Introduction
In the final lecture of the 15th IPS-Nathan Lecture Series, Professor Lily Kong, President of Singapore Management University (SMU), began by reminding the audience of key themes from her previous two lectures: the historical evolution of universities in her first lecture and proposed transformative approaches to university education to support learning for a “100-year life” in her second lecture. Shifting her focus to the research mission of universities in her third and final lecture, Professor Kong explored the balance between research that responds to academic metrics, and research with societal relevance. She highlighted the growing pressures faced by academia, including the relentless pursuit of global rankings, the dominance of the “publish or perish” culture, and the need for universities to demonstrate clear societal impact.
Universities as Brain Trusts of Society
Professor Kong argued that universities, historically positioned as both bastions of knowledge and engines of innovation, must now navigate a complex landscape shaped by evolving societal expectations. Universities have achieved remarkable breakthroughs — from the discovery of insulin to the development of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine — and these successes demonstrate the value of universities in addressing pressing societal challenges. “Universities hold a unique and privileged position as the brain trusts of society, serving as key hubs for the knowledge creation and innovation that drive the betterment of society,” she posited.
At the same time, she acknowledged ongoing debates about the role of universities in balancing intellectual freedom, including the ability to pursue research driven by curiosity, with the expectation of public accountability. Drawing on the views of scholars such as Wilhelm von Humboldt and Derek Bok, Professor Kong argued, “[Universities] must maintain the freedom and autonomy necessary for groundbreaking inquiry, but also respond to the needs and expectations of the public they serve as a form of public accountability.”
She identified three key ways in which university research serves public interest. First, academics, play a crucial role in informing policy and reshaping practice by providing an evidence base for decision-making and public debate. This enables governments and corporations to make informed choices, benefiting society at large. Second, university research drives innovation, catalysing new technologies and industries that address some of the world’s most complex challenges, such as climate change and public health crises. Lastly, universities serve as custodians of rigorous, evidence-based knowledge, countering the spread of misinformation and pseudoscience. “In such a context, universities must provide evidence-based insights that inform public understanding and support more informed decision-making,” she said.
A Crisis of Direction?
Professor Kong warned of a potential crisis in academia’s research direction. Citing the allegory of Alice’s conversation with the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, she suggested that in the absence of clear purpose, academic research risks losing its way.
She attributed this to two dominant phenomena in academia: the “publish or perish” culture and the global race for university rankings.
The “publish or perish” culture, she explained, demands that academics attain certain publication metrics within a set time or else leave the profession. Such assessment tends to prioritise metrics such as venue of publication and citation counts, proxy indicators for research quality. “Publications in top-tier journals, defined as high-impact factor journals with university presses and garnering high citations — better if they are ‘home-run’ publications — have become the dominant language of evaluation,” she noted. While these metrics are widely used for hiring, promotion and tenure decisions, they often fail to capture the true value of academic work. Similarly, university rankings, such as those by QS and Times Higher Education, place disproportionate emphasis on research output, incentivising universities to prioritise publication over teaching and societal engagement. Professor Kong critiqued these practices for fostering a narrow definition of academic success, one that privileges quantity over quality and overlooks the broader impact of research on society.
Consequences of a Metrics-Driven Culture
Professor Kong identified five troubling consequences of academia’s metrics-driven culture.
The first is the rise of misconduct, ranging from questionable research practices such as p-hacking to outright data fabrication. She cited a high-profile case in Alzheimer’s research, “where falsified data was used [and] led to wasted years of effort and substantial financial losses, setting back critical medical advances.” With the advent of generative AI, new challenges have emerged, including the potential for AI-generated papers to deceive peer reviewers and perpetuate misinformation.
She also discussed the manipulation of citations, a practice that distorts the academic ecosystem. Coercive citation practices, where journal editors pressure authors to cite their publications, and the formation of citation cartels further exacerbate the issue. Such practices inflate metrics without contributing to genuine intellectual progress, skewing the evaluation of academic impact.
The third consequence is the prevalence of magniloquence in academic writing — the use of complex, jargon-laden language that obscures meaning and alienates audiences. Professor Kong lamented, quoting sociologist Charles Wright Mills, “To overcome the academic prose, you have first to overcome the academic pose.” She pointed to his worry that such a trend is symptomatic of a “serious crisis in literacy.”
The fourth consequence is the mistreatment of early-career researchers and graduate students, who often face exploitative working conditions. Reports from institutions in the United States and United Kingdom have highlighted toxic research cultures characterised by high levels of stress, anxiety and discrimination.
Lastly, she highlighted the misalignment between academia’s priorities and society’s needs. While universities often privilege critique and theoretical work, practical research that addresses real-world challenges is frequently undervalued. This misalignment is further compounded by institutional structures that favour disciplinary silos over interdisciplinary collaboration, limiting the potential for holistic solutions to global problems.
Rethinking Research Impact
Professor Kong called for a reimagining of how research impact is assessed. She advocated for a more holistic evaluation framework that goes beyond academic metrics to consider the societal and economic outcomes of research.
Citing initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), the Leiden Manifesto, the European Science Foundation’s impact framework, the UK’s Research Excellence Framework, Hong Kong’s Research Assessment Exercise, and Australia’s Engagement and Impact Framework, she highlighted the importance of transparency, inclusivity, and alignment with societal needs. These frameworks, while presenting their own challenges, nevertheless offer universities a pathway to better fulfil their public mission by valuing research that directly contributes to societal progress.
Organising for Impact
To ensure that research contributions are both purposeful and sustainable, Professor Kong urged universities to develop clear visions that align their activities with broader societal goals. This requires strategic investment in selected areas, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and engaging with external stakeholders to co-create research agendas. She emphasised the need for academics to move beyond traditional dissemination formats and explore new channels such as podcasts, policy papers and exhibitions to engage with policymakers, business leaders and the wider public.
Conclusion
Professor Kong reiterated that universities must balance intellectual freedom with societal relevance. By embracing frameworks for responsible and impactful research, they may transcend the confines of the ivory tower and make meaningful contributions that address the pressing challenges of our time. With a “whole-of-system” approach, integrating rigorous research with a commitment to public engagement, universities hold the potential to make the world a better place, she said.
Q&A Discussion: Expanding the Dialogue on Research and Relevance
The Q&A segment of Professor Lily Kong’s final lecture provided an engaging forum for exploring the practical and philosophical challenges universities face in pursuing impactful research. Moderated by Professor Chan Heng Chee, SUTD Honorary Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities in the Singapore University of Technology and Design, the discussion addressed critical issues, including the societal relevance of academic research, the challenges of measuring research impact, and the role of universities in shaping global and local knowledge ecosystems.
Professor Chan opened the discussion by highlighting the significant cost of maintaining universities and posed a probing question: why do some researchers hesitate to focus on societal needs, despite the clear value of their expertise? Referencing Harvard’s Derek Bok, she stated that academics are society’s “primary source of expertise” and must meet this responsibility to justify public investment in universities. She asked whether introducing metrics for societal impact could render universities’ research less rigorous.
Professor Kong responded by acknowledging that many academics are interested in contributing to societal change but are constrained by the dominant evaluation systems of academia. She explained, “The world of academia is generally using these technical academic metrics… and there isn’t a framework, despite DORA and the Leiden Manifesto, that is widely accepted in the same way that the academic metrics are.” She stressed that global shifts in evaluation systems would require alignment between academic institutions and funding agencies, as researchers inevitably respond to what funders prioritise. “If people want the research grants, they will respond to that,” she observed, highlighting the need for systemic changes.
Professor Chan steered the discussion towards Singapore’s academic contributions, asking whether local researchers have produced “big ideas” comparable to the nation’s strategy of small-state survival, developed by politicians and bureaucrats. Professor Kong candidly acknowledged the difficulty of identifying such ideas in academia, particularly when compared to concrete scientific discoveries. However, she highlighted works such as Professor Chua Beng Huat’s analysis of pragmatism as Singapore’s defining ideology. “At a point in time when people thought that Singapore had no ideology… his work on pragmatism as an ideology — I think — has been quite groundbreaking,” she noted.
She also reflected on the interplay between theory and practice, asserting that both inductive and deductive approaches are valid. Sharing insights from a recent dialogue session held in SMU featuring President Tharman Shanmugaratnam, she noted his encouragement to observe and extract broader theories from specific practices in sectors like business and entrepreneurship.
Public Understanding and Media Collaboration
Responding to a question about the media’s role in education and research, Professor Kong underscored the importance of collaboration between educational institutions and responsible media. She identified two key areas where media could contribute significantly: countering misinformation and enhancing public understanding of complex research. “Working with a seasoned media person can be so helpful in not losing the depth and rigour of thought and yet being able to translate that to an intelligent public,” she explained. She also emphasised the potential for media to play a critical role in public education, fostering a more cultivated citizenry.
An audience member raised concerns about unethical academic practices, including misuse of student contributions and the sidelining of teaching. Professor Kong acknowledged these issues, noting the unfortunate sidelining of teaching in favour of research due to the prioritisation of rankings. She criticised the logic that “it’s okay to focus more on research because then your rankings go up and when your rankings go up, your student credential is good,” and called for greater emphasis on the quality of teaching and learning experiences. She also advocated for co-publication with students, stating, “Acknowledging their contributions is critical. Otherwise, it’s just dishonesty and bullying.”
Click here to watch the video of lecture III.