Keywords

1 Introduction

This volume explores the role of evidence in producing better public policy in Indonesia. This chapter builds on the importance of research to that process and more broadly to socio-economic development. It sees research as foundational to a strong, knowledge-intensive twenty-first-century economy. Here, we explore the challenges that Indonesian academics face in producing policy-relevant research.

When we think of development as more than mere survival, knowledge is important for understanding how to develop an economy and a society that not only grows economically but does so with equity and in an ecologically sustainable manner. Development that supports the growth and nurturing of human potential − growth that addresses major inequities − requires knowledge. It needs knowledge and evidence because in this increasingly complex world, it is no longer viable for a decision-maker to effectively determine development policy for his or her people without significant inputs from a range of people and perspectives. In this chapter, we consider primarily knowledge generated through formal scientific research. In a forthcoming volume, Nugroho, Antlöv and Carden recognise that knowledge takes many forms and comes from diverse sources, defined as formal knowledge, professional knowledge and local knowledge.

This discussion of the links between academic research and policymaking is based on some basic assumptions. First, universities play a crucial role in building knowledge through research on issues central to development and thus play a key role in generating and managing knowledge in an increasingly uncertain world. Maintaining and building the integrity of the research enterprise are crucial to its credibility and ultimately to its value in advancing development and supporting policymaking. Second, universities do not only produce researchers. They also serve as the training ground for policymakers and bureaucrats – decision-makers who are in a position to make use of evidence in their decisions (Ford 2012). Third, we assume that institutions and organisations tend to be weak at accumulating knowledge. As a result, people need to learn for themselves, and it is people who make up the institutions that accumulate knowledge, through their life experiences. People then influence the policies and practices of the organisations through which they engage. Fourth, organisations are at risk for confirmation bias, that is, listening only to the like-minded. Universities can ensure a space for the expression of diverse viewpoints. Finally, we work under the assumption that universities can play a role in nurturing, managing and documenting knowledge to help mitigate the challenges faced by many institutions in this regard.

Universities in Indonesia are weak and research within them even weaker. The Programme for International Student Assessment results, comparing the education outcomes of high school students (15 years of age) in a number of countries, ranked Indonesia 62nd out of 72 economies assessed (OECD 2016). This means that students start university at a significant disadvantage. Indonesian universities also receive poor rankings in international comparisons (Rakhmani et al. 2017). Little research is published − far less than in other economies in the region (see Pellini et al. 2016). Indonesia spends less than 0.2% of its GDP on research, at least ten times lower than other countries in the region.

These are indicators, or symptoms, of an overriding problem in Indonesian universities: the absence of a research culture. In the next sections of this chapter, we break this broad-based problem into three underlying causes that we believe to be important starting points, or levers of change, for addressing the lack of a research culture. The next section explores constraints in the institutional environment, section three examines limited financing for research and the fourth section addresses the issue of inadequate human resource management. In section five the authors provide some suggestions for addressing these issues.

There is no single problem that can be ‘fixed’ to improve the place of research in universities. And these three levers are not the only challenges to be addressed. There are many other, multifaceted challenges. It can never be known for certain that any one response will help to move a university closer to a strong research culture, hence the need for ongoing assessment and reflection on whether and how universities are reaching their potential and whether a focus on these levers continues to be relevant.

2 Universities as Knowledge Environments: The Teaching-Research Nexus

Ford (2012) noted that ‘The most intractable barrier to research excellence in Indonesia is the incentive structure within higher education’. This section argues that Indonesian universities place low priority on the production of knowledge for more equitable development. Universities in low- and middle-income countries have a demonstrated lack of research productivity. In the Asian region, universities play a role in knowledge production that favours market mechanisms and/or individual consultancies (Mok 2008). This contributes to widening the gap between rich and poor and prolongs the exclusion of social groups. So why argue that knowledge production should be strengthened at universities to achieve an equitable society when they often fail to do so?

The authors argue that universities as knowledge producers matter because of their potential to foster interaction between their three core functions: teaching and learning, research and community engagement (or tridarma perguruan tinggi). The institutionalisation of knowledge transfer, generation and selection at universities can and must be directed towards equitable social development. The speed with which knowledge is generated and accumulated today is clearly unprecedented (Foray 2004; Tyfield 2012). This means that there is potential to enhance knowledge efficiency and quality, providing wider access to many. However, the desired effect of a more equitable society can only be achieved through the structural transformation of the institutions mandated to provide knowledge access to the public.

Some argue that in the case of Indonesia, universities are more apt to be market-oriented than having a clear public-service agenda (i.e. to be more focused on profit than the public good) (Hadiz and Dhakidae 2005; Karetji 2010; Guggenheim 2012; Rakhmani and Siregar 2016; Rosser 2016). Moreover, the precondition of quality knowledge generation that is central in this new economy is currently lacking due to bureaucratic constraints. These constraints involve limited funding for basic sciences, the stunting of critical thinking among academics and bureaucratisation of the academic career. Current conditions at Indonesian state universities show an imbalance between teaching, research and community engagement. This is because university income is used to pay faculty for teaching, but not for research (see Rakhmani and Siregar 2016; Rosser 2016). This consistent imbalance has meant that Indonesian universities generally fail to carry out research.

Indonesian universities have yielded poor academic performance compared to countries with lower GDP (Guggenheim 2012; Rakhmani 2016). Rakhmani and Siregar, referring to Hadiz and Dhakidae (2005), note that ‘poor performance in this respect has been linked to structural problems that are inherent to state universities and research institutions, whereby most research has, for the longest time, been confined to providing technocratic input for government development strategies’ (2016, 1). This condition prevailed throughout much of the authoritarian New Order regime under President Soeharto (1967–1998), which systematically narrowed the role of state universities to the technocratic role of providing input for state programmes.

Since the early 2000s, state universities traditionally funded only through the state budget have been permitted to seek external income as autonomous state legal entities (Rakhmani and Siregar 2016). The assumption behind this policy change in 2000 was that authority to manage their own finances would allow state universities to improve the quality of academic performance. Instead, the outcome has been an increase of student intake – thereby increasing university income – with no significant change in teaching qualifications or support for research (Fig. 2.1). Consequently, academics take on increased teaching loads, either to secure higher income or respond to the demands of their department.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

Total tertiary enrolment (1972 to 2011). (Reproduced from World Bank World Development Indicators (cited in Rosser 2016, 10))

Full size image

Moreover, a study by Rakhmani and Siregar shows that 51% of academic staff in major Indonesian state universities hold managerial positions − in addition to their role in teaching, research and community engagement (2016). This places research even further down on the priority list.

This is not to say that no research is carried out at Indonesian universities. Academic staff of major Indonesian state universities who do carry out research do so in such a way that their research network spans sectors, namely, state, private sector, international donors and universities (see Rakhmani and Siregar 2016). Significantly, 74% of the research carried out is thematically linked to governance. This may appear to suggest that the research produced is linked to policymaking (Ibid.). However, a closer look into the themes shows that research topics selected are driven by available funding. In other words, the market mechanism is the driving force within higher education institutions in the whole Asian region, not only Indonesia (Mok 2008). This is demonstrated in Indonesia by research reports at major state universities that are rarely turned into academic publications. Only 8% of academic staff at these universities have published in reputable, peer-reviewed, international academic journals (Rakhmani and Siregar 2016).

The structure and organisation of academic disciplines was inherited from the New Order regime and heavily favours teaching over research and academic publication. The single-discipline nature of academic pursuits has inhibited interaction and collaboration between researchers across disciplines and reduced the space for academics to carry out applied research (Nizam 2006; Wicaksono and Friawan 2011; Moeliodihardjo et al. 2012).

Current publication policies lack full appreciation of the complexity of peer review. The accreditation of journals by the former Directorate General of Higher Education (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi – DJPT) also failed to place sufficient emphasis on the quality of peer review (Rakhmani et al. 2017), let alone address the lack of a peer-reviewed culture. This culture needs to be fostered by balancing, or properly appreciating, the connection between teaching and learning, research and community engagement.

The notion of tridarma perguruan tinggi Footnote 1 of Indonesian universities resonates with the idea of the teaching/research nexus identified in many studies (Neumann 1994; Colbeck 1998; Griffiths 2004; Robertson 2007; Simons and Elen 2007). A 2012 study by Horta et al. argues for complementarity between teaching and research, demonstrating through empirical data in the United States that by leveraging the link between teaching and research, academic activities can move beyond conventional teaching formats. The study’s results show that students demonstrate higher output when research is at the centre of teaching activities, in what the authors call ‘inquiry-based curricula’. Students become more actively involved in faculty research activities. This not only minimises the division of roles between faculty and students, it also reinforces the link between teaching and research as part of the same learning process. This, in turn, increases the productivity of scientific output at all levels (Griffiths 2004). With this in mind, in teaching social sciences and humanities, it becomes essential not only to stimulate critical inquiry and research among faculty and students but also with the wider community with which they engage and gather data. Thus, the next practical step would be to link the teaching/research nexus and evidence-based policymaking as one of the practical outputs.

3 Funding for Research

Carrying out research requires funding, but there is a lack of clarity on how much Indonesia actually invests in research and development (R&D). Recent estimates by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education show that gross expenditure in R&D in 2015 amounted to 0.2% of GDP (Kompas 2016). This estimate is higher than the often-cited 2014 figure of 0.09% (Pappiptek LIPI 2014). The 2015 figure used a different methodology and included more variables than the 2014 figure, namely, salaries, allocation by local governments and research institutes. Neither figure covers contributions from the private sector, due to a lack of data. In any case, both figures demonstrate alarmingly low expenditure when compared to research funding expenditures in most expanding economies in the region (Fig. 2.2). In 2011, Malaysia was spending 1% of GDP, China 1.7%, Singapore 2.1% and Korea 3.7% (Tilley and Hidayat 2017).

Fig. 2.2
figure 2

Gross expenditure on R&D as a percentage of GDP (Indonesia’s data contain only four original data points from different sources. Data for 2000 and 2001 are from UNESCO, 2009 from a national observation and 2013 from ‘Science and Technology in Indonesia – in Brief’ 2014, Pappiptek LIPI 2014. The data in between these observations are linear interpolations). (Reproduced from Tilley and Hidayat 2017)

Full size image

Similarly alarming is that universities’ share of gross expenditure on R&D stood at just 5.6% between 2000 and 2002 (OECD 2013, 172). This figure is miniscule, considering that most work done by Ph.D.-level researchers takes place at public universities. The implication is that most research is carried out outside the university and frequently by researchers without Ph.D. qualifications (Brodjonegoro and Greene 2012). Moreover, the majority of R&D funding in Indonesia (80%) comes from the government, compared to about 14% from the private sector. By contrast, research institutions in Malaysia, China, Japan, Korea and Singapore receive over 60% of their research investment from the private sector (Brodjonegoro and Greene 2012; Guggenheim 2012). Further, the Indonesian government contribution to R&D expenditure has declined precipitously over the past 35 years. The government’s budget for ‘science and technology’ (which includes R&D, science services for information systems and statistical activities and education and training in universities, ministries and nonministerial institutions) as a share of the total state budget between 1969 and 2013 has been decreasing (Fig. 2.3).

Fig. 2.3
figure 3

Ratio of state science and technology and R&D budget to state budget, 1963–2013. (Reproduced from Pappitek LIPI 2014)

Full size image

In 2010 the Government of Indonesia issued Regulation No. 93, which included a measure allowing tax deductions for donations, including for funding research. This was an attempt to incentivise private donations and funding for R&D. However, there have been very few applications of this regulation, and it is little known among potential donors from the private sector. Its use is further complicated by a general unwillingness among Indonesians, including the business sector, to interact with the tax office.

The main source of funding for public and private universities is grants provided by the state budget through the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi – KemRistekDikti) and managed by the Directorate of Research and Community Service (Direktorat Riset dan Pengabdian Masyarakat – DRPM).Footnote 2 In 2017, DRPM was managing more than 17 different research grant schemes in three main areas: basic research, applied research and capacity-building research. In addition, DRPM allocates ten grants for community service that are directed to applied research in communities, ranging from community technology to collaborative research with local government or the private sector (DRPM 2016). This fragmentation of a small research funding allocation makes it difficult for academic staff to access the funds. Modes of disbursement add to the confusion. The 17 DRPM research grants are disbursed through two main channels: (1) directly to the university through the ‘decentralised research grant’ scheme (four grant schemes) and (2) through competitive national grants where academic staff have to apply for funds through their respective universities (13 grant schemes) (DRPM 2016; Rakhmani and Siregar 2016). Not all academic staff are eligible to apply for the 17 research grants but rather depend on the DRPM’s classification of university research capacity.

Grant amounts range from IDR 15 million to 200 million (US$1,100–15,000) per fiscal year, depending on the research scheme, according to DRPM data from January 2017. Due to the short time frame (1 fiscal year) allowed and the limited resources, a typical university research project produces no more than a report or very rarely a journal article, an academic briefing, an opinion piece or an article for public dissemination (Nugroho et al. 2016).

Funding for research is slowly increasing. Overall, DRPM research grants increased almost fourfold between 2006 and 2012 (from IDR 76 billion to nearly IDR 290 billion or US$21 million) (Moeliodihardjo et al. 2012). It continued to increase to IDR 1.2 trillion (US$90 million) in 2017, according to January data gathered by DRPM. In spite of this large-scale increase in funding, research grant funds allocated to DRPM remained low, merely 3% of the total Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education budget in 2016. However, this sum is spread across 269,351 academic staff in universities across Indonesia (PDDIKTI 2017). As shown in Fig. 2.4, due to limits on funding, between 2013 and 2017 on average, only 49% of proposals were funded (around 16,271 of 34,426 proposals).

Fig. 2.4
figure 4

Proposal submissions and acceptance to DRPM research grant scheme. (Adapted from DRPM 2017)

Full size image

Of all the types of research grants sought between 2013 and 2017, those for basic research received only 10–14% of the total managed by DRPM (Fig. 2.5), demonstrating the lack of funding for basic sciences mentioned above.

Fig. 2.5
figure 5

DRPM research grant scheme. (Adapted from DRPM 2017)

Full size image

A major issue in research funding is that current Indonesian fiscal law and regulation discourages multi-year research programmes. Annual renewals are permitted, but the lack of initial multi-year commitments creates uncertainty, discouraging researchers from planning longer-term initiatives. DRPM allows some exceptions to these regulations, running some collaborative research grant schemes for up to three years, valued at up to IDR 1 billion (US$75,000) per year. However, even in these cases, the grants are evaluated annually, and there is no guarantee of continued funding. As a result, researchers tend to avoid applying for these schemes, even though they are sufficient to fund basic research.

State universities are considered government implementing units (satuan kerja) and must follow rigid reporting and budgeting guidelines and adhere to cumbersome bureaucratic procedures for all financial transactions. According to Brodjonegoro and Greene (2012), this has resulted in limiting the scope of research that is explorative, flexible and innovative.

Lack of clarity about research funding schemes, together with limited time frames for research, makes academic staff reluctant to risk their time by applying. Other challenges faced by academic staff are the requirement to spend the entire research budget in the same fiscal year, unpredictable timing of fund disbursements and onerous administrative and financial reporting demands (Rakhmani and Siregar 2016; Suradijono et al. 2017).

A significant shift in research funding has occurred as a result of efforts by the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (Akademi Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia – AIPI) to establish the Indonesian Science Fund (Dana Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia – DIPI) (Brodjonegoro and Greene 2012).Footnote 3 The Indonesian Science Fund was legally established in early 2016, confirming the Government of Indonesia’s commitment to funding multi-year research projects. The Indonesian Science Fund is supported by Indonesia’s Endowment Fund for Education under the Ministry of Finance. The Fund’s regulatory framework also allows funding from external sources and has attracted financial support from the Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy: the Knowledge Sector Initiative, the United States Agency for International Development and the UK Government (Sabarini 2016). Although it currently provides only a small fraction of the resources required for Indonesia’s research needs, the Fund’s significance lies in the modernising effect it can have on the country’s approach to commissioning and funding multi-year research projects. Further discussion of the Indonesian Science Fund and other regulatory changes is presented in Chap. 7.

4 Careers in Research

Universities’ human resource policies and regulations do not effectively support research and knowledge production. The Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi – KemRistekDikti) has set the goal of developing world-class Indonesian universities. This will require investment in teaching and the production of high-quality research capable of leading innovation in the nation and withstanding the tests applicable to international research.

To achieve this goal, it is important to recognise human resource management as a core area in higher education (AIPI 2017). Universities face several human resource challenges. The limited number of qualified Ph.Ds. teaching in universities in Indonesia has a significant negative effect on the quality of teaching and the capacity and potential for high-quality research. In Indonesia of 269,351 academic faculty, only 12% hold a Ph.D., while 15.2% hold only an undergraduate degree; the majority (63.8%) have master’s level qualifications (see Fig. 2.6).

Fig. 2.6
figure 6

Educational background of academic staff in Indonesia. (Adapted from PDDIKTI 2017)

Full size image

Academic staff at public universities are civil servants; hence the human resource policy is guided by national regulations designed to manage a bureaucracy, rather than a university.Footnote 4 The Indonesian bureaucracy relies on a centralised system of promotion, severely limiting the ability of a university to promote its values and manage faculty performance (AIPI 2017). International evidence shows that tertiary education institutions need autonomy and academic freedom in order to thrive (Suryadarma and Jones 2013), something that is not possible under the current human resource structure and regulations.

The performance measurement system within the university sector is based on the tridarma perguruan tinggi mentioned earlierFootnote 5, which is regulated through Law No. 12/2012. All three core areas are considered individual obligations through the national academic credit system, known as Kum.Footnote 6 Under the Kum system, advancement is based on achieving a certain number of credit points. Most credits are awarded through teaching, leaving little incentive to accumulate credits through research or community service.

A further problem is the lack of a university-level performance assessment system to ensure implementation of the tridarma perguruan tinggi. Performance management systems in place do not capture staff performance, nor do they easily recognise broader issues, such as low levels of faculty training and the lack of university control over its human resources. In short, neither the skills nor the incentives are in place to boost the quality and quantity of research. So even if more resources for research were to become available, few faculty are in place to use them wisely.

There is an inherent contradiction in the law that governs universities. On the one hand, universities have the authority to manage academic staff; but on the other, the academic workload is managed centrally, making it impossible for universities to play a role in managing their staff (Suradijono et al. 2017).

Indonesian universities do not promote inter-institutional mobility. Nor do they engage in open international recruitment. Because of entry-level civil service requirements, there is a strong tendency among Indonesian academics to stay within their own home institutions. This tends to promote insularity and discourage innovation (Rakhmani and Siregar 2016). While new legislation permits open recruitment (Civil Service Law No.5/2014), very little use has been made of this provision (Ibid.). This could be mitigated through the engagement of international faculty, as it takes place in both Malaysia and Singapore. International faculty bring new ideas and diverse backgrounds that enrich debate and learning, as well as advancing academic publication (AIPI 2017). Ultimately, creating a more open and dynamic university sector would strengthen both research and teaching.

Salary and incentive systems at universities do not promote research and can even be seen to actively discourage it (Syafrudin et al. 2017). While some dedicated research staff are hired from time to time, there is a need to effectively link research and teaching. This means that time for research needs to be incentivised, both on an ongoing basis as well as through mechanisms for release time to work on larger research initiatives. Sabbaticals could be one mechanism. At present, while these are permitted in principle, they are hindered by civil service regulations that restrict staff from taking leave (Rakhmani and Siregar 2016). Other mechanisms could also be introduced, such as buying out teaching time to focus on research for a given period of time. As noted earlier, this link between research and teaching not only produces new knowledge but also provides natural opportunities for mentoring junior researchers and enhancing publication (Suradijono et al. 2017). Moreover, it improves teaching and increases student engagement in the research enterprise, with the long-term benefits that implies. These mechanisms need to be managed within the university system to work effectively.

Without some restructuring of salary and incentive systems, faculty will continue to spend the bulk of their time in consulting and other activities outside the university (Nugroho et al. 2016). According to one study, as much as three-quarters of faculty time is spent on activities outside the university (Suryadarma and Jones 2013). As a result, the number of publications in international journals is very low (Pellini et al. 2016). While some universities do provide incentives for peer-reviewed publications and publication grants are available, these grants are usually too small to fund the necessary research and cover the time required to produce an article in an international journal (Nugroho et al. 2016; Suryadarma and Jones 2013).

In spite of these challenges, some bright spots are on the horizon. The government is taking steps to improve the state of Indonesian universities that could result in improving the environment for research. New regulations by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (Kementerian Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan Tinggi – KemRistekDikti) on ‘output-based research’ open more space for increasing research incentives and reducing the administrative burden. Outputs for publication in an international journal will be valued differently than for a national journal.

Recently the government created a functioning mechanism for mid-level entry to the civil service. This could facilitate both inter-institutional mobility and the engagement of international faculty. As well, some universities (especially the autonomous universities) now have the opportunity to design the academic career path according to their particular needs and requirements. Progress along these lines could help make the case for giving more universities these opportunities.

5 The Way Forward: Reforming Research Culture and Connecting the Disconnected

The point of departure of this chapter is that strengthening the research culture in universities is of paramount importance to reviving the Indonesian knowledge sector and promoting informed policymaking processes. At present the link between the academic and policy worlds is broken. Not only does knowledge produced in the academy rarely inform policy, but overall, Indonesian universities do not have incentive systems in place either to fund research or to encourage academics to devote time to research.

Academic research has two important roles to play in informing policymaking: (1) produce policy-relevant knowledge and (2) provide academic training to future policymakers. However, these roles are impeded by multifaceted problems, at different levels and in various dimensions. Thus reframing the role of the university is an important part of strengthening its research culture.

Universities are not merely the arena in which knowledge production happens. They also serve as a medium through which knowledge production processes are shaped and reshaped. There is a symbiotic relationship between researchers and the university. The process of knowledge accumulation, which is very much the domain of researchers, cannot be successful unless the institution is supportive and nurtures a research culture. This can only become a reality with adequate funding for research. While resources cannot always dictate the quality of research outcomes, they are essential for research to take place.

In the introduction to this chapter, it was noted that the overriding challenge facing Indonesian universities is the absence of a research culture, which was then broken down into three subproblems/constraints. The next section suggested how to transform these challenges into levers of change that can contribute to reforming research in Indonesian universities and bringing that research closer to policymaking processes.

There is no silver bullet to address such complex problems, so rather than providing prescriptive recommendations, the authors reflect on some central issues and offer some key points for reform related to these levers of change as a way forward.

5.1 Universities as Research Environments

First, at a structural level, the reform agenda should be fundamentally directed towards enabling higher education institutions to give more prominence to research through its incentive structure and through interactive schemes with knowledge users. Ideas and initiatives that promote research may be challenged, as teaching is seen as the priority in Indonesian universities.

Several areas of change could be tested. The first concerns financial and nonfinancial rewards for peer-reviewing publications. Creating incentives for mentoring or peer review will contribute to improving research quality in academic institutions. A second area for piloting solutions is through incentives for undertaking multidisciplinary research. Faculties remain compartmentalised, but development problems tend to be multidisciplinary in nature and require multidisciplinary responses. A third area of experimentation and learning would be to find ways to enhance and diversify the interaction and collaboration between students and academic staff through joint research activities, peer review and mentoring support. Likewise, greater interaction between university-based researchers and, for example, policy researchers in think tanks or government units, as well as other actors in the knowledge sector, could be piloted. The creation of ‘knowledge hubs’ to facilitate interaction between universities and other actors in the knowledge sector, bringing together supply and demand, could be transformative.

The effort to link the administratively separated activities of teaching, research and community engagement into an integrated knowledge production process requires funding and organisational support (universities, schools, departments, study programmes, research centres) to transform existing practices and implement some of the measures suggested here. Without structural changes that foster these linkages, it is futile to argue that universities matter in the knowledge economy, and the achievement of a more equitable society will remain out of reach. Therefore, the authors of this chapter argue for a reform agenda, the first step of which is a focus on funding and career tracks that aim to nurture an academic culture in Indonesia. This reform agenda needs to appreciate both the prevailing bureaucratic model of Indonesian universities and the desired model of a knowledge ecosystem that deliberately interacts with knowledge users.

5.2 Research Funding

Section 3 presented evidence about the low level of government funding allocated for research. While this change will be among the most difficult, it has to be addressed; without it, the enabling conditions for quality research will not be in place. The formation of the Indonesian Science Fund, for example, is quite promising, but until it is fully operational and of adequate size and scope, much remains to be done. A clear allocation for research funding in support of development programmes and priorities is required to ensure better-informed development policies and practices. Research to facilitate evidence-informed policy demands specific funding allocations. Some funding also needs to be allocated for ‘blue sky’ research, to advance knowledge and expand the frontiers of human understanding of nature and society. The restructuring of funding for research must address both policy research and research policy.

To achieve fundamental reform, other key issues also need to be addressed. It is important to put in place a regulatory framework to allocate and reallocate state budgets for research. Institutional arrangements among existing research institutions are also required, to ensure coordinated and orchestrated efforts to ensure that the research budget is used wisely. An accountability mechanism is needed to ensure effective monitoring and oversight of research spending. Finally, although the government still holds the view that the education budget should be spent mostly for infrastructure and enrolment, the earmarked state budget should also be used to fund research. If accurately targeted, the funds could represent a significant increase in funding for research.

5.3 Research as a Promising Career

The third area of this reform agenda addresses the career track of researchers and academics. The Kum credit system (see Sect. 4 above) is outdated. The evidence reviewed here suggests that it is detrimental, rather than beneficial, to building research excellence within universities. Professorship and academic career promotion must be modernised. Universities should be encouraged to develop their own fairer, more competitive and merit-based research incentives and to reduce administrative loads. Mentoring and peer review systems need to be built institutionally within universities to strengthen interaction between senior and junior academics. A fair and supportive credit system is compatible with mentoring schemes, which are key to the production of qualified scientific outputs. Mentoring and peer review, when adequately promoted and supported by appropriate reward systems, will be instrumental to strengthening research culture in universities.

At the individual level, the reform agenda calls for strengthening relationships between teaching and research, including the use of research-based teaching materials. Teaching is more engaging when it relies on research findings that are not just new but relevant and contextual. Teaching can also inspire research, by involving students in testing new methods in the classroom or laboratory. This way, the prominence of research in the university is organically built and strengthened. One fundamental change with immediate impact would be policies on salary or remuneration for researchers and academics, which are currently not competitive with other occupations of similar standing. A reform in the recruitment and remuneration of researchers could make a significant difference, especially in ensuring that the best talents and minds remain in the knowledge sector.

Sabbatical leave, prominent outside Indonesia, could represent a quick win to boost spirits and send a message of change and reform to researchers. As a tactical and strategic reform, sabbatical leave requires neither legal changes nor specific arrangements by the central government (especially for autonomous universities). All it takes is a decision by the chancellor or rector – which is largely within the scope of university decision-makers. During their sabbatical, university academics could work in different sectors (e.g. government or business) or exchange their teaching time for research or publication. Thus appropriate schemes for sabbatical leave would provide university academics with ‘fresh air’ in their career: mobility, knowledge exchange, space for further academic reflection and publication, among others. This would benefit both the university and the researcher.

A note of caution: to successfully undertake these new tasks, universities will need to focus on the development and implementation of a strategic human resource plan that will eventually enhance their ability to contribute to a strong, knowledge-based economy.

6 Conclusions

The reform agenda proposed in this chapter aims to strengthen both the structure and practice of research (i.e. the research culture) in Indonesian universities. The proposed reforms can revitalise Indonesian universities as focal points of knowledge production that inform both the society and the policies through which it is governed. The principles of tridarma perguruan tinggi Footnote 7 offer opportunities for change and for bringing university research closer to policy processes.

A well-interpreted and implemented tridarma perguruan tinggi promotes not only teaching and research but also community engagement. Community engagement could represent the link between research on policy issues and development needs – in essence as a platform for exchange. This means using tridarma perguruan tinggi to overcome the bureaucratic nature of the university, reviving and revitalising it to achieve professionalisation. The hard fact is that such exchange never guarantees that evidence will inform all policies; but without it, there will never be an informed policy. This is how tridarma perguruan tinggi should be revived and given new meaning: from a norm to a platform for exchange between academicians and policymakers.

These challenges in reviving the research culture in Indonesian universities are not straightforward. The issues touched on are not the only issues, and as they are addressed, new issues will emerge. The authors see them, however, as key levers of change where continued efforts could lead to new respect for research within universities, and hope that we have convincingly argued how important it is to strengthen university research in today’s knowledge economy. Some aspects outlined here are structural, some propose new modalities and some are intended to strengthen incentives and support for individual researchers. These changes represent an opportunity to foster the link between research and policy, so that universities can play a more important role in achieving an equitable society.