In recent years, both the UK and India have demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing research excellence through strategic frameworks – the UK’s Research Excellence Framework (REF) and India’s National Research Foundation (NRF). While the REF is an already well-established system for assessing research quality and impact, India’s recently proposed National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 aspires for ‘knowledge creation and research in all fields’ through the NRF. This blog post explores their similarities and differences across four ‘relationally equivalent phenomena’, outlined by Phillips and Schweisfurth (2014, pp. 117–18):

‘… it is often the cultural, contextual, structural and functional aspects of education systems (or parts of them) that are so fundamentally different as to provide the initial impetus for comparison.’

‘Cultural equivalence’: Priorities shaped by traditions

Cultural context profoundly influences policy development of any country, as ‘significant differences’ will always ‘mediate and shape’ policies at both regional and institutional levels (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 33). Accordingly, the REF reflects the UK’s tradition of academic autonomy and innovation, supporting research that contributes to global challenges such as climate change and artificial intelligence (AI), producing high-quality research that boosts international competitiveness and global impact. In contrast, the NRF is deeply rooted in India’s aspirations to reclaim its historical status as a ‘knowledge society’ and to address socioeconomic challenges, integrating science, arts and humanities to develop solutions that resonate with India’s diverse population and unique needs. From water management to healthcare access, the NRF’s priorities reflect a deep connection to the lived realities of its people, while also fostering a research mindset in underrepresented areas. These variations in approach highlight how cultural differences drive national priorities: while the REF promotes cutting-edge innovation for global relevance, the NRF’s focus is on culturally adaptive solutions that could foster equity and social justice.

‘Cultural differences drive national priorities: while the REF promotes cutting-edge innovation for global relevance, the NRF’s focus is on culturally adaptive solutions that could foster equity and social justice.’

‘Contextual equivalence’: Adapting to financial realities

Similar to their cultural realities, both contexts differ significantly as well. The REF operates within a well-funded, resource-rich academic ecosystem of established research traditions and investment of ‘approximately £2 billion to universities in England’ (UKRI, 2024). By comparison, the NRF aims to address gaps in India’s underfunded research landscape, with investment at just 0.69 per cent of GDP – although well below global benchmarks (MHRD, 2020, p. 45). Evidently, unlike the REF’s well-resourced framework, the NRF adopts a developmental approach, prioritising state universities and institutions lacking adequate infrastructure, and therefore, its research policies coupled with funding and incentives aim to promote research in a diverse space of both rural and urban landscapes of India.

‘Structural equivalence’: Ecosystem for governance and management

The structures of these frameworks also reflect their respective goals, as for the REF, managed by central UK funding bodies, and conducts periodic assessments through panels of academics and experts. In contrast, the NRF adopts an inclusive governance model with an independent Board of Governors comprising leading researchers and innovators. This decentralised structure aims to bridge disparities in India’s research ecosystem by targeting under-resourced institutions and coordinating with several established ‘funding agencies’ (MHRD, 2020). Taking into account the differences, the success of both frameworks lies not in their narrative similarities but in their ability to manage distinct priorities and practical regional challenges through their structure aligned within their unique and diverse ecosystems.

‘Functional equivalence’: Shared aspirations for impact

Both policy frameworks aim to support research that makes a real-world impact and encourages collaboration across different fields. The REF aspires to promote research that has societal, economic and cultural impacts, encouraging institutions to prioritise practical applications bridging academic research with public policy and industry demands. Similarly, the NRF funds projects that tackle important issues such as climate change, AI and public health. But the NRF goes a step further – at least in words – by promising to bring together researchers, policymakers and industries. This ensures research is both innovative and practical, addressing broader socioeconomic concerns. Grounded in human capital theory, this approach highlights how educational policies are often governed by the ‘demands of the labour market for specific skills and economic growth’ (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 44).

Conclusion: Bridging contexts for shared comparison

Comparing the REF and NRF highlights how different nation’s systems strive for research excellence while reflecting their unique and shared cultural, contextual, structural and functional realities. While these ‘equivalences’ exemplify models for evaluating policies in diverse environments, it is imperative for policymakers and researchers to seek ‘explanations for them in terms of differences in “culture” and “context”’ (Phillips & Schweisfurth, 2014, p. 118). Whether refining established systems or building new ones, frameworks aspiring to foster innovation and progress through research must consider cultural complexities, ensuring that frameworks align with local realities while embracing global aspirations.