What the UGC research funding debate is missing

There is little disagreement that a nation's long-term progress depends to a considerable extent on the quality of its research and, more importantly, on how effectively research findings are translated into policy, innovation and economic development. Recognising this, countries around the world invest heavily in research and development (R&D) and continuously refine the mechanisms through which research funding is allocated.

Against this backdrop, the recent debate between the University Grants Commission (UGC) and public universities over the management of research funds deserves careful consideration. The UGC has decided to centralise research grants that were previously allocated directly to public universities, arguing that a single funding mechanism will reduce duplication, improve accountability, and focus on national priorities. Unsurprisingly, many universities have expressed concern, arguing that such a move may undermine institutional autonomy.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The debate, however, should not be reduced to a simple choice between centralisation and decentralisation. Instead, it should focus on designing a funding system that promotes high-quality research while ensuring transparency, accountability and national relevance.

Read more

UGC’s centralised research funding must not undermine academic independence

The UGC's argument is not without merit. Until recently, separate research allocations existed for both the UGC and individual public universities. As a result, it was possible for the same academic to receive research grants from both sources for similar or related projects. Moreover, because universities do not maintain a shared national database of completed and ongoing research, it is difficult to determine whether similar studies are being funded simultaneously across institutions. A central funding authority could also improve proposal evaluation, monitor project implementation, establish a national repository of research outputs, and align funding with the country's strategic priorities.

If duplication is indeed the concern, however, the discussion should go beyond grants. Bangladesh's research funding landscape is highly fragmented. Besides the UGC, research grants are distributed by numerous ministries, divisions, departments and specialised agencies, including the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, the Bangladesh Bureau of Educational Information and Statistics (BANBEIS), the Bangladesh Public Administration Training Centre (BPATC), the BCS Administration Academy (BCSAA), the National Academy for Educational Management (NAEM), the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), to name just a few. Each institution manages its own funding programme, often with little coordination or information sharing. Under such a fragmented system, avoiding duplication across the entire research ecosystem is almost impossible.

International experience suggests a more coherent approach. The UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) serves as the principal national research funding body in the United Kingdom. In Australia, the Australian Research Council (ARC) plays a similar role for most disciplines, while health research is supported separately through the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). In Germany, the German Research Foundation (DFG) provides competitive grants across disciplines, while in the US the National Science Foundation (NSF) is the principal funder of basic research outside health. Although specialised agencies continue to fund sector-specific research in these countries, the majority of competitive academic research funding is channelled through strong national funding agencies operating under rigorous peer-review systems.

Bangladesh could benefit from adopting a similar model. Rather than limiting centralisation to UGC grants, the government should gradually establish a central funding authority to coordinate competitive research funding across ministries while maintaining discipline-specific programmes or units where necessary. Such a system would enable a comprehensive database of researchers, funded projects and research outputs, making it easier to identify duplication, monitor progress and ensure that public funds address national priorities.

At the same time, universities should continue to play an important role in nurturing early-career researchers. Instead of financing large research projects, universities should manage relatively small seed grants for lecturers and assistant professors. These grants would help young academics develop research skills, build publication records and gain experience in managing research projects before competing for larger national grants. Senior academics, particularly associate professors and professors, should compete for larger research grants from the national research fund and international funding agencies.

Read more

UGC’s centralised research funding must not undermine academic independence

Regardless of who administers the funds, the allocation process must, however, become more competitive. Research grants should never be distributed simply as an entitlement based on academic rank or institutional affiliation. Every funding call should be open and competitive, with proposals evaluated through anonymous peer review by qualified experts. Projects should be ranked according to clearly defined evaluation criteria, including originality, methodological rigour, feasibility and potential policy or societal impact.

Funding should also be linked to measurable research outcomes. Every funded project should be assigned an academic mentor or independent monitor to review progress and ensure quality. Upon completion, researchers should be expected to publish at least one article in a recognised peer-reviewed journal. Previous research publications from a funded research project should be considered when evaluating future grant applications.

Equally important, universities should create incentives for academics who successfully secure competitive external research funding. Around the world, winning prestigious research grants is recognised as evidence of academic excellence and research leadership. Such achievements often contribute to promotion, salary progression and institutional recognition. In Bangladesh, researchers who obtain substantial competitive grants from national funding bodies or international organisations should receive similar recognition.

Moreover, managing a large externally funded research project requires considerable time and administrative effort. Academics who secure major grants should therefore receive reduced teaching loads, access to research or teaching assistants, and administrative support to ensure that they can successfully deliver their projects without compromising educational quality. These are investments that allow researchers to maximise the return on public research funding.

The current debate presents Bangladesh with an opportunity to rethink its entire research funding architecture rather than merely changing who controls one portion of the budget. A transparent, competitive and nationally coordinated funding system, complemented by university-managed seed grants and meaningful incentives for successful researchers, would strengthen both research quality and public accountability. Ultimately, the question is not whether research funds should be centralised or decentralised, but whether the system can produce research that genuinely contributes to Bangladesh's development.

Dr Md. Bakhtiar Uddin is head of the Department of Economics and dean of the Faculty of Social Science at Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Mymensingh. He can be reached at bakhtiareco@gmail.com.