presentations, which can be even minimal at other times. Most questions came from the chair or the professors, rather than presenters. Since asking questions means one is critically analysing new topics which can add value, should scores disproportionately measure the meaningful questions asked by a participant not just include the presentation that he made? It is seen quite often that the host-students sit through the presentations at the foreign universities; however, they were mostly missing in the Indian events. This is a big worry for building the next-generation of researchers in India.
Multi-disciplinary conferences are now picking up as problem-solving often needs insights from various perspectives. However, with a lesser degree of participation to give feedback, it negates the very objective of such conferences. Participation is also about external outreach. A lot of times, academicians and industry professionals do not interact as much as they should; more so when initiating research on a new topic. For instance, when a PhD student in a top-ranked Indian public university explained her dissertation – why low-income women who took gold loans didn’t take equities, I held myself from saying had she given me an initial call, she could have saved three years of research and the government three years of grants. Should the interactions a researcher did with industry or policy-makers be measured disproportionately before they start on a new topic?
These are some observations from attending academic events in India and abroad about why our research quality still lags. The observations have been worded as suggestions to urge corrective action. One can debate anecdotal evidence as a one-off, but the quality issue does remain. NAAC has made an extensive list of criteria, but it should also tweak some of them. That may reduce the quantity of research, but might improve its quality!
Original source: India’s Opinion
Stay updated with all the insights.
Navigate news, 1 email day.
Subscribe to Qrius