Reimagining research culture: What India’s experience can teach Australia, the UK, and Canada

Higher education systems across the globe, from the historic quadrangles of Oxford to the leafy campuses of Melbourne and Vancouver, are wrestling with a fundamental question: how do we cultivate a vibrant, productive, and dynamic research culture? As these nations chase international rankings, court global talent, and strive for wider societal impact, it is instructive to look beyond the usual examples of the United States and Western Europe. In India – a nation with the world’s second-largest higher education system, marked by profound diversity and rapid expansion – a complex mosaic of research cultures is taking shape, offering both cautionary tales and blueprints for reform.

India’s higher education landscape is vast: more than 37 million students, nearly one thousand universities, and tens of thousands of colleges. Since independence in 1947, the sector has grown not only in size but in ambition, with research performance now seen as a key lever for national progress. Despite this ambition, India’s research culture is commonly described as fragmented, under-resourced, and, at times, mediocre.

But to reduce India’s story to mere statistics or rankings is to ignore the deeper current. Within its borders, India hosts world-class institutes producing cutting-edge science, public universities stretched by teaching loads and funding gaps, and private institutions struggling to balance aspiration with access. The interplay of these diverse institutional types – and the cultures they foster – offers critical insights for higher education systems everywhere.

Before we can extract lessons, we must first clarify what we mean by “research culture”. It’s not merely about funding or output. Leading thinkers in the field posit research culture as the deeply held values, norms, practices, and relationships that shape how research is conceived, conducted, and valued within an institution.

At a practical level, three dimensions emerge:

• Values and perspectives. What motivates researchers? How is research understood and articulated as a mission?
• Practices and artefacts. What are the rituals, routines, rewards, and resource allocations that underpin daily research activity?
• Flows and relations. How do researchers interact with each other, with leadership, with industry, and with the global research community?

In India, as in Australia, the UK, and Canada, these dimensions manifest differently in elite institutes, public universities, and private enterprises. The lessons lie in understanding both the divergences and commonalities.

The first thing to understand about the Indian context is that there is no monolithic “Indian research culture.” Rather, there is a plurality, shaped by institutional type, discipline, and region. Elite public research institutes (such as the Indian Institutes of Technology, or IITs) foster a culture of autonomy, global collaboration, and product-oriented research. Public comprehensive universities (such as the University of Madras and the University of Mumbai) juggle teaching and research, often sacrificing depth for breadth. A comparatively more recent phenomenon in private higher education institutions (such as SRM University in Tamil Nadu) are split, with some disciplines flourishing and others languishing under heavy teaching loads and limited resources.

For Australian, UK, and Canadian universities – many of which are grappling with sectoral stratification and the rise of teaching-focused institutions – this pluralistic model offers a salutary warning. Attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all approach to research culture, whether through metric-driven funding or homogenised excellence frameworks, risk marginalising both the diversity of disciplines and the local context of institutions.

Sector leaders should resist the urge to force conformity and instead foster differentiated missions, supporting research cultures that play to institutional strengths, be they teaching, community engagement, blue-sky science, or industry partnership.

In India’s premier research institutes, a clear and consistent vision – sustained by leadership and reinforced by government investment – creates a virtuous cycle. Researchers are inspired, supported with resources, and embedded in global networks. In contrast, public universities often lack the necessary support structures. Vision statements about research ring hollow when not matched by mechanisms for investment, development, and recognition.

Australia’s Excellence in Research Australia (ERA), UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF), and Canada’s research assessment exercises have all highlighted the critical role of leadership. But too often, “leadership” is interpreted as top-down performance management, rather than the cultivation of environments where research can flourish. The Indian story suggests that the most effective leadership is that which aligns institutional mission with the aspirations of individual researchers. For instance, researchers within IITB described a style of leadership that encouraged a high degree of autonomy for individual researchers to tailor and pursue their research agendas, and that was backed by concentrated investment within key disciplines. 

Universities should invest in research leadership development at all levels, especially among department heads and mid-career academics. They should equip leaders not just to manage compliance, but to nurture and advocate for vibrant research cultures, attentive to local realities and emerging opportunities.

While India’s student population has exploded, with millions pursuing undergraduate studies, the number progressing to doctoral research – let alone research careers – is minuscule. Less than 0.5 per cent of students enroll in PhD programs in India, while even fewer become faculty (as compared with ~2.5 per cent of students in Australia and 5 per cent of students in the UK, where there is the challenge of limited employment opportunities in academic contexts). The bottlenecks are many: lack of funding, heavy teaching loads, limited mentorship, and institutional inertia.

Australia, the UK, and Canada face their own pipeline dilemmas, from the casualisation of academic labour to brain-drain and the challenge of retaining international talent post-PhD. India’s experience highlights the importance of seeing the research talent pipeline as more than a matter of enrolments. Attracting, developing, and retaining talent requires investment in mentoring, recognition, and, crucially, meaningful career prospects.

When it comes to addressing this, moving beyond short-term funding and precarious contracts would be a good start. Developing clear, transparent pathways for early-career researchers, with structured support for mentoring, mobility, and interdisciplinary training is also crucial.

Driven by both national policy and institutional pressures, Indian universities have increasingly equated research performance with quantity: more papers, more patents, more citations. In some cases, this has led to problematic behaviours, such as publishing in predatory journals, undermining the very credibility that research culture seeks to build.

This is hardly unique to India. Across the Anglosphere, the metric tide has swept through universities, incentivising everything from citation gaming to the neglect of unquantifiable but vital work, such as policy engagement and public scholarship. The lesson here is not to abandon metrics, but to recognise their limits and dangers. Higher education and research systems should design research assessment frameworks that reward genuine quality, integrity, and impact – not just volume.

Perhaps most striking in the Indian case is the tension between global and local priorities. Elite institutions are outward-facing, prioritising international collaboration and global metrics. Yet, vast swathes of the sector remain rooted in local and national concerns. For some, especially in the social sciences and humanities, research relevance is measured not in citations but in tangible improvements to community life, policy, and cultural understanding.

Australian, UK, and Canadian universities have long aspired to global standing, but, in the process, local missions can be neglected. The Indian experience is a reminder that research culture must be anchored in context, balancing cosmopolitan aspiration with local impact. Funding and recognition for research that addresses local and national priorities, alongside global engagement, should be encouraged. Fostering collaboration between institutions with different missions, leveraging diversity as a collective strength, should be, too.

A final, profound lesson is that research cultures are not fixed assets to be managed but living ecologies to be nurtured. In India, strong cultures can be built and transformed through strategic investment, leadership, and the agency of individual researchers. Conversely, cultures can atrophy when vision and resources are lacking.

For Australia, the UK, and Canada, the imperative is not to copy India’s model, but to recognise the dynamic, plural, and contested nature of research culture. As funding landscapes shift, as new disciplines emerge, and as universities grapple with the imperatives of equity and inclusion, only a flexible, responsive approach will suffice. Institutional self-reflection and regular culture audits should become the norm, with universities actively engaging their communities in shaping future directions for research values, practices, and relationships.

The future of higher education research is not a monoculture, but a vivid tapestry of values, practices, and ambitions. India’s experience, with its paradoxes and pluralities, offers a mirror in which Australia, the UK, and Canada can see both their strengths and frailties reflected.

Embracing the lessons of diversity, leadership, talent development, and the careful use of metrics, these countries can move beyond rhetoric to meaningful reform. Most importantly, by centring the lived realities of researchers and the unique contexts of their institutions, higher education leaders can create environments where creativity and rigour are not in tension, but in harmony.

In the end, building better research cultures is not just about global rankings or economic returns. It is about renewing the social contract between governments, researchers and the societies they serve – locally, nationally, and globally.

Get in touch to discuss how you can develop a thriving and productive research culture.

This article draws on findings from a doctoral study completed by Nous Manager Dr Minto Felix, investigating research cultures in Indian higher education. The study focuses on the perspectives and practices of more than fifty researchers working in computer science, biomedicine, and historical studies across six higher education institutions based in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra.

Contact Dr Minto Felix on LinkedIn.

Written with support from Julie Mercer, Nic Dillon, and Abigail Dempster.