NITI Aayog

Choose Report Type

Publications

Publication Date

Sat, 06/01/2024 - 15:05

Report Upload

StateUniRnD_FinalReport-Designedv3 (1).pdf (2.68 MB)

vertical

Science & Technology

PDF Text

Improving the Culture of
Research and Development
(R&D) in State Universities
and Institutes Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 3
Improving the Culture of
Research and Development
(R&D) in State Universities
and Institutes Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes A
AUTHORS
Dr. V. K. Saraswat
Member (S&T), NITI Aayog
Shri Surender Mehra
Adviser (S&T), NITI Aayog
Dr. Neeraj Sinha
Former Senior Adviser (S&T), NITI Aayog
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY VERTICAL TEAM
Dr. Ashok A Sonkusare
Deputy Adviser (S&T), NITI Aayog
Dr. Thyagaraju B.M.
Deputy Adviser (S&T), NITI Aayog
Dr. Naman Agrawal
Specialist (S&T), NITI Aayog
Ms Naba Suroor
Associate (S&T), NITI Aayog
Shri Siddhey G Shinde
Young Professional (S&T), NITI Aayog Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes B
List of Figures��B
I. Introduction��01
II. Purpose and Scope of the Report��02
III. Background on the Importance of R&D in Academic Institutions��03
IV. R&D Landscapes in the Global Arena��04
i. Germany��04
ii. Japan��05
iii. Singapore��06
V. Navigating the Evolution from Core Research to Tangible Solutions��08
i. Foundational Research as the Pillar��08
ii. Bridging the Divide with Translational Research�� 08
iii. The Thriving Landscape of Technology Commercialization��08
iv. Policy Support for Propelling Progress��08
v. Real-World Impact��09
VI. Statistics of Universities/Institutions/Colleges in India��10
VII. Revolutionizing Indian Education through the National Education
Policy 2020��11
i. Rethinking Higher Education��11
ii. Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D, as % of GDP��11
iii. Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D, Composition by Sector��12
iv. Quality of Technical Education��12
v. Challenges and Continuous Improvement��14
vi. Guidelines for the Establishment of Research and Development
Cell in Universities and Colleges��14
VIII. Overview and Analytical Insights of the Consultative Exercise��15
IX. Current Status of R&D in State Universities and Institutes��33
i. Overview of the Existing R&D Culture��33
ii. Challenges Faced by Universities/Institutes in Promoting R&D��33
X. Recommendations��39
i. Addressing University/ Institute-level Challenges��39
ii. Addressing State-level Challenges��44
iii. Addressing Central-level Challenges��48
XI. Conclusion��53
XII. Way Forward��54
Table of Contents Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes C
List of Figures
Figure Description
1 Type wise Number of Universities as on 31.03.2022
2 National R&D Expenditure and its Percentage with GDP
3 Composition of GERD as Percentage Contribution by Sector
4 (a)Distribution of Universities in India
4 (b)Distribution of Universities invited to the meetings
4 (c)Distribution of Universities attended the meetings
4 (d)Distribution of Universities responded to the survey on Status of R&D activities
5 State-wise Distribution of Universities and Universities that Attended the meeting
6 Number of R&D Units (log scale) vs Number of Universities in the State/UT
7 (a)PhD Enrolment by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)
7 (b)PhD Enrolment by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
7 (c)PhD Attrition Rate by PhD Enrolment (all Universities responses)
7 (d)PhD Attrition Rate by PhD Enrolment (only State Universities responses)
7 (e)Full Time Equivalent Researchers by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)
7 (f)Full Time Equivalent Researchers by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
8 (a)Research Proposals Submitted and Accepted by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)
8 (b)Research Proposals Submitted and Accepted by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
8 (c)Average Annual Research Funding and Research Funded by State Government by Re-
search Proposals Accepted (all Universities responses)
8 (d)Average Annual Research Funding and Research Funded by State Government by Re-
search Proposals Accepted (only State Universities responses)
8 (e)Total Publications and Publications in TOP25 by Research Proposals Accepted (all Univer-
sities responses)
8 (f)Total Publications and Publications in TOP25 by Research Proposals Accepted (only State
Universities responses)
9 (a)Status of IPR Cell (all Universities responses)
9 (b)Status of IPR Cell (only State Universities responses)
10 (a)Patents Published by Patents Filed (all Universities responses)
10 (b)Patents Published by Patents Filed (only State Universities responses)
10 (c)Patents Granted by Patents Filed (all Universities responses)
10 (d)Patents Granted by Patents Filed (only State Universities responses)
11 Technology commercialization and transfers
12 (a)Innovation / Prototypes supported by the University type (Average per Institute)
12 (b)Copyrights and Designs by University Type (Average per Institute)
13 Formal Collaborations for R&D by University Type Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 1
In the aftermath of India’s independence, a myriad of higher education institutes (HEIs)
sprouted across the nation, setting the stage for academic evolution. Within this landscape,
certain distinguished institutions like the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), the Tata Institute
of Fundamental Research (TIFR), and the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) emerged as
stalwarts of exemplary research. However, the majority of traditional universities, whether
publicly funded or privately owned, despite their extensive numbers and societal outreach,
encountered challenges in producing research of notable quality. This dichotomy between
elite and conventional institutions has given rise to a prevailing sentiment that the overall
research output in India does not align with the country’s lofty aspirations.
In response to this imperative, the Government of India has orchestrated various strategic
initiatives to fortify Research and Development (R&D) in India. These endeavours encom-
pass targeted missions such as the Startup India initiative, the implementation of schemes
like FIST (Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure in Universities and Higher Educational
Institutions), PURSE (Promotion of University Research and Scientific Excellence), and the
establishment of Science and Technology (S&T) clusters. While these measures have yielded
certain improvements, the Global Innovation Index (GII) underscores that, despite progress-
ing from 52 to 40 between 2019 and 2023
1
, India still requires refinement in terms of institutes
and infrastructure. Notably, India exhibits strength in market sophistication but lags in creat-
ing a robust research ecosystem.
The Government’s proactive role extends beyond traditional expectations, encompassing a
multifaceted approach to augmenting the quality of research. This approach aligns with con-
ventional government involvement in basic research, where immediate commercial benefits
may not be apparent, where costs and risks are prohibitive for private sector investment, and
where the focus is on developing public goods essential for areas like public health and ener-
gy. However, a nuanced understanding of the government’s responsibility acknowledges the
imperative of cultivating an enabling ecosystem for research and innovation. This involves
considerations such as funding, education, training, skill development, and support for knowl-
edge creation and dissemination.
This report asserts that India harbors the potential to ascend to the strata of a global leader
in research and development, surpassing mere aspirations. It underscores a discernible imbal-
ance in the demand and supply of quality research output within India, presenting a challenge
that requires redressal to realize the ambition of positioning India as a formidable center for
scientific and technological innovation. Central to this argument is the imperative for the
government to institute compelling incentives for the primary stakeholders – academia, re-
search professionals, and the industry – to actively engage and invest in R&D endeavours. By
fostering a harmonious collaboration among these critical elements, India can pave the way
for a transformative journey towards becoming a forerunner in scientific and technological
innovation on the global stage.
I. Introduction Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 2
The NITI Aayog has recognized the need to strengthen the culture of Research and Devel-
opment in State Universities and Institutes to harness their full potential. This report aims to
provide a comprehensive overview, analysis, and set of recommendations based on insights
gathered from meetings with Vice Chancellors and Heads of such institutions across various
states and union territories.
For this purpose, the NITI Aayog undertook a systematic approach, organizing a structured
sequence of meetings with Vice Chancellors, Heads, and other Senior Representatives from
universities and institutes spanning the length and breadth of India. These consultations were
strategically divided based on geographical regions, including the National Capital Region of
Delhi, the northern, eastern, northeastern, southern, and universities in the western and cen-
tral regions. This comprehensive outreach covered a spectrum of stakeholders, totalling over
110 universities and institutes from all 36 States and Union Territories of India.
The scope of this report encompasses an in-depth examination of the current status of R&D
in State Universities and Institutes, highlighting the challenges impeding its growth. By de-
lineating the existing landscape, the report sets the stage for formulating strategic interven-
tions and policy measures to invigorate the R&D ecosystem in these institutions. It serves as
a roadmap for fostering a vibrant culture of research, innovation, and knowledge creation,
aligning with national aspirations for excellence in the academic and scientific domains.
II. Purpose and Scope
of the Report Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 3
Research and Development (R&D) stands as the cornerstone of academic institutions, serving
as a catalyst for innovation, knowledge advancement, and societal progress. In the dynamic
landscape of education, R&D plays a pivotal role in shaping the future by fostering a culture
of inquiry, experimentation, and discovery. Academic institutions, particularly State Univer-
sities and Institutes, are crucial contributors to the national research ecosystem, possessing
the potential to drive groundbreaking discoveries, technological innovations, and solutions
to pressing challenges.
Understanding “Research”: The dictionary definition of research is, “a careful study of
a subject, especially in order to discover new facts or information about it.”
2
Research
can be broadly categorized into two main types:
Basic or fundamental research: Research that is usually driven by a scientist’s curiosity
to seek unchartered territories in the pursuit of truth, and
Applied research: Utility-driven research for tangible and well-defined deliverables, in-
volving innovations in technology, creating new products, achieving improved control
over systems and developing processes that are efficient and/or cost-effective.
It is important to promote both types of research in order to achieve economic growth
and development from a public policy perspective. Note that the terms ‘Research’ and
‘R&D’ are used interchangeably within this report
The significance of R&D in academic institutions extends beyond the confines of traditional
education. It propels institutions to the forefront of global competitiveness, positioning them
as hubs for cutting-edge research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and intellectual contribu-
tions. As the world undergoes rapid transformations, the role of academic R&D becomes
increasingly crucial in preparing students for the demands of a knowledge-driven society.
2
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/research_1#:~:text=%2Fr%C9%AA%C-
B%88s%C9%9C%CB%90rt%CA%83%2F,facts%20or%20information%20about%20it
III. Background on the
Importance of R&D in
Academic Institutions Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 4
i. Germany
Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD):
A consistent investment of around 3% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is made by Ger-
many in research and development, positioning the country among the top global spenders
in R&D relative to GDP.
Sector Contributions:
• Engineering: Germany is known for its engineering expertise, particularly in automotive
and industrial engineering, where ongoing R&D investments by companies like Volkswa-
gen, BMW, and Siemens drive technological developments.
• Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology: Significant contributions to R&D are made by the
pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors. Companies such as Bayer and Merck actively
engage in healthcare research and biotechnological innovations.
• Renewable Energy: Germany’s focus on sustainability drives R&D efforts in renewable
energy technologies like solar and wind, fostering developments in energy efficiency and
green technologies.
• Information Technology: The IT sector, represented by companies like SAP and Infineon,
contributes to R&D efforts in areas such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and dig-
italization.
Collaboration and Research Networks:
Germany’s R&D landscape relies on collaborations between academia, research institutions,
industries, and government bodies. Initiatives like the Fraunhofer Society, Max Planck Insti-
tutes, and Helmholtz Association facilitate collaboration for applied research and technology
transfer.
International Collaboration:
Germany actively participates in international collaboration, engaging in joint research proj-
ects and collaborations with global partners through programmes like Horizon Europe, en-
abling collaborative research across borders.
Key policies contributing to R&D output by state and higher education in-
stitutions
• Excellence Initiative: Launched in 2005, the Excellence Initiative aims to enhance the
research landscape at German universities. It identifies top-performing institutions and
IV. R&D Landscapes in the
Global Arena Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 5
research clusters, providing additional funding to bolster their research capabilities and
international competitiveness.
• Fraunhofer Society (FhG): The Fraunhofer network comprises applied research institu-
tions collaborating closely with universities and industries. This collaboration facilitates
the translation of research into practical applications, fostering innovation and technolo-
gy transfer.
• Industry-Academia Collaboration: Policies promoting partnerships between universities
and industries drive R&D output. Initiatives like joint research projects, technology trans-
fer programmes, and industry-sponsored chairs facilitate knowledge exchange, leading
to applied research and innovation.
• Strategic Research Funding: Government-sponsored research funding programmes,
such as the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiatives, provide grants
and support for R&D projects in various sectors, encouraging universities and institutions
to pursue innovative research.
• International Collaboration and Networks: Policies supporting international collaborations
and participation in research networks enable German institutions to engage in global re-
search initiatives, fostering knowledge exchange and access to diverse expertise.
• Research Clusters and Centers of Excellence: Germany promotes the establishment of
research clusters and centers of excellence, encouraging collaboration among univer-
sities, research institutions, and industries to focus on specific areas of innovation and
expertise.
ii. Japan
Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D (GERD):
Japan consistently directs a significant portion of its GDP, typically around 3.5%, towards re-
search and development, showcasing a consistent commitment to fostering innovation and
technological progress.
Sector Contributions:
• Electronics and Automotive Technology: Japan is recognized for its contributions to
electronics and automotive technology. Ongoing R&D investments by companies such as
Sony, Toyota, and Honda drive advancements in these sectors.
• Robotics: Japan is a key player in robotics R&D, focusing on innovations in automation
and robotics technology for various industries.
• Biotechnology and Materials Science: R&D efforts in biotechnology and materials sci-
ence contribute significantly to Japan’s innovation landscape.
Policies and Initiatives:
Japan has implemented strategic R&D plans like the Science and Technology Basic Plan, out-
lining long-term objectives and funding priorities to drive innovation. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 6
Policies promoting industry-academia collaboration through joint research ventures, technol-
ogy transfer initiatives, and innovation hubs facilitate knowledge exchange and innovation.
International Collaboration:
Japan actively engages in international collaboration, participating in joint research projects
and partnerships with global counterparts to enhance research outcomes and foster global
innovation.
Key policies contributing to R&D output by state and higher education in-
stitutions
• Science and Technology Basic Plan: Japan’s long-term strategic plan outlines objectives
and funding priorities for R&D. It focuses on driving innovation, fostering collaboration
between academia and industries, and addressing societal challenges through scientific
advancements.
• Industry-Academia Collaboration: Policies promoting partnerships between universities
and industries are instrumental in driving R&D output. Initiatives such as joint research
projects, technology transfer programmes, and industry-academia hubs facilitate knowl-
edge exchange and applied research.
• Government Funding and Grants: Japan provides substantial public funding and grants
to universities and research institutions, encouraging them to pursue innovative projects
and cutting-edge research in various sectors, including technology, healthcare, and envi-
ronmental sciences.
• Strategic Research Initiatives: Japan emphasizes strategic initiatives in key sectors
through programmes like the Moonshot Research and Development Program, focusing
on ambitious technological goals to address societal challenges and drive innovation.
• International Collaboration: Policies promoting international collaborations and partner-
ships enable Japanese institutions to engage in joint research ventures, share expertise,
and access global resources, fostering innovation through diverse perspectives.
iii. Singapore
Research and Development Expenditure:
Singapore directs a significant portion of its GDP, exceeding 2% in recent years, towards R&D
investments, showcasing a commitment to fostering innovation and technological advance-
ment.
Sector Contributions:
• Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals: Singapore’s R&D landscape strongly focuses on
biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, with research initiatives aimed at drug discovery,
biomedical sciences, and healthcare innovation.
• Advanced Manufacturing: R&D efforts in advanced manufacturing technologies drive
Singapore’s competitiveness in areas like precision engineering, materials science, and
additive manufacturing. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 7
• Information and Communication Technology (ICT): The ICT sector contributes to R&D
endeavours focusing on digital innovation, cybersecurity, data analytics, and artificial in-
telligence.
Research Institutions and Innovation Hubs:
Singapore hosts renowned research institutions and innovation hubs like A*STAR (Agency
for Science, Technology, and Research), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and the
National University of Singapore (NUS). These institutions drive cutting-edge research and
foster innovation through collaboration with industries and international partners.
Government Initiatives:
The Research, Innovation, and Enterprise (RIE) plans outline Singapore’s strategic R&D initia-
tives, emphasizing investment in key sectors, talent development, and fostering partnerships
between academia, industries, and research institutions.
International Collaboration:
Singapore actively engages in global research collaborations, partnering with international
institutions, participating in joint projects, and fostering scientific exchange programmes to
leverage global expertise and address complex challenges.
Key policies contributing to R&D output by state and higher education in-
stitutions
• Research, Innovation, and Enterprise (RIE) Plans: The RIE plans outline Singapore’s stra-
tegic vision for R&D, emphasizing investment in key sectors, fostering innovation, and
supporting collaboration between academia, industries, and research institutions.
• Industry-Academia Collaboration: Policies promoting partnerships between universities
and industries drive R&D output. Initiatives such as joint research projects, technology
transfer platforms, and the establishment of innovation hubs facilitate knowledge ex-
change and applied research.
• Government Funding and Grants: Singapore provides substantial public funding and
grants, channeled through agencies like the National Research Foundation (NRF), to sup-
port R&D initiatives, encourage innovation, and attract top research talent.
• Talent Development and Retention: Singapore focuses on talent development by at-
tracting and retaining researchers and scientists through initiatives like scholarships,
grants, and world-class research facilities, fostering a vibrant R&D ecosystem.
• Research Institutes and Innovation Hubs: Singapore hosts renowned research institu-
tions and innovation hubs such as A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology, and Re-
search), Nanyang Technological University (NTU), and the National University of Singa-
pore (NUS), which drive cutting-edge research and innovation through collaborations. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 8
The paradigm shifts from foundational research to translational exploration, culminating
in the commercialization of technology, marks a pivotal transformation in how innovation
shapes both society and the economic landscape. This progression traverses a spectrum of
activities, transitioning from fundamental scientific inquiry to the pragmatic application of
discoveries in real-world scenarios.
i. Foundational Research as the Pillar
At the heart of knowledge creation lies India’s rich heritage of foundational research, cham-
pioned by prestigious institutions such as IITs and IISERs. This type of research delves into
unravelling the fundamental principles of natural phenomena, often without immediate prac-
tical implications.
ii. Bridging the Divide with Translational Research
In contrast, translational research emerges as the bridge, seamlessly translating scientific
knowledge into tangible solutions for real-world challenges. Recent times have witnessed a
concerted push to narrow the gap between foundational and translational research. Initia-
tives like the National Initiative for Development and Harnessing Innovations (NIDHI) and the
Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council (BIRAC) champion academia-industry
collaborations, transforming visionary ideas into pragmatic applications.
iii. The Thriving Landscape of Technology Commercialization
The intricate process of commercialization underscores the transformative power of inno-
vation, translating scientific breakthroughs into marketable products or services. This intri-
cate journey involves securing patents, licensing technologies, incubating startups, raising
funds, and scaling up production. India’s vibrant landscape for technology commercialization
thrives underpinned by a robust policy framework and forward-thinking initiatives tailored to
the unique needs of diverse sectors.
iv. Policy Support for Propelling Progress
India’s strategic policies are integral to shaping this trajectory. Taking the example of the
initiatives of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), the commercialization of space
technology by ISRO has not only propelled India’s space capabilities but has also acted as
a catalyst for burgeoning startups in this domain. Notable examples include Dhruva Space,
which offers end-to-end satellite infrastructure solutions, and Skyroot Aerospace, which has
pioneered the development of indigenous rockets.
V. Navigating the Evolution
from Core Research to
Tangible Solutions Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 9
This wave of innovation is not confined to space technology; it extends across diverse sec-
tors such as biotechnology, renewable energy, and information technology. The landscape is
marked by a surge in startups, each contributing to the nation’s scientific and technological
advancement. However, this transition underscores the need for a delicate equilibrium in
research and innovation. While the entrepreneurial spirit is driving progress, it necessitates
careful consideration to harness the full potential of scientific breakthroughs.
The dynamic continuum in research and innovation requires a harmonious interplay between
policy frameworks, institutional support, and entrepreneurial endeavours. Striking this bal-
ance will be pivotal in ensuring that India not only keeps pace with global advancements but
also emerges as a frontrunner in shaping the future of scientific and technological landscapes.
v. Real-World Impact
The impact of translational research and technology commercialization extends far beyond
laboratory walls, finding applications in critical sectors like healthcare and agriculture. The
innovation ecosystem is generating solutions addressing pressing challenges, from person-
alized medicine tailoring treatments to individual patients to precision agriculture optimizing
resource utilization. Amidst persistent challenges, including the imperative for increased in-
vestment in research and development, bridging academia-industry gaps, and streamlining
regulations, India’s entrepreneurial resilience and supportive policies position it as a frontrun-
ner for global innovation leadership. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 10
Universities
There are various type of degree awarding universities and university level Institutions, i.e the
Institutions which are empowered to award degree under some Act of Parliament or State
Legislature. They are:
• Central Universities
• State Public Universities
• State Private Universities
• Institution Deemed to be Universities
• Institute established under the state legislature
• Institutes of National Importance & Others.
For ease of reference, the State Public Universities and the State Private Universities have
been jointly called the State Universities and Institutes in this report.
Universities listed by UGC under section 2(f) and 12B of the UGC act, 1956
As of 31st of March, 2022 UGC listed 54
Central Universities, 450 State Public
Universities, 409 State Private Univer-
sities, 4 Institutions established under
the State legislature act and 126 Institu-
tions Deemed to be Universities
3
.
From 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, 26 State
Public Universities, 34 State Private
Universities, and 1 Institution Deemed
to be University and 1 Institute estab-
lished under state legislature were included in the list of universities.
Gross Enrolment Ratio in Higher Education
During 2019-20, Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in Higher Education in India is 27.10% which is
calculated for 18-23 Years of Age Group. GER for Male Population is 26.9% and for Females it
is 27.3%. (Gross Enrolment Ratio in 2021-22 is not available).
Figure 1: Type wise Number of Universities as on 31.03.2022
3
3
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/5789724_UGC_AR_2021-22_FNL.pdf
VI. Statistics of Universities/
Institutions/Colleges in India Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 11
i. Rethinking Higher Education
The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 unfolds as a transformative narrative, not merely
as a policy document but as a catalyst for reshaping India’s educational trajectory. In its es-
sence, NEP 2020 represents a paradigm shift, steering the nation towards a future where the
synergy between education and research becomes the cornerstone of progress.
NEP 2020 initiates a profound revaluation of higher education, challenging conventional
norms and fostering an ecosystem where innovation is not an exception but an expectation.
The ‘Institutions of Eminence’ initiative, a manifestation of this vision, seeks not just excel-
lence but a redefinition of what excellence means in the context of research and innovation.
Beyond the rhetoric, NEP 2020 breathes life into the commitment to bolstering research and
development (R&D). This is not a mere quantitative surge but a qualitative leap, focusing on
scientific research and the tangible impact of technology development. The crux lies in the
acknowledgment that outstanding education cannot exist without a parallel commitment to
groundbreaking research – a symbiotic relationship at the core of NEP 2020.
ii. Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D, as % of GDP
The Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) in India has exhibited a consis-
tent upward trajectory, witnessing a notable surge from Rs. 60,196.75 crore in 2010-11 to Rs.
127,380.96 crores in 2020-21. This substantial increase reflects a more than twofold growth
over the specified timeframe, underscoring the nation’s intensified commitment to fostering
research and innovation.
According to the UNESCO Science Report 2021, India’s global standing in GERD is notewor-
thy, constituting 3.1% of the World’s Gross Expenditure on Research and Development in
2018. This recognition on the global stage signifies India’s growing significance in contribut-
ing to the collective pool of scientific and innovative endeavours. The escalating GERD fig-
ures and international acknowledgment underscore India’s dedication to advancing research
across diverse domains, positioning itself as a key player in the global scientific landscape.

VII. Revolutionizing Indian
Education through
National Education Policy
(NEP) 2020 Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 12
Figure 2: National R&D Expenditure and its Percentage with GDP
(Source - NSTMIS, Department of Science & Technology, Government of India)
iii. Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D, Composition by Sector
The Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy (STIP) 2013 outlined an ambitious goal, set-
ting the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) target for India at 2%.
However, despite witnessing annual increments in research and development expenditure,
India’s GERD as a percentage of GDP hovers around 0.7%, significantly below the stipulat-
ed target.
A key factor contributing to this shortfall is the sectoral composition of GERD, revealing that
the Government emerges as the primary contributor to R&D activities in India. To bridge
the gap and achieve the targeted GERD, there is a critical need to augment private sector
investments in research and development. This strategic shift is essential for aligning India’s
research and development landscape with its aspirations outlined in the STIP 2013, fostering
a more balanced and robust ecosystem that propels innovation and scientific advancement.
Figure 3: Composition of GERD as Percentage Contribution by Sector
(Source - India Innovation Index 2021, NITI Aayog, Government of India)
iv. Quality of Technical Education
In India, the landscape of technical education has been a focal point for policymakers and ed-
ucators alike, recognizing its pivotal role in driving economic growth, innovation, and societal
development. To address the challenges and harness the potential of technical education, several Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 13
initiatives have been introduced over the years, each with its unique objectives and approaches.
The cornerstone of technical education reform in India is the Technical Education Quality Im-
provement Programme (TEQIP), launched in 2002 under the auspices of the then Ministry of Hu-
man Resource and Development (MHRD), now the Ministry of Education. TEQIP was conceived
to uplift the quality of technical education and enhance the capacities of engineering institutions
across the nation. Implemented in multiple phases, TEQIP has seen significant progress in im-
proving infrastructure, faculty development, curriculum revision, and governance mechanisms in
participating institutions.
TEQIP-III, the latest phase initiated in 2017, marks a renewed commitment to bolstering engi-
neering education quality. It places particular emphasis on addressing disparities in states with
lower income levels, aiming to bridge the gap between institutions and ensure equitable access
to quality technical education. Through targeted interventions such as infrastructure upgrades,
faculty training programs, and curriculum modernization efforts, TEQIP-III seeks to position tech-
nical education as a catalyst for socio-economic advancement and industrial growth.
Parallel to TEQIP, the Multidisciplinary Education and Research Improvement in Technical Educa-
tion (MERITE) Project has emerged as another initiative poised to enhance technical education
standards in India. The MERITE Project shares similar objectives with TEQIP, aiming to elevate the
quality and relevance of technical education to meet the evolving needs of industry and society.
Once approved and implemented, MERITE has the potential to complement TEQIP’s efforts and
further strengthen the technical education ecosystem in the country.
Beyond TEQIP and MERITE, several other initiatives contribute to the comprehensive reform
agenda in technical education. The Margadarshan and Margadarshak programs, spearheaded by
the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), focus on providing mentorship and guid-
ance to technical institutions, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and excellence. The
Institutions of Eminence (IoE) Scheme, on the other hand, aims to empower select higher educa-
tion institutions to achieve global standards of excellence, thereby elevating the overall quality
of technical education in the country.
One of the most significant proposed reforms in technical education is the concept of Technical
Education in Mother Tongue, as outlined in the National Education Policy (NEP). This visionary
proposal aims to make professional courses, including engineering and medicine, accessible in
regional languages, thereby democratizing access to technical education and promoting linguis-
tic diversity. By enabling students to learn in their native language and fostering a conducive
learning environment, this initiative seeks to unlock the full potential of learners and enhance
their employability prospects.
Lastly, the Uchhatar Avishkar Yojana (UAY) schemes serve as a bridge between academia and
industry, facilitating collaborative research and innovation projects that address real-world chal-
lenges. By incentivizing partnerships between technical institutions and industries, UAY fosters
a culture of innovation, entrepreneurship, and problem-solving, thereby enhancing the relevance
and impact of technical education in driving socio-economic development.
The diverse array of initiatives aimed at improving technical education in India reflects a con-
certed effort to transform the sector into a dynamic engine of growth, innovation, and inclusive
development. By leveraging these initiatives and embracing innovation and collaboration, India is Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 14
poised to emerge as a global leader in technical education, empowering its youth with the skills,
knowledge, and opportunities needed to thrive in the 21
st
Century.
v. Challenges and Continuous Improvement
NEP 2020 does not confine research to laboratories; it envisions a dynamic landscape where
ideas traverse from incubation to real-world impact. The establishment of incubation centers is
not a procedural checkbox; it’s a strategic move to weave a seamless fabric between academia
and industry. The call for interdisciplinary research is not a token gesture; it’s a recognition that
real-world challenges demand holistic solutions born from the convergence of diverse fields.
The pursuit of excellence, as envisaged by NEP 2020, is not without challenges. The National In-
stitutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) steps in not as a mere ranking mechanism but as a relent-
less interrogator, pushing institutions to evolve continuously. It’s a mechanism not for validation
but for introspection, a tool to unearth potential amidst challenges and drive institutions toward
a holistic educational experience.
vi. Guidelines for the Establishment of Research and Development
Cell (RDC) in Universities and Colleges
In alignment with the visionary National Education Policy (NEP) of 2020, the imperative for qual-
ity research and innovation within Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) takes center stage. To
actualize these objectives, Guidelines for the establishment of the Research and Development
Cell (RDC) in universities and colleges have been issued in March 2022 by the University Grants
Commission (UGC)
4
. The establishment of RDCs in HEIs emerges as a strategic imperative. Far
beyond being mere administrative entities, these cells are envisioned to be catalysts, propelling
a vibrant research culture within the higher education landscape. The significance of RDCs lies
in their ability to act as bridges between researchers and pertinent funding agencies, facilitating
seamless communication from project proposal preparation to post-sanction grant oversight,
and ensuring strict adherence to timelines.
One of the key roles of RDCs is to foster multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborations,
aligning with the mandate of NEP 2020. By nurturing liaisons between researchers and funding
bodies, these cells are positioned to become epicenters of innovation and knowledge exchange.
Moreover, they are tasked with the development of Institutional Research Information Systems.
Through the effective utilization of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), these sys-
tems aim to create comprehensive databases, showcasing the status of ongoing and completed
research projects and programmes, as well as the available expertise and resources within the
institution.
As of July 2023, around 2500 HEIs and 300 Universities have embraced this vision, establishing
R&D Cells on their campuses
5
. This collective endeavour symbolizes a commitment to nurturing
a research ecosystem that not only meets the standards of NEP 2020 but also propels India to-
wards self-reliance and global eminence.
4
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/6347789_RDC-Guideline.pdf
5
https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/nep/Background_Notes_Thematic_Ses-
sions.pdf Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 15
Composition of the Universities across India and in the Consultation
Considering the scope of the present report, which is to improve the R&D culture in India
with a focus on State Universities, the consultative exercise sought to take a closer look at
research-oriented programmes – typically graduate and doctoral programmes. Hence, the
consultative exercise was structured as a series of five meetings, with each covering different
States and Union Territories (UTs) of India, and in two parts – a survey on the status of R&D
activities to be completed before the meeting and a consultative discussion in the meeting.
As briefly discussed in the previous section, there are 1043 Universities in India (as of March
2022), classified as Central Universities, State Public Universities, State Private Universities
and Other Institutions, whose distribution is given in the Figure 4(a).
Figure 4: Distribution of Universities (a) in India (b) invited to the meetings (c) attended the meetings and (d) re-
sponded to the survey on Status of R&D activities
(a)
(c)
(b)
(d)
VIII. Overview and Analytical
Insights of the Consultative
Exercise Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 16
In an attempt to cover at least 10% of these, and considering the focus on State Universities,
an invitation for the consultative exercise was sent to 119 Universities with a distribution given
in Figure 4(b). Among those, 98 Universities attended the consultative meetings, with distri-
bution as given in Figure 4(c), and 90 Universities responded to the survey on Status of R&D
activities, with their distribution given in Figure 4(d).
Whereas such attrition is expected, the validity of the exercise and its insights rested on the
final sample of 98 and 90, for the meetings and the survey respectively, being representative
of the focus group – namely State Public Universities. While this is evident at the aggregate
level, the same validity can also be ascertained when examined statewise. Figure 5 shows two
stacked columns for each State and UT, with the left column (darker colours, read on the left
axis) showing the distribution of Universities in that State/UT, and the right column (lighter
colours, read on the right axis) showing the distribution of the Universities which attended
that meeting from that State/UT.
There are three observations from the above.
• The UT of Delhi is over represented relative to other States and UTs. While this may skew
analysis at the state level, it does not impact the analysis of data pertaining to R&D ac-
tivities.
• The distribution of Universities across India’s States and UTs is highly skewed, driven
largely by the proliferation of State Private Universities.
• The States having such a proliferation of State Private Universities also tend to have a
sizeable number of State Public Universities.
Figure 5: State-wise Distribution of Universities and Universities that Attended the meeting Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 17
Composition of R&D units by Sector
In order to understand the impact of the latter two observations, it is necessary to also ex-
amine the number of registered R&D Units in the State as compared to the number of Uni-
versities in the State. Figure 6 provides a snapshot view of this by plotting the number of
registered R&D units by their sector (as given and classified by the DST) against the number
of universities in the State/UT.

It is noted that there is a strong correlation between the number of universities and the num-
ber of registered R&D units in the Higher Education Sector. While this follows logically, it also
lends credibility to additional inferences drawn from analysing the said graph.
Particular attention is drawn to the number of registered R&D Units in the State Sector and
the Private Sector in a given state vis-a-vis the number of universities in that state. It is ob-
served that the states which have a high number of State Sector R&D units – seen above as
the red dots above the red line – also have a high number of Private Sector R&D units – seen
above as the green dots above the green line. It is worth noting that the same pattern is not
observed with Central Sector R&D Units.
The above observations give rise to an important inference regarding the composition of
R&D activities in a given State.
“States that invest in the Scientific Education and R&D ecosystem, whether through
their Public Universities or their R&D Units, also benefit from a resultant stimulus to
Private investment in the Scientific Education and R&D ecosystem in the State.”
While the econometric validation of linkages in this inference falls outside the scope of the
present report, the intuitive relationship between stakeholders of the R&D ecosystem that it
describes aligns with the discourse in the scientific community and the industry.
Figure 6: Number of R&D Units (log scale) vs Number of Universities in the State/UT Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 18
Analysis Section 1: Scholars, Researchers, and Faculty
The doctoral scholars, researchers, and faculty of a university are responsible for the lion’s
share of the R&D activities in that university. Hence, this was a core component of the survey
on the Status of R&D activities. A snapshot of the responses is given in Figure 7 (a to f) below.
Figure 7: (a) PhD Enrolment by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)

Figure 7: (b) PhD Enrolment by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 19
Figure 7: (c) PhD Attrition Rate by PhD Enrolment (all Universities responses)

Figure 7: (d) PhD Attrition Rate by PhD Enrolment (only State Universities responses)
Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 20
Figure 7: (e) Full Time Equivalent Researchers by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)
Figure 7: (f) Full Time Equivalent Researchers by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
The PhD enrolment trend across all responding universities suggests that there is a strong
correlation with the faculty strength until a point, after which increasing faculty strength of-
fers diminishing returns in improving PhD enrolment. This observation also holds true from
the responses of only the State Universities. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 21
“Faculty strength positively correlates with PhD enrollment in universities, but reaches
a saturation point where further increases yield diminishing returns.”
However, PhD enrolment must also be seen alongside the attrition rate in doctoral pro-
grammes. There is a noteworthy observation when this is examined across all responding
universities. The attrition rate appears to be high for universities with small doctoral pro-
grammes and drops rapidly as the number of doctoral students increases. While the same
result appears to hold true for State Universities, the responses from the State Universities
are not sufficient to make such an inference.
“Attrition rates are higher in universities with smaller doctoral programs, decreasing
notably as the number of doctoral students grows.”
The bulk of research activities in a university is carried out by researchers - measured in
terms of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Researchers - engaged by the university on various R&D
projects that are run by its faculty. This trend, similar to that of PhD enrolment, appears to
be strongly correlated with the faculty strength of a university. Furthermore, this trend holds
true across all responding universities as well as only the State Universities.
“Faculty strength correlates strongly with research activity, measured by FTE Re-
searchers engaged in R&D projects, across all Universities.”
Analysis Section 2: Researchers, Projects, Funding and Publications
Following the human resources required for conducting the R&D activities, the survey sought
to understand key indicators of the R&D activities themselves. The vast majority of such R&D
activities takes place in the form of research projects, funded by the central or state govern-
ment, that are run by the faculty of the university and are typically designed to produce re-
search outputs in the form of reports and journal publications. The responses to this portions
of the survey are given in the form of scatterplots under Figure 8 (a to e). Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 22
Figure 8: (a) Research Proposals Submitted and Accepted by Faculty Strength (all Universities responses)

Figure 8: (b) Research Proposals Submitted and Accepted by Faculty Strength (only State Universities responses)
Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 23
Figure 8: (c) Average Annual Research Funding and Research Funded by State Government by Research Pro-
posals Accepted (all Universities responses)

Figure 8: (d) Average Annual Research Funding and Research Funded by State Government by Research Proposals
Accepted (only State Universities responses)
Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 24
Figure 8: (e) Total Publications and Publications in TOP25 by Research Proposals Accepted (all Universities responses)
Figure 8: (f) Total Publications and Publications in TOP25 by Research Proposals Accepted (only State Universities responses)
The number of research proposal submitted is strongly correlated with the faculty strength
in all responding universities as well as in State Universities. However, the same does not
appear to hold true for research proposals accepted, which tend to plateau after the initial
corresponding increase with the faculty strength. This suggests that while there is a need to
encourage smaller universities to submit more proposals, the real challenge lies in improving
the quality of research proposals submitted by the faculty. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 25
“Research proposal submissions strongly correlate with faculty strength in all universities.”
The correlation weakens for accepted proposals, which plateau after an initial increase
with faculty strength.”
Another interesting observation is that the average annual research funding does not appear
to vary significantly with the increase in number of research proposals accepted. The trend
holds for all responding universities as well as the responding State Universities. Further-
more, the research funding from State Governments appears to decline with the number of
research proposals accepted. This suggests that the State Governments fund very few, if any,
research proposals.
“Average annual research funding from State Governments decreases with accepted pro-
posals, indicating limited governmental support for research endeavours.”
Considering the publications produced through research for all responding universities, it is
found that the number of total publications increases with the number of research propos-
als accepted. Similarly, the number of publications in TOP25 (the top quartile of indexed
journals) also increases with the number of research proposals accepted. Moreover, the gap
between the two also decreases with the increase in number of research proposals accepted.
These trends also hold true for responding State Universities, but the gap between the total
publications and those in TOP 25 does not reduce as much.
“Accepted research proposals lead to increased publications, particularly in TOP25 jour-
nals, across all universities. Yet, in State Universities, the gap between total publications
and those in top-tier journals doesn’t decrease as significantly.”
Analysis Section 3: Patents and Commercialization
The data presented in Figure 9 (a and b) suggests a widespread adoption of Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) cells across universities, with a particularly high prevalence in both
overall university settings and State Public Universities.
According to the pie chart, 90% of universities, regardless of their classification, have estab-
lished an IPR cell within their campuses. This indicates a strong recognition among education-
al institutions of the importance of managing and protecting intellectual property.
Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 26

Delving deeper into the breakdown of State Public Universities, the data reveals that 88%
of the State Universities have implemented an IPR cell. While this percentage is slightly low-
er than the overall university average, it still underscores a significant level of commitment
among State Universities towards fostering innovation and safeguarding intellectual property.
The presence of IPR cells within universities is crucial for several reasons. Firstly, it serves as
a platform for promoting research and innovation by providing resources and guidance on
intellectual property issues to faculty, researchers, and students. Secondly, it facilitates the
process of patenting and commercializing innovative ideas, thereby fostering entrepreneur-
ship and contributing to economic growth. Additionally, IPR cells play a vital role in raising
awareness about intellectual property rights and ensuring compliance with relevant laws and
regulations.
“The widespread establishment of IPR cells in universities reflects a strong commitment
to managing and safeguarding intellectual property, with State Universities also showing
significant dedication to innovation and IP protection.”
Next, the scatterplots in Figure 10 (a to d), depicting patents filed versus patents published
and patents filed versus patents granted offers valuable insights into the innovation land-
scape within both the overall university ecosystem and the State Public University group.
The upward trend observed in both scenarios is a positive indicator of increasing innovation
activity and the effectiveness of intellectual property management within these institutions.
Figure 9: (a) Status of IPR Cell
(all Universities responses)
Figure 9: (b) Status of IPR Cell (only
State Universities responses) Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 27
Figure 10: (a) Patents Published by Patents Filed (all Universities responses)
Figure 10: (b) Patents Published by Patents Filed (only State Universities responses) Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 28
Figure 10: (c) Patents Granted by Patents Filed (all Universities responses)
Figure 10: (d) Patents Granted by Patents Filed (only State Universities responses)
In the overall university ecosystem, the trend of more patents being filed correlating with
more patents being published and granted signifies a proactive approach towards converting
research and innovation into tangible outcomes. As universities engage in more patent filing
activities, it suggests a higher level of research output and potential commercialization op-
portunities. The subsequent increase in patents published and granted indicates a successful
transition from ideation to formal recognition and protection of intellectual property rights. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 29
Similarly, within the State University group, the positive trend observed between patents
filed and patents published, as well as patents filed and patents granted, underscores the
commitment of these institutions toward innovation and intellectual property management.
Despite potential differences in resources or research focus compared to other universities,
the state universities are evidently making significant strides in contributing to the intellectual
property landscape.
“Overall, the positive outcomes depicted in the scatter plots underscore the importance
of fostering a supportive environment for innovation within universities, regardless of their
classification.”
The statistics concerning the commercialization or transfer of technologies within the uni-
versity ecosystem (Figure 11) paint an interesting picture, highlighting disparities between
different types of institutions. According to the data reported by universities and institutes
for the consultative exercise, State Universities appear to be lagging in terms of technologies
commercialized or transferred, with Central Universities demonstrating better performance
and Private Universities/ Institutes boasting the highest numbers in this regard.
Figure 11: Technology commercialization and transfers
This discrepancy may stem from various factors. Private universities often have greater ac-
cess to funding and resources, allowing them to invest more extensively in research and
development initiatives, as well as in the infrastructure necessary for technology commer-
cialization. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 30
Central universities, on the other hand, typically benefit from substantial government funding
and support, which can bolster their research capabilities and facilitate technology transfer
activities. Furthermore, central universities may have established networks and partnerships
with industries and government agencies, providing them with additional avenues for tech-
nology commercialization.
“State Universities lag in technology commercialization or transfer compared to Central
Universities, while Private Universities/Institutes lead in this aspect.”
In contrast, State Universities may face challenges such as limited funding, infrastructure
constraints, and bureaucratic hurdles, which could hinder their ability to effectively commer-
cialize or transfer technologies developed within their institutions. Additionally, State Uni-
versities may lack the same level of industry connections and resources as their private and
central counterparts, further impacting their technology transfer efforts.
The data in Figure 12 (a and b), represent the average per institute of the Innovation/ Proto-
types supported and the Copyrights/ Designs by the University type. It suggests that Private
Universities are leading in terms of innovation and prototype development, as well as copy-
rights and designs. This is closely followed by Central Universities, while State universities
demonstrate less impressive trends, and suggest a nuanced landscape of innovation and
intellectual property management within the university ecosystem.
The Private Universities’ success in copyrights and designs likely stems from their proactive
approach to intellectual property management and protection. These institutions may have
established robust mechanisms for identifying, documenting, and registering copyrights and
designs related to their research outputs and creative works. However, despite the majority
of State Universities having established IPR cells, as indicated by the analysis in Figure 9, their
impact is not reflected in the results, given that state universities are lagging the most.
.
Figure 12: (a) Innovation / Prototypes supported by the University type Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 31
Figure 12: (b) Copyrights and Designs by University Type
“Private Universities lead in innovation, prototype development, copyrights, and designs,
followed closely by Central Universities.”
“State universities exhibit less impressive trends.”
Analysis Section 4: Institutional and Industrial Linkages
The statistics on formal collaborations for research and development (R&D) among universi-
ties (Figure 13) reveal a positive trend across all types of institutions. Over 85% of universities
and close to 90% of central universities report engaging in some form of collaboration for
R&D, indicating a widespread recognition of the importance of collaborative research efforts
within the academic community.
Figure 13: Formal Collaborations for R&D by University Type Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 32
Private universities, in particular, demonstrate even higher levels of engagement, with 94%
falling under this criterion. This suggests a strong inclination towards fostering partnerships
and collaborative initiatives to drive innovation and advance knowledge.
“Central universities prioritize collaborative R&D efforts, while Private universities exhibit
even stronger engagement in partnerships for research.
State Universities can further enhance their engagement in collaborative endeavours.”

The prevalence of formal collaborations for R&D underscores the value that universities place
on collaborative research endeavours. By pooling resources, expertise, and networks, univer-
sities can leverage collective strengths to tackle complex challenges, accelerate discovery,
and maximize the impact of their research efforts. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 33
i. Overview of the Existing R&D Culture
The R&D landscape within State Universities and Institutes is characterized by its multifacet-
ed nature, encompassing a broad spectrum of academic disciplines, varied research method-
ologies, and distinctive institutional capacities. Despite making commendable strides in the
generation and dissemination of knowledge, these academic institutions face a complex set
of challenges that act as impediments to realizing their full potential in the realm of research
and development.
Within this diversified landscape, pockets of excellence stand out, showcasing instances
where researchers have achieved noteworthy advancements in their respective fields. Collab-
orative initiatives with industries, government bodies, and international partners have yielded
impactful research outcomes, underlining the potential for transformative contributions em-
anating from these institutions.
However, against the backdrop of these successes, systemic challenges emerge as critical
hurdles, impeding the seamless integration of R&D into the institutional fabric. These chal-
lenges range from structural and infrastructural limitations to issues related to funding con-
straints and bureaucratic complexities. Addressing these challenges is crucial for unlocking
the full potential of State Universities and Institutes, allowing them to further elevate their
contributions to research and development on both the national and global stages.
ii. Challenges Faced by Universities/Institutes in Promoting R&D
1. Insufficient Funding and Resources:
The persistent challenge of insufficient funding and resources poses a formidable barrier to
the robust development of research initiatives within State Universities and Institutes. This
overarching issue manifests in multifaceted ways, each presenting a unique set of obstacles
to the institution’s pursuit of academic and research excellence.
At the forefront of this challenge is the limitation it imposes on acquiring cutting-edge equip-
ment. The Universities and Institutes, grappling with financial constraints, find themselves
hampered in their ability to invest in state-of-the-art research tools and technologies. This
impediment, in turn, directly affects the quality and depth of research outcomes, limiting the
institutions’ competitiveness on a national and global scale.
IX. Current Status of
R&D in State Universities
and Institutes Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 34
Furthermore, the constrained financial environment poses challenges to the recruitment of
skilled researchers. The ability to attract and retain top-tier talent is crucial for fostering
an environment of intellectual vibrancy and ensuring sustained progress in diverse research
domains. However, the shortage of funds restricts the institutions’ capacity to offer competi-
tive remuneration packages and research grants, making it challenging to attract and retain
skilled researchers.
The broader impact of insufficient funding reverberates across the overall expansion of re-
search infrastructure. Modern research demands collaborative spaces, interdisciplinary facili-
ties, and advanced laboratories. Inadequate financial resources hinder the development and
maintenance of such crucial infrastructure, limiting the scope and scale of research pursuits
within these academic institutions.
2. Teaching-Research Imbalance:
The challenge of teaching-research imbalance within State Universities and Institutes under-
scores a systemic issue that impacts the overall academic landscape. This imbalance, charac-
terized by a disproportionate emphasis on teaching over research activities, engenders a host
of challenges that permeate the core functions of these institutions.
At the heart of this challenge is the overshadowing of research pursuits by the predominant
focus on teaching responsibilities. In an environment where teaching often takes precedence,
the allocation of time for research endeavours becomes a scarce commodity. This temporal
constraint directly translates into limitations on the depth and breadth of research activities
undertaken by faculty members and researchers within these institutions.
In addition to time constraints, the teaching-research imbalance manifests in the unequal dis-
tribution of resources. State Universities and Institutes, grappling with competing demands,
may allocate a larger share of resources to teaching-related initiatives, inadvertently neglect-
ing the essential components required to foster a robust research ecosystem. This resource
asymmetry can hinder the acquisition of research-specific tools, funding for projects, and
support for scholarly publications.
Recognition and incentives within the academic framework also contribute to this imbalance.
Teaching-related achievements often receive more visibility and acknowledgment, leaving
research pursuits in the shadows. This disparity in recognition can impact the morale of
researchers and create a culture where the value of research is undervalued compared to
teaching, further perpetuating the imbalance. Fostering a culture that values and prioritizes
research alongside teaching is essential for nurturing a dynamic academic environment that
excels in both realms.
3. Faculty Mindset and Quality:
The challenge of faculty mindset and quality in State Universities and Institutes is multifac-
eted, reflecting the complexities inherent in fostering a research-oriented culture. One of the
central issues is the divergence in priorities among faculty members, where some may prior- Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 35
itize teaching responsibilities or administrative duties over active engagement in substantive
research activities.
This mindset challenge can be attributed to various factors, including institutional norms that
may inadvertently emphasize administrative duties over research. The need to meet adminis-
trative obligations or the lack of sufficient incentives for research, contribute to this mindset
disparity. Faculty members, faced with these pressures, may find it challenging to dedicate
significant time and energy to research pursuits.
Moreover, the quality of research output is intricately linked to the mindset of faculty mem-
bers. A culture that prioritizes teaching or administrative tasks at the expense of research
can impact the depth and rigor of scholarly contributions. To address this challenge, targeted
interventions are necessary, including professional development programmes, mentorship
initiatives, and institutional policies that incentivize and recognize high-quality research out-
puts.
4. Administrative Processes:
Administrative processes within the State Universities and Institutes present a significant
challenge to the seamless execution of research initiatives. The bureaucratic hurdles and
cumbersome procedures inherent in the administrative framework often contribute to delays
and inefficiencies in the research ecosystem.
One aspect of this challenge is the time-consuming nature of obtaining approvals and per-
missions for research projects. The complex layers of administrative clearance, ranging
from project proposals to budgetary allocations, can introduce significant bottlenecks.
Researchers may find themselves entangled in red tape, diverting valuable time and energy
away from the actual research process.
Moreover, the allocation and disbursement of funds for research projects can be marred by
administrative delays. Delays in financial approvals, procurement processes, and disburse-
ment mechanisms can hinder the timely execution of research activities. This not only af-
fects project timelines but also poses challenges in attracting and retaining skilled research-
ers who may seek more streamlined environments.
Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive review and streamlining of administra-
tive processes. Promoting a culture of administrative responsiveness and support for research
endeavours is essential for overcoming this obstacle.
5. Low Enrollment in Advanced Programmes:
The challenge of low enrollment in advanced degree programmes, particularly MTech and
PhD, poses a multifaceted obstacle to the research landscape within the State Universities
and Institutes. This issue can be attributed to several interrelated factors that collectively
contribute to the shortage of funds for research activities. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 36
Firstly, there is a perception gap among students regarding the value and prospects of pur-
suing advanced research-oriented programmes. This can be influenced by a lack of aware-
ness about the opportunities and benefits associated with advanced degrees in terms of
research involvement and career development.
Secondly, inadequate promotional and outreach activities to showcase the significance of
research-focused programmes contribute to the low enrollment numbers. Institutions may
face challenges in effectively communicating the unique research opportunities, mentorship,
and infrastructure available for students pursuing advanced degrees.
Moreover, financial constraints on the part of prospective students can deter enrollment in
these programmes. Limited availability of scholarships, research stipends, or financial aid
for advanced research degrees can make such programmes economically burdensome for
students, further exacerbating the enrollment challenge.
Creating a conducive environment that emphasizes the benefits and opportunities associat-
ed with advanced research degrees is crucial for overcoming the enrollment challenge and,
subsequently, boosting funds for research activities.
6. Interdisciplinary Collaboration:
The challenge of limited interdisciplinary collaboration within State Universities and Institutes
significantly curtails the potential for holistic research outcomes. This issue arises from a
combination of institutional, cultural, and logistical factors that impede the seamless integra-
tion of diverse disciplines.
Institutional barriers often manifest in rigid departmental structures and administrative si-
los that discourage interdisciplinary interaction. Faculty members may find it challenging to
navigate bureaucratic processes and obtain approvals for cross-disciplinary collaborations,
leading to a compartmentalized research environment.
Cultural factors contribute to the challenge as academic traditions and expectations may
prioritize disciplinary expertise over collaborative efforts. Recognition and reward systems
within institutions might not adequately acknowledge interdisciplinary contributions, dis-
suading researchers from actively engaging in collaborative ventures.
Logistical challenges, such as limited shared spaces and resources for interdisciplinary ac-
tivities, further hinder collaboration. Lack of designated forums or platforms for researchers
from different disciplines to converge and exchange ideas impedes the organic growth of
interdisciplinary initiatives.
Addressing this challenge requires a comprehensive approach and interdisciplinary dialogue
to break down existing barriers and unlock the full potential of holistic research outcomes is
absolutely essential. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 37
7. Lack of lack of Efficient Mechanisms for Swift Approvals and
Clearances:
The challenge posed by the lack of streamlined “single-window” clearances for medical and
engineering research facilities significantly complicates administrative processes of State Uni-
versities and Institutes. This issue is characterized by a lack of efficient mechanisms that can
facilitate swift approvals and clearances for research projects in these specialized domains.
Administrative delays often arise from the need to navigate multiple approval channels, each
with its set of protocols and documentation requirements. The absence of a unified system
or a centralized authority for granting clearances results in a protracted and convoluted
process, hindering the timely commencement of research projects.
In the context of medical and engineering research, where adherence to regulatory stan-
dards is paramount, the absence of a “single-window” clearance system exacerbates the
administrative burden. Researchers and administrators must engage with various regulatory
bodies, each responsible for specific aspects of project approval, leading to a fragmented and
time-consuming process.
8. Publication Prioritization Over Substantial Research:
The challenge of prioritizing paper publications over substantive research underscores a
complex dynamic influencing faculty member. This phenomenon often manifests as a result
of external pressures and institutional expectations that place a premium on the quantity of
publications rather than the depth and impact of the research.
In an environment where academic success is frequently measured by metrics such as the
number of published papers, faculty members may be incentivized to prioritize quantity over
quality. This pressure can lead to a focus on achieving a high volume of publications, poten-
tially at the expense of engaging in more comprehensive and impactful research endeavours.
Moreover, the prevailing academic culture, which places a significant emphasis on publication
counts for career progression and recognition, can inadvertently encourage this prioritiza-
tion. Faculty members may find themselves compelled to publish frequently to meet institu-
tional benchmarks and criteria for professional advancement.
To address this challenge, there is a need for a paradigm shift in evaluating academic success.
Emphasizing the significance and impact of research outcomes, rather than solely relying
on publication metrics, can encourage faculty members to delve into more substantive and
meaningful research. Institutions could consider adopting comprehensive evaluation frame-
works that recognize the quality, depth, and societal impact of research contributions, foster-
ing a research culture that goes beyond the pursuit of sheer publication numbers.
9. Brain Drain in University R&D:
The issue of brain drain, particularly concerning R&D in Indian universities, remains a signif-
icant challenge that warrants careful consideration. Brain drain refers to the emigration of Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 38
highly skilled and talented individuals, including researchers, scientists, and academics, from
their home country to other nations seeking better opportunities. In the context of R&D, this
phenomenon has implications for the intellectual capital and research capabilities of Indian
universities.
One of the primary drivers of brain drain from Indian Universities is the lure of superior infra-
structure, research facilities, and funding available in developed countries. Many researchers
are enticed by the prospect of working in well-established laboratories with cutting-edge
equipment, extensive research grants, and a conducive research environment. The percep-
tion of greater career advancement and recognition abroad, often accompanied by more
competitive salaries, acts as a magnet for Indian scholars.
The consequences of brain drain are manifold. It deprives Indian universities of experienced
and skilled researchers, leading to a potential loss of expertise in critical areas of study. Addi-
tionally, the outflow of talent contributes to a diminished research ecosystem, hindering the
overall progress of academic institutions in India. This drain not only impacts the quantity but
also the quality of research outputs, as the absence of seasoned researchers can impede the
development of groundbreaking ideas and collaborative projects.
These challenges underscore the need for targeted interventions and strategic reforms to
enhance the R&D culture in State-funded Universities and Institutes. The subsequent sections
of this report delve into recommendations and actionable strategies aimed at overcoming
these hurdles and fostering a vibrant research ecosystem.
10. Other Issues:
The above are some critical issues that need immediate attention and have been identified
after detailed analysis and conversations with the state universities and institutes. Other rel-
evant and important issues can be listed as follows:
• Grant Proposal Expertise: The faculty lacks experience and training in crafting effective
research grant proposals, causing delays in project approvals. There is a need to intro-
duce institute specialized training programmes to enhance faculty skills in grant proposal
writing.
• Faculty Recruitment Complexity: Recruitment processes for both regular and contractu-
al faculty are cumbersome and intricate, requiring simplification and increased autonomy.
It is important to streamline recruitment procedures, granting universities greater auton-
omy in faculty selection, while ensuring transparency.
• Prioritizing Societal R&D: Research activities lack alignment with national priorities and
local needs, undermining their impact on societal issues. Developing a strategic frame-
work guiding universities to prioritize R&D addressing societal challenges and coordinat-
ing efforts through a centralized mechanism, is required. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 39
i. Addressing University/ Institute-level Challenges
a) Establishment of R&D Committee/ Cell:
The establishment of Research and Development (R&D) cells in higher education institutions
(HEIs) is a strategic initiative aligned with the vision of the National Education Policy 2020
(NEP 2020) and guided by comprehensive guidelines developed by the University Grants
Commission (UGC). This initiative aims to cultivate a robust research ecosystem within HEIs,
fostering reliable, impactful, and sustained research outputs with direct relevance to industri-
al and societal needs.
UGC actively promotes collaboration and knowledge-sharing among these cells, organizing
conferences and lectures for coordinators to disseminate best practices and commendable
work done by these units.
Some of the activities carried out by these cells in the past year are summarised as follows:
i. Formulation of research policies for the University.
ii. Constitution of IPR cells and centres for Innovation, Incubation and Entrepreneurship.
iii. Preparation of legal instruments necessary to realize technology transfer and providing
legal and administrative support for the same.
iv. Identification of potentially patentable or copyrightable inventions. Filing for Patents and
copyright applications.
v. Assisting with research projects.
vi. Resource sharing with other HEIs.
vii. Identification of potential collaborators and sponsors and finalization of research collab-
orations.
viii. Providing Start-up grants for the entrepreneurial endeavour of young researchers and
faculties.
ix. Organizing seminars/ conferences and workshops.
The collaborative approach fostered by UGC ensures that these cells not only operate effec-
tively within their respective institutions but also benefit from shared knowledge and experi-
ences across the higher education landscape.
b) Improve Infrastructure and Instrumentation Facilities:
The initial step involves conducting a comprehensive assessment of the existing research fa-
cilities within the institution. This assessment aims to identify gaps, obsolete equipment, and
areas requiring enhancement. Prioritization strategies are then employed, aligning upgrades
with the specific research needs and focus areas of the institution.
X. Recommendations Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 40
Recognizing the pivotal role of interdisciplinary collaboration in fostering innovative research,
the creation of dedicated collaborative spaces becomes imperative. These spaces serve as
hubs for researchers from diverse disciplines to converge, exchange ideas, and embark on
joint ventures. The design and functionality of these spaces are tailored to promote a seam-
less flow of ideas, encouraging interdisciplinary exploration.
Acknowledging the financial complexities of funding new research infrastructure, a proactive
approach involves exploring public-private partnerships (PPPs). By engaging with private
entities, institutions can secure the necessary funding for constructing state-of-the-art re-
search facilities. These partnerships not only alleviate the burden on public funds but also
bring in external expertise, fostering a symbiotic relationship between academia and industry.
Investing in infrastructure and facilities, forms the bedrock of a thriving research ecosystem.
It lays the foundation for future breakthroughs by creating an environment that fosters col-
laboration, innovation, and sustained academic growth.
c) Encouraging Faculty Engagement:
Recognizing the pivotal role of faculty in driving research excellence, a multifaceted approach
is to be adopted to incentivize their active engagement. This includes provisions for research
leave, subscription of journals, making scholarly content more accessible and cost-effective
and allowing faculty members dedicated time for intensive research pursuits. Sabbaticals are
encouraged, providing more extended periods for in-depth projects and collaborations. Ad-
ditional research-oriented allowances are introduced to acknowledge and reward sustained
contributions to the research ecosystem. These incentives collectively create a supportive
environment, motivating faculty members to prioritize and excel in their research endeavours.
To fortify the research capabilities of faculty members, a structured framework of workshops
and training programmes must be implemented. These initiatives cover diverse aspects such
as advanced research methodologies, equipping faculty with the latest tools and techniques.
Specialized sessions on grant writing should be conducted, providing insights into securing
funding for research projects. Project management workshops ensure that faculty members
are adept at efficiently overseeing and executing research initiatives. These programmes,
conducted regularly, act as knowledge accelerators, empowering faculty with the skills es-
sential for impactful research contributions.
d) Incentives for Student Participation:
Incorporating students into the research ecosystem is deemed integral to fostering a culture
of inquiry and innovation. Incentivizing student participation is achieved through various
means, including the allocation of course credits or certificates for active involvement in re-
search projects. This not only enriches the academic experience for students but also contrib-
utes significantly to ongoing research initiatives. The synergy between faculty and students
becomes a catalyst for groundbreaking discoveries, as students bring fresh perspectives and
enthusiasm to research endeavours. Creating an environment where students are valued con-
tributors to the research community enhances the overall vibrancy and productivity of the
academic institution. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 41
e) Strengthening Industry Partnerships:
In pursuit of a dynamic research landscape, an emphasis is placed on fostering robust col-
laborations between academic institutions and industries. Establishing a streamlined mech-
anism for technology transfer becomes paramount. This involves creating frameworks and
platforms that expedite the transition of research outcomes into practical applications within
industries.
To further integrate academia with industry, the establishment of industry-sponsored re-
search positions is advocated. These positions, funded by industrial partners, serve as con-
duits for direct collaboration. Faculty members and students assume roles in these positions,
engaging in research that aligns with industrial objectives. This symbiotic relationship ensures
that research remains aligned with real-world needs and challenges.
The collaboration extends to joint projects and internship opportunities, providing students
with hands-on experience in industrial settings. Collaborative projects allow for the cross-pol-
lination of ideas and skills, enriching the academic curriculum with practical insights.
The intertwining of academia and industry creates a vibrant tapestry of innovation, where re-
search findings seamlessly translate into tangible benefits for industries and society at large.
f) Support Intellectual Property Creation and Technology Transfer:
In the realm of research and development, the journey from ideation to practical application
is guided by the principles of intellectual property (IP) and seamless technology transfer.
Central to safeguarding intellectual capital is the expedient filing of patents. A proactive
stance is to be adopted to streamline and expedite patent filing processes. This involves
establishing dedicated units or cells tasked with comprehensively assessing the novelty and
applicability of research outcomes, ensuring timely and effective patent submissions.
Beyond mere technology transfer, the focus extends to the commercialization of research
outcomes. Robust strategies must be devised to identify market opportunities, assess com-
mercial viability, and navigate the intricacies of bringing innovations to market. This in-
cludes collaborations with industry partners, licensing agreements, and the establishment of
spin-off ventures to ensure the effective monetization of intellectual property.
Recognizing the complexity of navigating legal and business landscapes, dedicated support
mechanisms are to be instituted. Researchers engaged in the patenting and commercializa-
tion process should receive legal counsel and business guidance to navigate intricacies, en-
suring a seamless transition from research to market-ready products or services.
g) Create a Culture of Innovation and Entrepreneurship:
In the dynamic landscape of research and development, the integration of innovation and
entrepreneurship emerges as a potent catalyst for transformative change. Initiatives must
be devised to cultivate an entrepreneurial mindset among students and faculty members.
Workshops, seminars, and awareness campaigns to be conducted to instill an understanding
of the entrepreneurial journey, emphasizing risk-taking, creativity, and resourcefulness. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 42
Recognizing the need for dedicated spaces that nurture fledgling ideas into robust enterpris-
es, institutions should prioritize the establishment of incubators and accelerators on cam-
pus. These innovation hubs provide a conducive environment for ideation, prototyping, and
mentorship, fostering the growth of startups. Further, to equip aspiring entrepreneurs with
the essential skills and knowledge, comprehensive training programmes have to be institut-
ed. These cover various facets of business development, including market analysis, financial
planning, and strategic management. The aim is to empower individuals to navigate the com-
plexities of entrepreneurship confidently.
h) Strengthen Evaluation and Recognition:
The current evaluation and recognition system for research contributions in India, influenced
by accrediting bodies like the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and
rankings like the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), exhibits certain limitations.
These limitations include a predominant focus on quantitative metrics, potential biases in
citation-based assessments, and a gap in capturing the societal impact of research compre-
hensively.
• Qualitative Metrics Integration: The current system relies heavily on quantitative met-
rics, potentially overlooking the qualitative aspects of research. Integration of quali-
tative metrics, such as the novelty of research, societal impact, and interdisciplinary
collaborations, into the evaluation criteria is required.
• Diverse Research Impact Assessment: Citations are a primary measure, but they may
not capture the diverse impact of research on society. Hence, expanding the impact
assessment criteria to include real-world applications, policy influences, and contribu-
tions to community development is recommended.
• Recognition of Interdisciplinary Research: The current system might not adequately
recognize the complexity and impact of interdisciplinary research. Developing spe-
cific criteria and evaluation mechanisms that appreciate and reward interdisciplinary
collaboration is proposed, encouraging a holistic approach.
• Stakeholder Consultation: Engage stakeholders, including researchers, academicians,
and industry experts, in the process of refining and updating the evaluation criteria,
ensuring a collective and inclusive approach.
i) Encourage International Collaboration:
International collaboration in research is a key driver of academic excellence, fostering
cross-cultural perspectives and enriching the global research landscape. While India actively
engages in international collaborations, there is room for further enhancement and strategic
development.
Strategies for Strengthening Collaboration:
• Strategic Partner Selection: Existing collaborations are diverse but may lack a strate-
gic focus. Prioritizing collaborations with institutions known for excellence in specific
research domains such as IITs, IISc, NITs, IIITs, etc., ensuring synergy and mutual ben-
efit is necessary. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 43
• Faculty Exchange Programmes: Some collaborations include faculty exchange, but
the scale and impact can be expanded. Establishing a structured and scalable faculty
exchange programmes, encouraging knowledge transfer, and collaborative research,
and fostering long-term partnerships.
• Research Conferences and Symposia: Participation in international conferences oc-
curs, but there may be opportunities for hosting joint events. Facilitate and incentivize
the organization of joint research conferences and symposia, offering platforms for
knowledge exchange and networking.
• Promotion of Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Collaboration is often discipline-specif-
ic; interdisciplinary collaboration could be enhanced. Encourage collaborations that
transcend disciplinary boundaries, fostering innovation and addressing complex glob-
al challenges.
• Resource Allocation: Limited resources may constrain the scale of collaborations. Ex-
plore public-private partnerships and leverage government funding to support inter-
national collaborations, ensuring sustained financial support.
j) Improve Public Outreach:
Public outreach serves as a pivotal component in magnifying the impact of research con-
ducted within universities and institutes. To effectively showcase achievements, there is a
pressing need to adopt a multifaceted communication strategy. The current approach, while
existing, may lack cohesion, prompting a recommendation to develop a comprehensive strat-
egy. This includes utilizing diverse channels such as press releases, social media campaigns,
and interactive platforms to ensure that research milestones are communicated effectively.
Engagement with mainstream media is another area for enhancement. The current level of
interaction may be limited, and forging collaborations with media outlets can significantly
contribute to translating complex research findings into accessible narratives for the general
public. Additionally, there should be a deliberate effort to present success stories and im-
pactful case studies regularly. This will not only provide a human touch to research but also
underscore its practical applications and societal benefits.
In the realm of highlighting research achievements through various media channels, strategic
partnerships with media organizations are recommended for consistent coverage. Digital
platforms and social media should be harnessed to their full potential, incorporating inter-
active elements, podcasts, and live sessions. Moreover, organizing science communication
workshops can equip researchers with the skills needed to effectively convey the significance
of their work.
k) Regular Assessment and Feedback:
In fostering a dynamic research ecosystem, the establishment of a robust system for regular
assessment and feedback stands as a cornerstone. This involves a two-fold approach: cre-
ating a structured feedback mechanism for faculty and students and conducting periodic
reviews of research centers and departments. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 44
The feedback mechanism should be designed to be inclusive, allowing faculty and students
to actively participate in shaping the research environment. This can be achieved through
surveys, focus group discussions, and dedicated feedback sessions. Anonymity and confi-
dentiality should be prioritized to encourage honest and constructive input. Additionally, the
feedback process should not be a one-time occurrence but rather an iterative system, foster-
ing continuous improvement.
Periodic reviews of research centers and departments are instrumental in assessing their im-
pact, identifying areas of improvement, and ensuring alignment with institutional goals. These
reviews should be comprehensive, considering aspects such as research output, faculty en-
gagement, collaboration initiatives, and infrastructure utilization. The process should involve
both internal and external experts to bring diverse perspectives. Furthermore, a transparent
and participatory approach to the review process can instill a sense of ownership among
stakeholders, motivating them to actively contribute to the enhancement of the research
ecosystem.
i) Identify and Pursue Long-term Vision:
To fortify the research landscape, it is imperative to articulate a comprehensive long-term
vision that goes beyond immediate challenges, encompassing strategic planning and devel-
opment. Effective strategic planning is pivotal in aligning research initiatives with the over-
arching goals of the institution. This process necessitates a collaborative approach, involving
key stakeholders such as faculty, administrators, industry partners, and research scholars. A
thorough environmental analysis, encompassing technological trends, funding landscapes,
and global research priorities, should precede the formulation of the strategic plan. Strategic
planning should not be a static document but an adaptive framework that can evolve in re-
sponse to emerging opportunities and challenges.
A robust R&D strategy serves as the guiding framework for shaping the trajectory of research
activities over an extended period. This strategy should be anchored in a shared vision, with
clearly articulated objectives that resonate with the institution’s mission. These objectives
should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) and aligned with
the institution’s long-term goals. Key performance indicators (KPIs) should be identified to
quantitatively measure progress and success.
Timelines play a pivotal role in providing a structured roadmap for the implementation of
the strategy. Breaking down long-term goals into phased milestones enables better mon-
itoring and evaluation. Regular reviews and updates of the strategy ensure its adaptability
to changing circumstances and emerging opportunities. It should reflect a forward-looking
vision that not only addresses current challenges but anticipates future research trends and
societal needs.
ii. Addressing State-level Challenges
a) Autonomy and Funding:
Advocating for greater autonomy and control over resources and decision-making is a pivot-
al step towards empowering universities and institutes. This multifaceted approach involves Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 45
redefining the relationship between these institutions and the governing bodies, thereby en-
hancing their financial independence and self-governance.
• Financial Autonomy: Granting financial autonomy to universities and institutes is the
basis for catalyzing research initiatives. This involves providing institutions with the
flexibility to manage their finances independently, allocating funds based on their
unique research priorities and strategic goals. Financial autonomy liberates these en-
tities from bureaucratic red tape, enabling swift decision-making on resource alloca-
tion, research infrastructure upgrades, and faculty incentives.
• Decision-Making Autonomy: Empowering universities and institutes with deci-
sion-making autonomy involves decentralizing administrative processes. This includes
streamlining approval mechanisms for research projects, faculty recruitment, and in-
frastructure development. Decisions regarding research focus areas, collaborations,
and international partnerships can be made locally, aligning with the institution’s vi-
sion and strengths.
• Strategic Allocation for Research and Development: Meticulous distribution of funds
within the specified 5-7% budget allocation to cater specifically to Research & Devel-
opment (R&D) endeavours. The funding should be strategically managed to address
the diverse needs of different disciplines, encouraging a well-rounded approach to
knowledge creation and technological advancements.
b) Thrust Areas for Research:
Encouraging each university to identify specific thrust areas for need-based research is a
strategic imperative in fostering specialized expertise and addressing societal challenges.
This approach aligns with the ethos of the NEP 2020, emphasizing the role of universities in
becoming engines of innovation and problem-solving.
Universities are urged to embark on a strategic identification process to pinpoint thrust areas
aligned with local communities, regional needs, national priorities, and global challeng-
es. This involves a comprehensive assessment of the university’s existing strengths, faculty
expertise, and the unique socio-economic context in which it operates. Consultations with
stakeholders, including industries, local communities, and government bodies, can provide
valuable insights into pressing challenges that need scholarly attention.
Concentrating efforts on specific thrust areas ensures a more profound and sustained impact
on the identified challenges. By concentrating resources on a select set of research themes,
universities can optimize their infrastructure, faculty training, and collaboration networks.
c) Faculty Recruitment and Autonomy:
Recognizing the critical intersection of faculty recruitment and institutional autonomy is par-
amount for ensuring academic excellence and fostering a vibrant research environment. The
current landscape reflects challenges that, when addressed strategically, can pave the way
for a more robust faculty recruitment process and increased institutional autonomy.
• Bureaucratic Hurdles: Cumbersome administrative processes often impede the swift
recruitment of faculty, leading to delays in filling crucial academic positions. Stream-
lining these processes is crucial for attracting and retaining top-tier talent. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 46
• Autonomy Constraints: The rigid approval processes from state governments or cen-
tral bodies, such as UPSC, for each faculty recruitment pose a challenge to the au-
tonomy of educational institutions. This bureaucratic oversight can hinder the timely
appointment of qualified faculty members.
• Autonomous Departmental Committees: Empower individual departments with more
autonomy in faculty recruitment. Establish department-level recruitment committees
comprising faculty members, alumni, and industry experts.
• Recruitment Task Forces: Create task forces dedicated to faculty recruitment, com-
prising experienced academicians and administrators. Develop a repository of poten-
tial candidates for various disciplines to expedite the hiring process.
d) Equitable Distribution of Funds:
Ensuring the equitable distribution of funds, irrespective of Principal Investigator (PI) affili-
ation, is essential for fostering a collaborative and inclusive research ecosystem. To achieve
this goal, a systematic approach is needed, encompassing policy changes, transparent mech-
anisms, and stakeholder engagement.
• Transparent Evaluation Criteria: Establishing clear and transparent criteria for eval-
uating research proposals, emphasizing the project’s scientific merit and potential
impact. The standardized set of evaluation parameters should be accessible to all
stakeholders.
• Peer Review Oversight Committees: Create oversight committees comprising diverse
experts to monitor the peer review process and ensure fairness. Conduct periodic re-
views of the peer review process, addressing any biases or discrepancies.
• Collaboration with Funding Agencies: Collaborate with funding agencies to encour-
age a shift towards fair allocation practices. Exploring the possibility of pilot pro-
grammes to test and refine equitable distribution mechanisms.
• State-sponsored Research Programmes: Establish state-funded research initiatives
aligned with the specific developmental needs and growth priorities of the region,
fostering targeted contributions to local progress and advancement.
e) Scaling Up Projects:
Scaling up research projects from Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3 to 6 and facilitating
their commercialization is a critical step towards translating academic endeavours into re-
al-world impact.
• Establishment of a Dedicated Fund: Creation of an Institute-level dedicated fund spe-
cifically earmarked for scaling up projects from TRL 3 to 6. Propose a detailed frame-
work outlining the criteria for project eligibility, fund allocation, and expected outcomes.
• Collaboration with Industry for Scaling Projects: Encourage collaboration with in-
dustries to provide expertise, mentorship, and financial support for scaling research
projects. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 47
• Technology Transfer Acceleration Programmes: Developing acceleration pro-
grammes specifically focused on expediting the technology transfer process from
academia to industry. Additionally, collaborating with technology transfer offices to
identify bottlenecks and streamline procedures.
• Specialized Grants for Commercialization: Introduction of specialized grants dedi-
cated to supporting the commercialization phase of research projects. State funding
agencies can create grant categories that focus explicitly on transitioning projects
from TRL 3 to 6. Ensure that these grants cover expenses related to market validation,
prototype development, and initial commercialization efforts.
• Establishing Translational Research Hubs: Establishment of translational research
hubs that serve as centralized facilities for scaling and commercializing projects. En-
sure that these hubs offer shared resources, expertise, and mentoring for researchers
involved in scaling projects.
The NITI Aayog, has also released, under the NITI Working Paper series, the Techno-Com-
mercial Readiness and Market Maturity Matrix (TCRM Matrix) framework, a pioneering as-
sessment tool designed to revolutionize technology evaluation, foster innovation, and fuel
entrepreneurship in India. A copy of that framework can be accessed at https://niti.gov.in/
sites/default/files/2023-07/TCRM-Matrix-Framework-FAD3.pdf. The TCRM Matrix frame-
work presents an integrated assessment model that offers in-depth insights and actionable
intelligence to stakeholders at every stage of the technology development cycle.
f) Modern Research Instruments:
Recognizing the pivotal role that modern research instruments play in advancing scientific
discovery and innovation, the following actionable recommendations are proposed to ad-
dress the pressing need for additional research instruments:
• Comprehensive Instrumentation Needs Assessment: Conduct a thorough assessment
of the current research infrastructure to identify gaps and prioritize the acquisition of
modern instruments. Form a dedicated committee involving researchers, faculty, and
industry experts to assess instrumentation needs. Utilize the findings to create a road-
map for systematically acquiring essential instruments.
• Establishing Centralized Research Instrument Facilities: The establishment of cen-
tralized facilities housing state-of-the-art research instruments. Ensure accessibility to
these facilities by researchers from various disciplines and institutions.
• Public-Private Partnerships for Instrument Acquisition: Explore public-private part-
nerships to fund the acquisition of modern research instruments. Engage with indus-
try partners willing to contribute financially to procure instruments relevant to their
sectors. Establish transparent agreements outlining the terms of collaboration and
shared benefits.
• Funding Allocation for Instrument Upgradation: State Governments should allocate a
specific portion of research funds for the regular upgradation of existing instruments Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 48
and procurement of new ones. Integrate a dedicated budget for instrument upgrada-
tion into the overall research funding structure. Establish an Overarching Committee
responsible for periodic reviews and recommendations on upgrade priorities.
• Collaborative Research Projects for Instrument Sharing: Encourage collaborative re-
search projects that involve the sharing of expensive instruments among participating
institutions. Develop frameworks for collaborative projects, emphasizing the efficient
utilization of shared instruments. Foster a culture of collaboration by recognizing and
incentivizing joint research initiatives.
• Grant Programmes for Instrument Acquisition: Propose the introduction of grant pro-
grammes specifically aimed at supporting institutions in acquiring modern research
instruments. Ensure that the grants cover the entire lifecycle of instruments, including
maintenance and training.
g) Enhancing Fellowship:
In the pursuit of fostering a vibrant research ecosystem, State Governments and Authorities
play a pivotal role in addressing the financial challenges faced by non-NET Ph.D. students.
• Specialized Funding Allocation: State Governments can allocate a specific portion
of their research and education budget to create a dedicated fund for non-NET Ph.D.
fellowships. This targeted funding approach will ensure that financial support reaches
the intended recipients, addressing the existing gap.
• Industry-State Collaboration: States can facilitate partnerships wherein industries
sponsor fellowships aligned with their research needs, providing students with finan-
cial support while fostering industry-academia synergy.
• Recognition of State-Level Research: State governments can institute policies that
recognize and reward outstanding state-level research contributions. This recognition
can take the form of additional financial incentives or awards, motivating non-NET
Ph.D. students to excel in their research pursuits.
• Collaboration with Philanthropic Organizations: Facilitating partnerships with philan-
thropic organizations can enhance financial support for non-NET Ph.D. students. Ex-
ploring avenues for collaboration and encouraging philanthropic entities to contribute
to fellowship programmes.
iii. Addressing Central-level Challenges
a) Accelerating NEP 2020 Implementation:
The imperative to fortify R&D initiatives in HEIs is embedded in the National Education Policy
(NEP) 2020. To accelerate the NEP’s vision in this domain, there are key actionable steps that
require urgent attention:
• Alignment of Curricula with Research Goals: Urgent restructuring of academic curricula
to align with NEP’s emphasis on research-driven education. Inculcating a research-ori-
ented mindset early in academic pursuits can significantly bolster the R&D culture. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 49
• Infrastructure Augmentation: Swift augmentation of research infrastructure is para-
mount. This includes updating laboratories, acquiring modern equipment, and ensur-
ing the availability of cutting-edge technology. Addressing these infrastructural needs
directly impacts the quality of research outputs.
• Incentivizing Faculty Engagement: Urgent introduction of incentives to encourage
faculty participation in R&D activities. Recognition through rewards, research leaves,
and additional allowances can motivate educators to actively engage in impactful
research.
• Collaborative Ventures: Facilitating collaborative ventures with industries and other
research institutions. Immediate efforts should be directed towards creating a condu-
cive environment for multidisciplinary collaborations, fostering a synergistic approach
to problem-solving.
b) Special Status for Unique Requirements:
In the endeavour to enhance R&D capabilities within HEIs, a compelling case is made for
granting special status to universities and institutes in distinctive geographical regions. This
proposal specifically targets North Eastern regions, Island states such as Andaman & Nicobar
Islands, hilly states, and other geographically unique areas, recognizing and addressing their
unique developmental needs.
• Tailoring Policies for Specific Challenges: The call for special status is rooted in the
understanding that these regions face specific challenges that necessitate tailor-made
policies. Recognizing and addressing these challenges will be instrumental in fostering
an environment conducive to impactful research.
• Infrastructure and Resource Augmentation: Special status entails a dedicated focus
on the augmentation of research infrastructure and resources in these regions. This
includes the provision of cutting-edge laboratories, research facilities, and the neces-
sary technological support required for advanced research pursuits.
• Equitable Research Funding Allocation: A key aspect of special status is ensuring eq-
uitable allocation of research funding, acknowledging the unique obstacles faced by
these regions. This approach aims to bridge existing gaps and provide the necessary
financial support for research initiatives.
• Talent Development and Retention: Special recognition seeks to create incentives
for attracting and retaining talented researchers and faculty members in these re-
gions. Fellowship programmes, research grants, and recognition schemes can be im-
plemented to nurture and retain research talent.
• Promoting Interdisciplinary Research: The proposal emphasizes the encouragement
of interdisciplinary research to leverage the unique strengths of these regions. Col-
laborations across diverse disciplines can be facilitated, fostering comprehensive and
impactful research outcomes. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 50
• Community Engagement and Societal Impact: Special status also involves a focus on
community engagement and ensuring that research outcomes have a positive impact
on the local society. This includes initiatives that address community-specific chal-
lenges and contribute to the overall development of these regions.
c) Maintenance of Research Equipment:
Maintaining high-end research equipment is a critical challenge that demands strategic ap-
proaches for ensuring prolonged functionality and optimal performance. Firstly, there is a
need for the establishment of a dedicated fund earmarked for the maintenance of research
equipment. This fund can be allocated to HEIs based on their research infrastructure needs,
ensuring equitable distribution.
Additionally, the centre can facilitate the creation of a centralized technical support network
consisting of experts in various domains. These specialists can offer guidance and assistance
to multiple institutions, sharing their expertise to address maintenance challenges efficiently.
Collaborative initiatives, such as national-level training programmes and workshops, can be
organized to enhance the skills of technical staff involved in equipment maintenance.
Moreover, public-private collaborations can bring in specialized knowledge, resources, and
technologies, contributing to effective maintenance practices. Introducing tax incentives for
private companies investing in research equipment maintenance could further incentivize
such partnerships.
d) Delineation for Contract Teachers:
There is a provision in the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for the Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Main-
tenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2018
6
. Clause no. 13 of the Regulations stipulates
that:
• Teachers should be appointed on a contract basis only when it is absolutely necessary
and when the student-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid-down norms.
• In any case, the number of such appointments should not exceed 10% of the total number
of faculty positions in a College/University.
• The qualifications and selection procedure for appointing them should be the same as
those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher.
• The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teachers should not be less than the monthly
gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor.
• Such appointments should not be made initially for more than one academic session, and
the performance of any such entrant teacher should be reviewed for academic perfor-
mance before reappointing him/her on a contract basis for another session.
6
https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/4033931_UGC-Regulation_min_Qualification_Jul2018.pdf Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 51
• Such appointments on a contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely neces-
sary to fill vacancies arising due to maternity leave, child-care leave, etc.
In addition, UGC has also published the UGC revised guidelines for enhancement of rates of
honorarium for guest faculty on the 28
th
of January 2019. Accordingly:
1. The honorarium is Rs. 1500 per lecture, subject to a maximum of Rs. 50,000 per month.
2. Guest faculty are appointed only against sanctioned posts.
3. Qualifications for guest faculty shall be the same as prescribed for the post of assis-
tant professor.
4. The selection procedure for guest faculty is the same as an assistant professor.
5. The composition of the selection committee is as follows:
a. The Vice-Chancellor or his/her Nominee
b. One subject expert to be nominated by the vice-chancellor
c. Dean of the concerned faculty
d. Head of the Department
e. An Academician representing SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Women/ Differently abled
categories to be nominated by the vice-chancellor
6. The guest faculty will not get benefits of allowances, pension, gratuity leave etc.
It is strongly recommended that all the state universities and institutes should follow, scrupu-
lously, the above guidelines of the UGC while hiring contract teachers.
e) Stringency in University Establishment:
Adopting a more stringent approach to the establishment of new universities is imperative
to ensure the quality, sustainability, and overall effectiveness of higher education institutions.
The process of setting up universities should involve a comprehensive evaluation of factors
such as academic infrastructure, faculty qualifications, financial viability, and a clear vision for
educational outcomes.
Enforcing stricter criteria for approving new university establishments may include rigor-
ous scrutiny of the proposed curriculum, faculty-to-student ratios, infrastructure plans, and
long-term sustainability models. By emphasizing stringent standards, the government aims
to prevent the proliferation of substandard institutions that may compromise the quality of
education and research.
UGC and AICTE should jointly disseminate clear and detailed information regarding the ap-
proval process for new universities. This information should be easily accessible to prospec-
tive institutions, guiding them through the application and evaluation procedures. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 52
f) Autonomy for External Ph.D. Registrations
In a dynamic academic landscape, the proposal to allow external Ph.D. registrations stands as
a strategic move towards fostering a balanced teacher-student ratio and promoting a more
inclusive research environment.
• Allowing external PhD registrations facilitates the infusion of diverse perspectives and
experiences into research endeavours.
• Institutions can optimize resources by tapping into the expertise of scholars beyond their
immediate campuses. This leads to a more efficient utilization of intellectual capital, pro-
moting collaborative research initiatives that transcend geographical boundaries.
• External PhD registrations enable universities to forge national and international collabo-
rations seamlessly. Scholars from different regions or even countries can engage in joint
research projects, fostering global academic integration and enhancing the global stand-
ing of Indian universities.
• A balanced teacher-student ratio, facilitated by external PhD registrations, paves the way
for increased research productivity. Faculty members can guide a broader spectrum of
research scholars, fostering a culture of innovation and knowledge creation.
• Working professionals seeking to pursue doctoral studies can benefit from the flexibility
offered by external registrations. This inclusivity caters to individuals with diverse career
trajectories, promoting lifelong learning and academic growth.
g) Exempting State Universities from GST and Income Tax
To implement the recommendation of exempting State universities and institutes from the
Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Income Tax, the Central Government and the University
Grants Commission (UGC) can take several strategic steps:
• State universities often operate on limited budgets allocated by state governments. Ex-
empting them from GST ensures that essential goods and services they procure for aca-
demic and research purposes are not subjected to additional tax burdens. This financial
relief allows universities to allocate resources more efficiently to core activities like
teaching, research, and infrastructure development.
• Explore financial support mechanisms to compensate for the potential revenue loss due
to tax exemptions. This may involve the creation of special funds or grants dedicated to
supporting state universities in their academic and research endeavours.
• Introduce incentive structures that reward state universities for their contributions to
research, innovation, and academic excellence. This could include additional grants, rec-
ognition, or other benefits for universities that actively engage in high-quality research
and development activities. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 53
In conclusion, this comprehensive report serves as a repository of the multifaceted challenges
and well-considered recommendations for fostering a vibrant R&D culture within State
Universities and Institutes, with the overarching goal of propelling India into a position of
global leadership in innovation and technological advancement.
The report systematically unpacks the diverse challenges faced by these institutions,
ranging from funding constraints and teaching-research imbalances to faculty mindset and
administrative hurdles. It delineates the intricate landscape where pockets of excellence
coexist with systemic impediments, offering a nuanced understanding of the current state of
R&D in State Universities.
On the foundation of these insights, the report articulates a roadmap for transformative
change. It puts forth actionable recommendations, spanning from the establishment of R&D
committees and infrastructure development to faculty incentives, industry partnerships,
and international collaborations. Each recommendation is crafted with a pragmatic lens,
considering the practicalities of implementation and the potential for impactful outcomes.
The urgency of these recommendations is underscored by their collective potential to
propel India into a global hub of innovation. The conclusion is not just a mere summary;
it is a compelling plea for the Government of India to recognize the transformative power
embedded in these recommendations. It calls for strategic planning and policy formulation
that aligns with the aspirations of positioning India at the forefront of groundbreaking research
and technological advancements. The report, therefore, serves as a clarion call for concerted
efforts and visionary actions to shape the future trajectory of R&D in Indian higher education.
XI. Conclusion Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 54
At a time when countries across the world are taking specific measures to either nurture
talent or attract such talent from the rest of the world, this report provides an assessment of
the Indian ecosystem, identifies the drivers of the present system along with specific areas
of friction and gaps, and finally recommends some specific cross-cutting actions that various
stakeholders may take to build a robust talent ecosystem in the country.
While the intention is not to provide a panacea for all the shortcomings of the R&D ecosystem
in the state universities and institutes, efforts have been made to identify major challenges
that India faces to reap its demographic dividend and transform into a global hub for talent.
The report hopes to initiate a frank and open discussion around current Indian challenges at
the institute-level, state-level and the central-level, which will inevitably include some sugges-
tions to revamp the existing Indian systems and processes. These constructive suggestions
should be taken in the spirit of guiding improvement. Similarly, the abstraction of themes
from successful S&T powers is being done to identify ideas useful for India. This abstraction
does not imply an endorsement or criticism of any country’s systems or policy choices.
The educational landscape in India is characterized by a collaborative governance structure,
where both the central and state governments play pivotal roles. While centrally funded in-
stitutions often showcase exemplary performance, there is room for enhancement in insti-
tutions managed at the state level. This variation in educational quality can be attributed to
different policy approaches and governance practices at the state level. The implications of
this variation demand continuous education and skill development to keep pace with rapid
innovation. There is a noticeable gap between the evolving requirements of the industry and
the current direction of education and skill development.
To address this complex issue, a unified and strategic approach is necessary. Such an ap-
proach would involve aligning educational policies across different levels of government, im-
proving infrastructure at state-managed institutions, promoting closer cooperation between
academia and industry, and updating curricula to reflect the latest developments. Through
these measures, India aims to cultivate a more inclusive and dynamic pool of next-gen pro-
fessionals, ensuring readiness for the challenges and opportunities of the contemporary land-
scape.
India as a career destination has a long way to go to become an aspiration for young stu-
dents, with limited career options in the Indian job market and unattractive remunerations.
At the same time, talent needs to be nurtured for the market within the limits of the current
educational quality. To attract talent to India, or to get back Indian talent from other coun-
tries, we require addressing specific issues related to retaining talent such as ease of doing
research, reduction of bureaucratic processes for recruitment, competitive salaries and in-
centives along with specific actions for easing restrictions for foreign scientists to work and
teach in India. Each of these are discussed, in detail, in the report.
XII. Way Forward Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 55
A summary of the recommendations at the level of institute, state governments and the cen-
tral government has been provided in the Table 1. Implementation of these recommendations
would require close coordination across various stakeholders. A core group of senior level
officers from these stakeholder organisations can be considered to be set-up to examine
these recommendations and chalk-out a way forward for implementation, which will, in turn,
help build the industries of the future, enhance the country’s strategic capabilities and build
a strong and prosperous Viksit Bharat. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 56
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
University/Institute Level
1
Establishment of
R&D Committee
/ Cell
Vice-Chancellor
+
Dean (R&D) /
Director (R&D)
Short Term
(1 – 2
years)
• Formulation of research policies for the University and identification of research
strategy.
• Design and implement a model for performance evaluation of professors based on
research.
• Periodic review of university level research priorities, status of ongoing research
projects, and assessment of research needs.
2
Improve
Infrastructure
and
Instrumentation
Facilities
Dean (R&D) /
Director (R&D)
Short Term
(1 – 2
years)
• Comprehensive assessment of the existing research facilities including identifying
capacity gaps, obsolete equipment, and areas requiring enhancement.
• Creation of a dedicated collaborative space for research promotion (aka Research
Park) with a Centralised Instrumentation Facility
• Explore Public-Private Partnerships for funding new research infrastructure.
3
Encouraging
Faculty
Engagement
Dean (R&D) /
Director (R&D)
Short Term
(1 – 2
years)
• Make scholarly content more accessible and cost-effective by enabling subscription to
scientific and technical journals.
• Allow faculty members dedicated time for intensive research pursuits, with provisions
for research-oriented allowances.
• Fortify the research capabilities of faculty members with workshops on writing
research proposals and advanced research methodologies.
4
Incentives
for Student
Participation
R&D Cell
Short Term
(1 – 2
years)
• Fostering a culture of inquiry and innovation by allocation of course credits or
certificates for active involvement in research projects. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 57
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
5
Support
Intellectual
Property
Creation and
Technology
Transfer
R&D Cell
+
Entrepreneurship
Cell
Short Term
(1 – 2
years)
• Establishing dedicated units tasked with supporting researchers in assessing the
novelty and applicability of their research outcomes, and ensuring timely and effective
patent submissions.
• Provide administrative support, legal counsel and business guidance to researchers
for identifying market opportunities, assess commercial viability, and navigate the
intricacies of bringing innovations to market.
6
Strengthen
Industry
Partnerships
R&D Cell
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Create frameworks and platforms that expedite the transition of research outcomes
into practical applications within industries.
• Establish industry-sponsored research positions for faculty members or doctoral
students to engage in research that aligns with industrial objectives.
• Enable joint projects and internship opportunities, providing students with hands-on
experience in industrial settings.
7
Regular
Assessment and
Feedback
Vice-Chancellor
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Create a structured feedback mechanism for faculty and students to actively participate
in shaping the research environment through surveys and focus group discussions.
• Facilitate periodic reviews of research centers and departments considering
aspects such as research output, faculty engagement, collaboration initiatives, and
infrastructure utilization.
8
Create a
Culture of
Innovation and
Entrepreneurship
R&D Cell
+
Entrepreneurship
Cell
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Integrate research and innovation with professor evaluations and academic
programmes. Emphasize research-oriented courses.
• Establishment of incubators and accelerators on campus to provide mentorship and
support, for fostering the growth of startups.
• Organize workshops, seminars, and awareness campaigns to instil an understanding
of the entrepreneurial journey. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 58
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
9
Strengthen
Evaluation and
Recognition
Vice-Chancellor
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Engage stakeholders, including researchers, academicians, and industry experts, in the
process of refining and updating the evaluation criteria.
• Design new evaluation criteria for faculty by integration of qualitative metrics, such as
the novelty of research, societal impact, and interdisciplinary collaborations.
• Diversify impact assessment criteria to include real-world applications, policy
influences, and contributions to community development.
10
Encourage
International
Collaboration
Vice-Chancellor
+
R&D Cell
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Prioritize collaborations with institutions and industries known for excellence in specific
research domains that align with the university’s research priorities.
• Establishing structured and scalable faculty exchange programmes, encouraging
knowledge transfer, and collaborative research.
• Facilitate and incentivize the organization of joint research conferences and symposia,
offering platforms for knowledge exchange and networking.
11
Improve Public
Outreach
Public Relations (PR)
Cell
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Adopt a multifaceted communication strategy that includes diverse channels to ensure
that research milestones are communicated effectively.
• Engage with mainstream media to translate complex research findings into accessible
narratives for the general public using success stories and impactful case studies.
12
Identify and
Pursue Long-
term Vision
Vice-Chancellor
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Analyse technological trends, funding landscapes, national research priorities, and
industry interest areas to formulate an R&D strategy for the university.
• Develop a structured roadmap, anchored in a shared vision, with specific, measurable,
and time-bound Key Performance Indicators.
State Level
1
Thrust Areas for
Research
Department of
Education, State
Government
Short Term
(1 - 2
years)
• Pinpoint thrust areas aligned with local communities, regional needs, national priorities,
and global challenges.
• Comprehensive assessment of the university’s existing strengths, faculty expertise,
and the unique socio-economic context in which it operates.
• Each university to identify specific thrust areas for need-based research. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 59
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
2
Equitable
Distribution of
Funds
State S&T Council
/ Department
of Science and
Technology, State
Government
+
Department of
Education, State
Government
Short Term
(1 - 2
years)
• Initiate state-sponsored research programmes to support the state’s development and
growth needs.
• Establishing clear and transparent criteria for evaluating research proposals,
emphasizing the project’s scientific merit and potential impact.
• Create oversight committees comprising diverse experts to monitor the peer review
process and ensure fairness.
3
Scaling Up
Projects
Department of
Planning, State
Government
+
Department of
Industries, State
Government
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Creation of an Institute-level dedicated fund specifically earmarked for scaling up
projects from TRL 3 to 6.
• Acceleration programmes specifically focused on expediting the technology transfer
process from academia to industry.
• Specialized grants dedicated to supporting the commercialization phase of research
projects.
• Establishment of translational research hubs that serve as centralized facilities for
scaling and commercializing projects.
4
Modern
Research
Instruments
State S&T Council
/ Department
of Science and
Technology, State
Government
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Assessment of the current research infrastructure to identify gaps and prioritize the
acquisition of modern instruments.
• Establishment of centralized facilities housing state-of-the-art research instruments.
• Collaborative Research Projects for Instrument Sharing.
• Grant Programmes for Instrument Acquisition.
5
Enhancing
Fellowship
Department of
Education, State
Government
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Research and Education budget to include a dedicated fund for non-NET Ph.D.
fellowships.
• Introducing Industry-sponsored/ philanthropic organizations-funded fellowships.
• Recognize and reward outstanding state-level research contributions in the form of
additional financial incentives or awards. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 60
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
6
Autonomy and
Funding
Department of
Education, State
Government
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Allocating universities funds based on their unique research priorities and strategic
goals.
• Streamlining approval mechanisms for research projects, faculty recruitment, and
infrastructure development.
• Meticulous distribution of funds within the specified 5 – 7% budget allocation to cater
specifically to Research & Development (R&D) endeavours.
7
Faculty
Recruitment and
Autonomy
Department of
Education, State
Government
+
Vice-Chancellors
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Establish department-level recruitment committees.
• Create task forces dedicated to faculty recruitment, comprising experienced
academicians and administrators.
• Develop a repository of potential candidates for various disciplines to expedite the
hiring process.
National Level
1
Accelerating
NEP 2020
Implementation
Department of
Higher Education,
Government of India
Short Term
(1 - 2
years)
• Urgent restructuring of academic curricula to align with NEP’s emphasis on research-
driven education.
• Updating laboratories, acquiring modern equipment, and ensuring the availability of
cutting-edge technology.
• Introduction of incentives to encourage faculty participation in R&D activities.
2
Maintenance
of Research
Equipment
Department
of Science and
Technology (DST),
Government of India
+
All India Council for
Technical Education
(AICTE)
Short Term
(1 - 2
years)
• Establishment of a dedicated fund earmarked for the maintenance of research
equipment.
• Creation of a centralized technical support network consisting of experts in various
domains.
• Introducing tax incentives for private companies investing in research equipment
maintenance. Improving the Culture of Research and Development (R&D) in State Universities and Institutes 61
S.N.RecommendationImplementation ByTimelineImplementation Modalities
3
Delineation
for Contract
Teachers
University Grants
Commission (UGC)
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Contract teachers should be appointed only when the student-teacher ratio falls
below norms, limited to 10% of total faculty positions.
• Qualifications, selection, and emoluments for contract teachers should mirror regular
appointments, ensuring a minimum monthly salary equivalent to an Assistant Professor.
• Initial contracts should be limited to one academic session, subject to performance
review.
4
Autonomy for
External Ph.D.
Registrations
University Grants
Commission (UGC)
Medium
Term
(2 – 5
years)
• Enables scholars from different regions or countries to engage in joint research
projects.
• Flexibility for working professionals for pursuing doctoral studies.
• External PhD registrations foster seamless national and international collaborations.
5
Special Status
for Unique
Requirements
Department of
Higher Education,
Government of India
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Granting special status to universities and institutes in distinctive geographical regions.
(North Eastern regions, Island states such as Andaman & Nicobar Islands, hilly states,
and other geographically unique areas).
• Dedicated focus on the augmentation of research infrastructure and resources
including equitable allocation of research funding.
• Create incentives for attracting and retaining talented researchers and faculty
members.
6
Stringency
in University
Establishment
University Grants
Commission (UGC)
+
All India Council for
Technical Education
(AICTE)
Long Term
(> 5 Years)
• Enforcing stricter criteria for approving new university establishments.
• Clear and detailed information regarding the approval process for new universities. Notes Notes Designed by: