Over the past decade, private universities in India have heavily invested in faculty development workshops. Consultants, industry experts, and academic trainers are frequently invited to deliver sessions on research methodology, patent filing, pedagogy, and innovation management. These efforts reflect a genuine institutional commitment to improving academic quality. Yet, despite this significant investment, the outcomes remain modest. Research productivity in most private universities continues to lag behind that of publicly funded institutions, and global rankings remain dominated by central universities and institutes of national importance.
According to the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), and leading central universities continue to occupy the top research positions, while private universities remain largely absent from the research rankings (Ministry of Education, 2024). This persistent gap suggests that faculty training alone cannot transform academic ecosystems.
READ | Education budget: India’s demographic dividend meets a half-hearted push
Patent filings: Activity vs impact
India has seen a rapid increase in patent filings in recent years. The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks reported over 110,000 patent applications in 2023–24, marking one of the fastest growth rates globally (Intellectual Property India, 2024). Private universities have contributed to this surge, often encouraging faculty to file patents as part of their performance evaluation systems.
However, the conversion of patent filings into granted patents tells a more complex story. Between 2020 and 2025, the IIT system filed 6,558 patent applications and secured 2,806 patent grants, reflecting a success rate of around 43 percent (Times of India, 2026). Many private universities report rising patent filings but significantly lower grant rates. The difference lies in the research ecosystems. While patent filing can be taught in workshops, obtaining a patent grant requires sustained laboratory work, peer review, and original experimentation. As a result, patent filings become a measurable institutional metric, whereas patent grants depend on a deeper and more consistent research infrastructure.
The faculty compensation challenge
Faculty compensation is another structural constraint that limits the effectiveness of training programs. Government universities follow the University Grants Commission (UGC) 7th Pay Commission structure, where assistant professors typically earn between ₹5.3 lakh and ₹7.7 lakh annually, and senior professors can earn upwards of ₹25 lakh depending on experience and allowances (FacultyHub, 2025). In contrast, private universities often offer starting salaries 30–40 percent lower, with assistant professors earning between ₹3.7 lakh and ₹5.7 lakh annually (Acadsalary Guide, 2025).
READ | Higher education crisis is driving a permanent brain drain
While lower compensation does not necessarily imply weaker talent, it creates a more elastic labour market. PhD holders may accept positions temporarily before moving to better-paying institutions, disrupting mentoring networks and weakening research continuity. Workshops assume a stable faculty base capable of translating new knowledge into institutional practice. High faculty turnover, however, limits the accumulation of long-term intellectual capital.
Training vs ecosystem: A structural divide
The structural difference between faculty training events and research ecosystems further explains the outcome gap. In many private universities, workshops are isolated events aimed at building awareness or skills over short periods. In contrast, successful research universities embed training within laboratories, doctoral programs, and funded research clusters.
Continuous mentoring, collaborative experimentation, and multi-year research funding allow skills learned in training to translate into publications and patents. Research shows that sustained research networks, rather than isolated training sessions, are the strongest predictors of research productivity (Times Higher Education, 2025).
Incentives and accreditation: The wrong focus
Institutional incentives also influence behaviour in ways that undermine transformation. Accreditation frameworks and internal evaluation systems tend to reward easily measurable activities such as the number of workshops conducted, memoranda of understanding signed, or patent applications filed. These indicators are straightforward to document and highlight in institutional reports.
In contrast, outcomes such as patent grants, research citations, or commercially viable innovations require longer time horizons and are less immediately visible. As a result, universities prioritise activities that boost accreditation metrics rather than investing in long-term research ecosystems.
These structural conditions create a recurring cycle in which universities invest in faculty training workshops to enhance faculty capabilities. Faculty respond by filing patents or attending training sessions, generating visible activity metrics. However, because the underlying research ecosystems remain weak, patent grants and high-impact publications remain limited. Rankings improve only marginally, prompting universities to organise additional workshops in an attempt to accelerate progress. Training expands activity but does not alter the structural conditions needed for sustained research excellence.
READ | India’s higher education ambitions hinge on states
Towards structural reform in faculty development
Meaningful reform requires aligning training initiatives with institutional incentives. Universities must shift evaluation metrics from patent filings to patent grants and commercialisation outcomes. Faculty compensation should gradually align with national benchmarks to improve retention and mentoring continuity.
Training programs must be integrated into research clusters, doctoral supervision networks, and funded laboratory programs rather than delivered as isolated events. Finally, accreditation systems should include outcome indicators such as research grants secured, citation impact, and graduate employability.
Private universities in India have demonstrated commendable willingness to invest in faculty development. The issue is not the lack of effort, but the need for institutional redesign. Workshops alone cannot compensate for structural weaknesses in compensation, research infrastructure, and incentive systems.
Public research institutions succeed not because they conduct more training, but because they nurture ecosystems that convert training into discovery. For private universities seeking genuine academic transformation, the path forward lies in moving beyond a workshop culture toward building stable research ecosystems that can translate training into measurable outcomes.
Shrabani Mukherjee is a Chennai-based independent researcher in economics and public policy.