The 2019 draft version of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 made two sweeping assertions in seven words: “teaching is strengthened through research and vice-versa.”
Are these assertions supported by evidence, however?
This article restricts itself to the first part of the assertion — that teaching is strengthened through research — because of its direct influence on India’s higher education policy, specifically the requirement that faculty members across all types of higher education institutions (HEIs) undertake research and publish.
This policy has gravely undermined the country’s academic culture by directly contributing to an epidemic of fraudulent publications.
Triumph of an idea
In 2010, the University Grants Commission introduced the Academic Performance Indicator as part of the Career Advancement Scheme for faculty members. The Indicator laid out a clear bias in favour of research and publications over teaching for faculty appointments and promotions. Though the Commission did not acknowledge that the decision was based on the belief that research strengthens teaching, there is no other logical explanation to make research compulsory.
A decade later, the same ideas about the relationship between research and teaching resurfaced in the 2019 draft version of the NEP, which subsequently informed the final 2020 document.
Both versions proposed three main types of HEIs, with minor changes in terminology: (i) Research-intensive universities to focus equally on research and teaching; (ii) teaching-intensive universities to focus primarily on teaching but also contribute to research; and (iii) autonomous degree-granting colleges (ACs) to be devoted primarily to undergraduate teaching.
However, the draft version recommended: “Given that teaching is strengthened through research and vice-versa, faculty at these colleges will be encouraged to apply for research funding and conduct.”
Similarly, NEP 2020 stated that ACs would not be restricted to teaching and, with appropriate accreditations, could even evolve into research or teaching universities.
In sum, both policies left the door open for colleges to conduct research.
Muddy waters
There are two competing views on the relationship between research and teaching, with their origins going back to the 19th century. The first view comes from the Prussian philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt’s position that research is inseparable or even identical to teaching and learning. According to von Humboldt, “the unity of research and teaching should result in learning on the part of the teacher as well as the student.”
A little more than four decades later, however, the English theologian J.H. Newman wrote in his 1853 book The Idea of a University that “to discover and to teach are two distinct functions; they are also distinct gifts and are not commonly found united in the same person.”
These two competing views on the relationship between research and teaching continue to influence our thinking and policies in higher education. But what of the evidence?
One of the most cited quantitative studies on the relationship between research and teaching is a 1996 article by John Hattie and H.W. Marsh, which concluded that “the common belief that research and teaching are inextricably entwined is an enduring myth” and that at best they are “very loosely coupled”.
Similarly, a 2004 research review prepared by Mohammad Qamar uz Zaman for the Department for Education and Skills of the UK government found that, while “research and quality teaching are not contradictory roles,” it was not possible to conclude “that the link is strongly positive”.
Subsequent research found that research benefited teaching in some conditions as well as that the relationship varied across different individuals, disciplines, institutions, and levels of study.
For example, some studies have reported evidence of a stronger relationship between research and teaching in the ‘soft’ disciplines of the humanities and social sciences than in the ‘hard’ ones of the natural sciences. Others have found that the relationship is likely to be stronger at postgraduate rather than at the undergraduate levels.
Indian context
At least two factors further muddy the waters in the Indian context.
First, while there are a number of studies on the research-teaching link for the US, the UK, Australia, and other countries, there has been no such research in India. The lack of a proper understanding of the Indian context makes the current bias in favour of research questionable.
Second, the research capabilities of individuals and institutions matter for the research-teaching link to be consequential. The components of ‘research capability’ include physical infrastructure such as libraries and laboratories; human capital in the form of research-capable faculty members, a sufficient number of postgraduate students, and supportive leadership; research funding; an adequate teacher-student ratio so that there is a reasonable balance between the teaching, research, and administrative responsibilities of faculty members; and the larger academic environment.
Most of India’s HEIs fall well short on many of these parameters.
Undoing damage
India’s policymakers have skipped past and ongoing debates and disagreements on the research-teaching link and embraced von Humboldt’s perspective. And this has led faculty members to publish junk at the expense of teaching.
There is a need to reverse course and adopt a ‘research for some’ approach to limit research to a select number of HEIs that are capable of doing so.
Pushkar is director at The International Centre Goa. Views are personal.
Published – January 06, 2026 09:30 am IST
