Leadership Development Programme for Academic Leaders · Day 3 · Session FN 2
Leading Research for Relevance, Quality and Impact
Dr. Shalini Kapoor Professor of Periodontology and Director, Research and Development SGT University, Gurugram
SGT University
Research, National Priorities and Curriculum Leadership
Central question of Day 3
How can academic leaders make their institutions intellectually relevant to India's future?
FN 1 asked
Can the institution sustain research beyond any individual?
FN 2 asks
Is that research directed at what matters, and will anyone be better off because it was done?
Opening question
Two programmes are up for renewal. Which one do you fund?
Programme X · five years
0
papers, mostly in low-cited journals, on a topic chosen because data were easy to collect
Change outside the literature: none recorded.
Programme Y · five years
0
papers, one of which was the evidence base for a change in a state's school oral-health screening protocol
Change outside the literature: the protocol was revised, and the team was asked to design the training for it.
On a report that lists publication counts, Programme X ranks first.
Session outcomes
By the end of this hour, each participant will be able to
Explain the difference between research outputs, outcomes and impact using the research-impact pathway.
Locate a research project in Pasteur's Quadrant and state what that location implies for funding, staffing and evaluation.
Score three research portfolios against a four-criterion rubric, reach a table consensus and defend the ranking.
Identify one change to their institution's assessment or funding practice that shifts incentives from volume toward consequence.
Concept
A publication count records what passed a threshold, not whether it mattered
A count measures
How many outputs a journal accepted
How often other papers cited them
A count does not measure
Whether the question mattered to anyone
Whether the design could answer it
Whether anyone outside the field used the result
Whether the result was true
When a measure becomes a target it stops being a good measure: rewarded per paper, faculty produce more papers, smaller papers, easier questions.
Responsible assessment
Three frameworks have moved research assessment away from volume
Framework
Core position
Implication for Indian institutional leaders
DORA San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2012
Do not use journal-based metrics such as the impact factor as a surrogate for the quality of individual articles or researchers.
Promotion policies that score papers by journal impact factor assess the container, not the content.
Leiden Manifesto Hicks et al., Nature, 2015
Quantitative evaluation should support expert judgement; measure against the institution's mission; protect excellence in locally relevant research.
Research on regional disease burden or state policy is often undervalued by global indicators; the institution must value it deliberately.
NIRF India Rankings 2025 Research and Professional Practice, 30 percent
Publications 35, Quality of Publications 35, IPR 15, Projects and Professional Practice 15 marks; deductions for retracted publications and retracted citations.
The national ranking has moved away from rewarding volume without quality; incentives that still do so are misaligned with the State.
Sources: sfdora.org/read; Hicks, Wouters, Waltman, de Rijcke and Rafols, The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics, Nature 520 (2015); NIRF, India Rankings 2025 methodology (Overall).
Framework
Outputs are what the institution produces; outcomes are what others do with them; impact is what changes
Inputs
Resources
A seed grant, a periodontology team, hospital access, a biostatistician
Activities
The research
A cohort study of salivary biomarkers in a diabetic population
Outputs
Products
Papers, a validated biomarker panel, a thesis, a dataset
Outcomes
Uptake
A district hospital adopts a screening protocol; clinicians trained; a guideline cites the work
Impact
Change
Earlier detection in diabetic patients; fewer complications; lower cost of care
Under the institution's control
Reported in most annual reports
Depends on partners; rarely reported
Years later; often indirect
Only the first three stages are under the institution's control. Relevance and partnership must therefore be built in at the design stage.
Framework · reference points
Two established frameworks define what counts as a return on research
Payback framework · Buxton and Hanney, 1996
Five categories of return
Knowledge
Benefits to future research and research use, including capacity building
Political and administrative benefits, including informing policy and product development
Health and health-sector benefits
Broader economic benefits
Research Excellence Framework · United Kingdom
Impact is change beyond academia
An effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia. Assessed through impact case studies on reach and significance.
REF 2029 accepts that the relationship between research and impact can be indirect or non-linear.
Sources: Buxton and Hanney, Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1996; REF 2029 guidance, Section 6, Engagement and Impact.
Framework · Pasteur's Quadrant, Stokes 1997
Relevance and rigour are not a trade-off: the most consequential research sits where a real problem forces a fundamental question
Bohr's quadrantPure basic research
Pasteur's quadrantUse-inspired basic research
Lower-left quadrantIn practice: research done because it can be published
Edison's quadrantPure applied development
Motivated by considerations of use →
Seeks fundamental understanding →
Programme X40 papers, no recorded change
Programme Y6 papers, a protocol changed
Case 1Salivary biomarkers in diabetes
Case 2Retinal image classification
Case 3Insurance utilisation study
Framework · quality, relevance, impact
Consequential research is high on all three lenses; each other combination has a name
Relevance to national priorities
Relevance is not decided by the researcher alone: the national agenda states its problems
Source of priority
Examples
How an institution uses it
Viksit Bharat @2047
A developed economy by the centenary of independence; expansion of higher education toward 50 to 60 percent gross enrolment; research and innovation named as prerequisites
A School research agenda should state which part of that future it contributes to
National science and technology missions
National Quantum Mission; Interdisciplinary Cyber-Physical Systems; India Semiconductor Mission; National Supercomputing Mission; IndiaAI; Green Hydrogen; Deep Ocean
Mission calls define fundable problems and expected partners; map strengths to missions and join consortia
Health priorities
Ayushman Bharat and its Digital Mission; National Health Mission programmes on non-communicable disease, maternal and child health, oral health; ICMR priority areas
Clinical and allied-health research gains relevance when it addresses a programme's stated gap
ANRF and RDI instruments
ANRF strategic direction and PAIR networks; RDI Scheme finance for industry research at TRL 4 and above
Position the institution on the pathway from academic result to industry-ready technology
Sustainable Development Goals; state and district plans
NIRF publication and citation metrics linked to SDGs; state health, agriculture and industry departments; district development plans
SDG mapping is now a reportable indicator; the nearest impact route for most institutions is the state or district they sit in
Sources: NITI Aayog statements on Viksit Bharat @2047 (Business Standard, November 2023); DST, Research and Development Statistics 2025-26; PIB, RDI Scheme, July 2025; NIRF parameter list.
Case analysis and research portfolio exercise
Three proposals, one grant: score each on four criteria, then decide as a table which to fund
The task
Read the three case sheets. Each requests a three-year internal grant of Rs 15 lakh; only one can be funded at full value.
Score each case from 1 to 5 on quality, relevance to national priorities, potential impact and feasibility.
At your table, agree a ranking, place each case in Pasteur's Quadrant, and decide which one to fund, with two sentences of justification that refer to the rubric.
Scoring bands, total out of 20
17 to 20
Consequential: fund at full value
13 to 16
Promising: fund with conditions on the lowest criterion
9 to 12
Developmental: return for revision with mentoring
4 to 8
Not ready: decline; redirect to capacity building
Scores structure the discussion; they do not replace judgement.
Case 1 · Health sciences
Illustrative composite case
Salivary biomarkers for early periodontal risk in adults with type 2 diabetes
Proposal
Periodontology with Medicine and the hospital's endocrinology clinic, which sees about 900 adults with type 2 diabetes a year
Prospective cohort of 400 patients over 24 months; a low-cost risk score a non-dental clinician can apply
Outputs: validated risk score, three papers, one MDS and one PhD thesis, dataset
Intended outcome: adoption in the diabetes clinic; a state pilot in five district hospitals
Capacity and risks
Four prior papers, two in top-quartile journals; six MDS theses guided
Ethics approval obtained for the pilot phase; biostatistician four hours a week
Assay laboratory has run 200 samples; the study needs about 1,200
State health department interest is verbal only; loss to follow-up over two years
Why enrolled households do not use their public health insurance
Proposal
School of Management with the School of Behavioural Sciences, at the request of a district administration that noticed low utilisation in two blocks
Household survey of 1,200 enrolled families; interviews with billing staff and officials; a randomised test of a simplified information card and phone reminders
Outputs: two papers, a policy brief, a working paper, dataset
Intended outcome: the district adopts the intervention if it works; the state programme office reviews the findings
Capacity and risks
Early-career lead with two papers and a mentor; letter of support from the district; primary health centre network confirmed
Survey capacity through trained students; design reviewed by the mentor, not yet by a statistician; ethics approval pending
The lead has never run a field study of this size; the district's attention may move after an election
Ten minutes: read the three cases and score each on the four criteria
Four criteria, each 1 to 5
Quality: rigour of design, appropriateness of methods, capacity of the team
Relevance: fit with a stated national, state, sector or community problem
Potential impact: credibility of the route from output to outcome to impact; reach and significance
Feasibility: whether this team, in this institution, with this budget and time, can deliver
Activity · table analysis
Eleven minutes: agree a ranking, place each case in the quadrant, and choose one to fund
Table task
Record the table's consensus score on each criterion and the total for each case.
Place each case in Pasteur's Quadrant.
Decide which one case to fund at full value; write two sentences of justification that refer to the rubric.
If you would fund a case other than the highest-scoring one, record why.
Debrief · live rubric
Enter a table's scores: where does the ranking differ from a publication count?
Debrief
The rubric changes the decision a count would have produced, and shows the trade-off it was hiding
Case 2 · most papers
Highest expected output, lowest relevance and impact
Names a priority without engaging it; no user; results may not transfer to Indian screening conditions.
Case 1 · strongest team
High quality and relevance; impact route partly secured
Clinical partner confirmed; state interest verbal; assay capacity is the feasibility question.
Case 3 · highest impact potential
A partner with a decision waiting on the result; feasibility is the risk
Reducible within the grant: statistical review, a senior co-investigator, a phased release. This is what a mentoring culture makes fundable.
A leader must decide whether to accept feasibility risk for the sake of consequence. The rubric makes that choice visible.
Leadership moves
Three budget-neutral moves shift incentives from volume to consequence within a year
1
Change what is reported
Add outcomes and one impact narrative per department to the annual research report; report the share of faculty who published, not only the total count.
2
Change what is funded
Require every internal seed-grant proposal to state its intended outcome, the partner who wants it and the priority it serves; score proposals on the rubric.
3
Change what is rewarded
Adopt a responsible-metrics statement consistent with DORA or the Leiden Manifesto; give explicit appraisal weight to outcomes, mentoring and collaboration.
Commitment
Write one change to assessment or funding practice you could begin before the next term
Assessment or funding change
The change
Who must approve it
Who would object, and the answer to them
What will be observably different in six months
Key takeaways
Three things to carry into the afternoon
1
Publication counts measure how much was produced, not whether it was believable, wanted or used. DORA, Leiden and the 2025 NIRF deductions all point the same way.
2
Consequential research is high on quality, relevance and impact potential together; rigour and use are allies, and the rubric makes the trade-off with feasibility explicit.
3
Report outcomes, fund on the rubric, reward what you value. A Dean can begin all three within a year without a new budget line.
Return to the central question
How can academic leaders make their institutions intellectually relevant to India's future?
FN 1
Can the institution sustain research beyond any individual?
FN 2
Can it name something in India that is different because of its research?
Afternoon
Does the curriculum ask the same question of what and how the institution teaches?
Sources
References
San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, 2012. sfdora.org/read
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S. and Rafols, I. The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics. Nature 520, 429 to 431, 2015.
Buxton, M. and Hanney, S. How can payback from health services research be assessed? Journal of Health Services Research and Policy 1(1), 1996.
Research England. REF 2029 Guidance, Section 6: Engagement and Impact. 2029.ref.ac.uk
REF 2021 impact case studies database. results2021.ref.ac.uk/impact
Stokes, D. E. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press, 1997.
National Institutional Ranking Framework. India Rankings 2025: Methodology (Overall); NIRF parameter list. nirfindia.org
Press Information Bureau. Cabinet approves Research Development and Innovation Scheme, 1 July 2025. PRID 2141130.
Department of Science and Technology. ANRF's PAIR programme; Research and Development Statistics 2025-26.
NITI Aayog CEO on Vision India @2047, Business Standard, 29 November 2023.
The three portfolio cases are illustrative composites written for this exercise; names, places and figures are invented.