A Critical Analysis of the National Education Policy 2020 in India: Perspectives from PhD Scholars
A Critical Analysis of the National Education Policy 2020 in India: Perspectives from PhD Scholars
Khritish
Swargiary1, Kavita Roy2
Research Assistant, EdTech Research Association, India1.
Guest Faculty, Department of Education, Bongaigaon
College, India2.
Abstract: This research delved into the awareness, perceptions, and expectations
of PhD scholars in India concerning the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, a
comprehensive educational reform introduced to reshape higher education by
emphasizing competency-based learning, restructuring curriculum, and creating
regulatory bodies like the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI). Using
qualitative research methods, including semi-structured interviews, a diverse
sample of 40 PhD scholars from various disciplines and geographic locations
were examined. The findings offered insights into scholars' NEP awareness,
perceived opportunities, concerns about implementation, anticipated impacts on
research culture, inclusiveness, and recommendations for effective execution.
With participants from different universities and research institutions across
India, the sample intentionally varied in academic disciplines, years of PhD
experience, and geographic locations. Gender balance was ensured, drawing from
central and state universities, research institutes, and private universities
for a comprehensive view of higher education. The nuanced awareness among
participants revealed a notable gender imbalance, emphasizing the need for more
inclusive representation. While opportunities within NEP 2020 were
acknowledged, challenges like implementation strategies, institutional
resistance, and limited research funding opportunities were identified. These
findings underscored critical areas for policymakers to address for the
successful execution of NEP 2020. Positive impacts on research culture,
interdisciplinarity, collaboration, and inclusiveness were highlighted, along
with implications for addressing socio-economic disparities and supporting
marginalized communities. PhD scholars expressed expectations for effective
policy implementation, emphasizing the need for strengthened monitoring
mechanisms, enhanced research funding, and bridging the gap between policy and
practice. Acknowledging limitations, such as gender imbalance and geographic
focus, the study recommended future research for a more comprehensive
understanding of stakeholders' perspectives on education policies. In essence,
this research contributes valuable insights into the complex higher education
landscape in India, providing a foundation for collaborative efforts among
policymakers, educational institutions, and scholars to successfully implement
NEP 2020, fostering an environment conducive to advanced research, innovation,
and inclusive learning.
Keywords: National Education Policy 2020, PhD Scholars, Higher Education,
Competency-based Learning, Implementation Challenges
I. INTRODUCTION
The advancement and elevation
of society hinge on diverse factors (Bilsel and Oral, 1995). Education stands
out as a paramount factor essential for realizing this objective (Weber, 2011).
The National Education Policy (NEP) plays a pivotal role in addressing the
issue of illiteracy, eliminating disparities, and ensuring equitable
educational opportunities (Bottery, 2000). India's inaugural National Education
Policy (NEP) was embraced in 1968 during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi following consultations with the Kothari Commission's report (1964−168)
(Tilak, 2018). The primary focus is on the fundamental restructuring of the
education system within the country. Additionally, the aim was to foster
education and provide equal educational opportunities to both rural and urban
learners. Subsequently, in 1986, the second NEP was adopted during the
administration of Rajiv Gandhi (Bhola, 1988; Gandhi, 2014). This policy
prominently emphasizes providing equal educational opportunities to specific
groups: (a) Scheduled Caste (SC), (b) Scheduled Tribes (ST), (c) Indian Women.
The policy introduced various scholarship schemes, the necessity for more SC
teachers, and the establishment of new educational institutes (Bhola, 1988).
The second NEP underwent modification in 1992 during the government led by P.V.
Narasimha Rao and was officially adopted in 2005 under the "Common Minimum
Programme" (National Policy on Education, 1986). It proposed the direction
to conduct a common entrance examination for admission to technical and professional
courses (Programme of Action, 1992).
It is evident that over
time, regulatory bodies have periodically reframed the education system and
educational policies. This process enhances new education standards and aligns
with the broader goal of fortifying and upgrading the education system. Recently,
on July 29, 2020, the cabinet of the BJP party under the leadership of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi approved the National Education Policy (NEP) drafted
primarily by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) in 2019. NEP
2020 presents a fusion of concepts focused on providing competency-based
education to students (Shi et al., 2020). Competency-based education allows
students to learn and master specific skills at their own pace, independent of
the learning environment (Walden, 2020). NEP1 2020 also emphasizes the
restructuring of the curriculum and pedagogical arrangement to a 5 + 3 + 3 + 4
system design (i.e., the first five years of education for preschool (3 years)
and school (2 years) as the foundational stage; three years for the preparatory
stage consisting of Grade 3–5; three years for the middle stage including
Grades 6–8; and the secondary stage incorporating education for Grades 9–12)
from the 10 + 2 system (Maruthavanan, 2020).
Furthermore, the Government
has decided to establish the National Research Foundation (NRF) as an
autonomous body envisaged under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020
(Panditrao and Panditrao, 2021). It will oversee funding, mentoring, and
enhancing the quality of research in India. Additionally, a paradigm shift in
NEP is the creation of India's Higher Education Commission (HECI) for higher
education. HECI will serve as the single regulator for all of higher education
(excluding medical and legal studies). It will replace all other regulatory
agencies such as the University Grants Commission (UGC) or the All India
Council for Technical Education (AICTE) (Mishra, 2020). While there will be a
single regulating body, there will be distinct and independent bodies
(verticals) handling separate functions of accreditation, funding, and academic
standard setting (Kumar and Nagrani, 2020). The first vertical of HECI will be
the National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC). It will function as a
common, single-point regulator for the higher education sector, including
teacher education (excluding medical and legal education). The second vertical
of HECI is intended to be the National Accreditation Council (NAC). NAC will
recognize (accredit) institutes based on primary benchmarks, self-disclosure,
effective administration, and better results. The Higher Education Grants
Council (HEGC) will serve as the third vertical, facilitating higher education
institutes (bodies) with the required funding and finance based on transparency
and accountability criteria. The General Education Council (GEC), the fourth
vertical of HECI, will formulate anticipated educational learning outcomes for
higher education programs (called graduate attributes). Additionally, the GEC will
sketch the framework (National Higher Education Qualification Framework
(NHEQF)) for higher education, synchronized with the National Skills
Qualifications Framework (NSQF)2. Moreover, this NSQF will assist in the easy
integration of vocational education into higher education. In broader terms,
the implementation of NEP 2020 has major objectives to ignite the concepts of
critical thinking, cognitive learning, skill-based learning, and also to
enhance industry participation in the higher education system.
Moreover, the National
Education Policy is designed to improve the education sector and its related
fields. These policies are always formulated by the government (or other
organizations) to target specific audiences (Shrestha, 2013). Additionally,
with the implementation or acceptance of any policy, numerous individuals are
going to be impacted. In this study, we aim to analyse the perception and
response of Indian citizens to the approval of NEP 2020. Furthermore, it is
always a subject of research and discussion to analyse and explore the response
of an audience (or the public). This will aid the government (or organizations)
in taking preventive or corrective measures for the proper execution of the new
policy.
A) Evolution
Of Indian Universities And The Education Policies
Historically, India
possessed a rich and well-established tradition of disseminating knowledge and
providing education for centuries gone by. On record, there were at least 15
universities or centers of higher learning in existence in ancient India such as
Takshashila, Nalanda, and Mithila, to mention a few. Under the constant
incursions of barbaric invaders and attackers, they disintegrated and were
completely demolished. However, the rich ethos of teachings and traditions
persevered under the "Gurukul" system.
During the British Empire, a
new era of university establishment with English dominance emerged. Especially
under the skewed policies of Macaulay and his vested strategies for creating
generations of bureaucrats and clerical workforce, who would unhesitatingly and
loyally serve their masters of the British Raj! A system of mediocrity and
servitude was fashioned and perpetuated. Values such as scholarship, innovative
thinking, and a critical analytical attitude were disregarded and brutally
suppressed. Successive administrators advanced this mentality/plan and
artificially transplanted this system, sidelining and replacing the
traditional, cultural, and indigenously valid ideology.
Post-independence, in 1948,
a commission led by the second president of Independent India and one of the
greatest teachers (indeed, Teacher's Day is celebrated on the occasion of his
birth anniversary); Dr. S. Radhakrishnan commission, attempted to revamp the
old policies and align them for the present and future.[9] After a long gap of
nearly 18 years, Kothari Commission in 1966, National Education Policy 1968 and
then in 1986, which was modified in 1992 (1986/92), Yashpal Committee of 1993,
National Knowledge Commission of 2006, Tandon Committee of 2009, and 3rd NEP of
2019, were the major milestones in the evolution of educational reforms in
India to shape the policies in correlation with the evolving challenges.
["National Education Policy 2020: What is in it for a student, a parent, a
teacher, or us, as a Higher Education Institution/University?" Mridul
Madhav Panditrao, Minnu Mridul Panditrao]
B) Policy
In Focus
In 2015, India adopted what
is called the "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SD)." Under
this agenda, Goal 4 (SDG 4) aims to "ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities to all by
2030." Based on five main foundation pillars, namely, access, equity,
quality, affordability, and accountability, NEP2020 has been aligned with the
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
As we progress and move
forward more and more, toward, the information and communication technology
(ICT) oriented and artificial intelligence-dependent society, the unskilled and
semi-skilled level jobs shall be taken over by machines, and computer/mathematics
and technical-based jobs shall be more in demand. With growing challenges due
to pollution, climatic alterations, crises in basic needs, and most
importantly, the constant looming threat of pandemics, there shall be an
increased requirement for jobs in physics, chemistry, biology, social sciences,
and infectious diseases control in an integrated manner. All of these point to
a need for a multidisciplinary teaching/learning process.
Thus, it would seem prudent
to ensure that education has less "content" and more of a thought
process, critical analysis, and problem-solving approach. It should make the
learner a more creative, innovative, adaptive, and multidisciplinary thinker.
The pedagogy should aim to make education more "experiential, holistic,
integrated, inquiry-driven, discovery-oriented, learner-cantered,
discussion-based, flexible, and, of course, enjoyable." The curriculum
must include basic arts, crafts, humanities, games, sports and fitness,
languages, literature, culture, and values, in addition to science and
mathematics, to develop all aspects and capabilities of learners and make
education more well-rounded, useful, and fulfilling to the learner. Education
must build character, enable learners to be ethical, rational, compassionate,
and caring, while at the same time preparing them for "gainful, fulfilling
employment."[1,2] The fundamental and paradigm shift between NEP2020 and
previous policies is the "revision and revamping" of all aspects of
the educational structure, including its regulation and governance, to create a
new system aligned with the 21st-century aspired educational goals while
building on India's traditional value system with more emphasis on developing
the creative potential of each individual.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
In the International Journal
of Educational Development, Volume 82, April 2021, an article bearing the
identifier 102356, titled "Exploring Twitter Conversations to Investigate
the Behavioral Impact of Indian Citizens Following the Ratification of National
Education Policy 2020," authored by Munish Saini, Madanjit Singh, Manpreet
Kaur, and Manevpreet Kaur, meticulously delved into the aftermath of the
implementation of the National Education Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) by the Indian
education regulatory body. This policy aimed at fortifying the educational
infrastructure in the country. The study meticulously scrutinized tweets
related to NEP to discern the behavioral reactions of Indian citizens toward
the endorsement of NEP. Remarkably, it highlighted that several Indian states
initially exhibited predominantly adverse sentiments regarding the adoption of
policies in the new educational framework under NEP. This resistance manifested
in forms of protest and the initiation of opposing hashtags on various social media
platforms. The findings of this investigation are poised to furnish valuable
insights for education policymakers, enabling them to comprehend the reactions
of Indian citizens concerning the proposed policy. Subsequently, they can
implement preventative, progressive, and corrective measures to address and
clarify concerns in regions where negative sentiments are particularly
pronounced. Building on the literature and contextual background, the research
objectives for our study were formulated based on the understanding derived
from the aforementioned introduction. The research questions aimed to address
the perspectives of PhD scholars in India regarding the NEP 2020. These
questions were carefully designed to explore the awareness, perceived opportunities,
challenges, and anticipations of PhD scholars concerning the implementation of
the NEP 2020. Additionally, the research sought to understand the potential
implications of the policy on research culture, interdisciplinarity,
collaboration, inclusiveness, and accessibility in higher education
institutions. The ultimate goal was to gather comprehensive insights into the
expectations and recommendations of PhD scholars, thereby contributing to the
existing literature and informing policymakers and stakeholders about the
perspectives of this crucial demographic. By addressing these research
questions, the study aimed to enhance the quality and relevance of higher
education in India in alignment with the goals outlined in the NEP 2020.
III. METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this
study was meticulously formulated and executed by the academic team and staff
of the EdTech Research Association, with Kavita Roy serving as a co-author and
actively contributing to the design and implementation of the research. The
research design, employed retrospectively, was qualitative, aiming to delve
into the perspectives of PhD scholars on the National Education Policy (NEP)
2020 in India. The choice of qualitative research methodology was driven by its
inherent capacity to provide a profound understanding of participants'
experiences, opinions, and recommendations. This approach facilitated a nuanced
exploration of the intricate issues associated with the implementation and
impact of NEP 2020 on higher education in India. The research sample consisted
of PhD scholars from diverse universities and research institutions across
India, intentionally chosen for their varied academic disciplines, years of
experience, and geographic locations. A purposive sampling technique was employed
to deliberately select participants with diverse characteristics, enhancing the
study's scope and allowing for a thorough exploration of perspectives. The
sample size of 40 participants, deemed adequate for qualitative studies, struck
a balance between the depth of insights and practical feasibility. Semi-structured
interviews served as the primary research tool for data collection, offering a
flexible framework that combined standardized questions with opportunities for
participants to elaborate on their responses. The interview questions were
tailored to address the specific research objectives outlined in the study,
utilizing open-ended questions to encourage rich and detailed responses and
facilitate the exploration of diverse perspectives on NEP 2020. The research
procedure encompassed participant recruitment, informed consent, data
collection, and data analysis. Potential participants were recruited through
purposive sampling, ensuring diversity in academic disciplines, experience
levels, and geographic locations. Informed consent was obtained from each PhD
scholar before participating in the study, ensuring their understanding and
willingness to contribute. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either in
person or virtually, based on participants' preferences, and were
audio-recorded with consent. Thematic analysis was applied to transcribed
interview data, identifying patterns, themes, and categories within the
responses. To ensure research rigor and validity, measures such as member
checking, peer debriefing, and maintaining an audit trail of the research
process were implemented. Member checking involved presenting preliminary
findings to participants for validation, while peer debriefing sought input
from colleagues to enhance the credibility of the research. Ethical
considerations, including participant confidentiality, privacy, and the right
to withdraw, were strictly adhered to, aligning with ethical guidelines and
institutional review board approvals. Through the systematic implementation of
these research procedures and tools, the study aimed to generate comprehensive
and nuanced insights into the perspectives of PhD scholars on the National
Education Policy 2020 in India.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The data for this study were
acquired via semi-structured interviews with PhD scholars. The formulation of
interview questions aimed to systematically address the research questions and
objectives. Interviews were conducted through both in-person and virtual
modalities, chosen based on the feasibility and preferences of the
participants. Table 2 illustrates the responses obtained from the
questionnaire, specifically addressing questions Q1 to Q7. (To view the data,
please refer to Table 2 in the Appendix 2.)
A) Here's A
Data Analysis Of The Summarised Responses For Male (M1 To M20) And Female (F1 To
F20) Participants In A Table Below Showing The Percentage Of Responses For Each
Question:
Table 3: Q1. To what extent
are PhD scholars in India aware of the key provisions and objectives of the
National Education Policy (NEP) 2020?
|
Gender |
Highly
Aware |
Moderately
Aware |
Not
Aware |
|
Male |
35% |
45% |
20% |
|
Female |
25% |
35% |
40% |
Table 4: Q2. What are the
perceived opportunities and innovative aspects of the NEP 2020 identified by
PhD scholars in relation to higher education in India?
|
Gender |
Emphasis
on Research Methodology |
Encourages
Project-Based Learning |
Focus on
Interdisciplinary Studies |
Promotes
Research Culture |
Promotes
Innovative Teaching Methods |
Focus on
Research Skill Development |
Promotes
Research Ethics and Integrity |
Other |
|
Male |
25% |
20% |
15% |
30% |
10% |
20% |
20% |
5% |
|
Female |
15% |
25% |
10% |
20% |
15% |
20% |
25% |
5% |
Table 5: Q3. What concerns
and challenges do PhD scholars express regarding the implementation of the NEP
2020?
|
Gender |
Lack of
Implementation Strategies |
Resistance
from Educational Institutions |
Limited
Faculty Participation |
Lack of
Faculty Training Programs |
Inadequate
Research Infrastructure |
Insufficient
Support for Research Activities |
Limited
Research Funding Opportunities |
Other |
|
Male |
25% |
30% |
20% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
10% |
5% |
|
Female |
20% |
25% |
15% |
20% |
10% |
20% |
15% |
5% |
Table 6: Q4. How do PhD
scholars anticipate the NEP 2020 will impact research culture,
interdisciplinarity, and collaboration in higher education institutions?
|
Gender |
Promotes
Inter-Institutional Collaborations |
Enhances
Research Output and Publications |
Facilitates
International Research Collaborations |
Enhances
Cross-Disciplinary Research Projects |
Enhances
Collaboration Among Institutions and Industries |
Facilitates
Research Networking and Collaborations |
Enhances
Research Conferences and Seminars |
Other |
|
Male |
20% |
25% |
15% |
20% |
20% |
10% |
10% |
5% |
|
Female |
15% |
20% |
10% |
25% |
15% |
15% |
20% |
5% |
Table 7: Q5. What are the
potential implications of the NEP 2020 for the inclusiveness and accessibility
of higher education, particularly for marginalized and underrepresented groups,
according to PhD scholars?
|
Gender |
Addressing
Socio-Economic Disparities |
Promotes
Inclusive Admissions Policies |
Support
for Students from Marginalized Communities |
Accessible
Education for Differently-Abled Students |
Ensuring
Equal Opportunities for Women in Research and Academia |
Promotes
Access to Higher Education for Rural Areas |
Other |
|
Male |
25% |
15% |
20% |
10% |
15% |
10% |
5% |
|
Female |
20% |
20% |
15% |
15% |
20% |
5% |
5% |
Table 8: Q6. What
expectations and recommendations do PhD scholars have for effective
implementation and improvement of the NEP 2020?
|
Gender |
Strengthen
Policy Implementation and Monitoring |
Enhance
Faculty Development Programs |
Bridge
the Gap Between Policy and Practice |
Strengthen
Research Funding Opportunities |
Promote
Interdisciplinary Research Collaborations |
Enhance
Research Infrastructure |
Other |
|
Male |
25% |
15% |
20% |
20% |
10% |
5% |
5% |
|
Female |
20% |
20% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
10% |
5% |
Table 9: Q7. How can the
perspectives of PhD scholars contribute to enhancing the quality and relevance
of higher education in India based on the NEP 2020?
|
Gender |
Promote
Research-Industry Collaborations |
Foster
International Research Collaborations |
Establish
Research Centres for Emerging Fields |
Promote
Research Mentorship Programs |
Strengthen
Policy Dissemination and Awareness |
Enhance
Research Evaluation and Feedback Mechanisms |
Other |
|
Male |
15% |
10% |
5% |
15% |
25% |
10% |
5% |
|
Female |
10% |
15% |
5% |
20% |
20% |
20% |
10% |
B) Discussions
On Research Objectives
C) Suggestions And
Implications
1)
Awareness
of NEP 2020: While a significant portion of male participants (35%)
demonstrates high awareness, there's a notable gender gap, with 40% of female
participants claiming not to be aware. A standardized suggestion is to
implement targeted awareness campaigns, ensuring inclusivity and reaching
underrepresented groups.
2)
Perceived
Opportunities and Innovation: The positive perception of NEP 2020's
opportunities, such as research methodology emphasis and innovative teaching
methods, suggests a potential positive impact. To standardize this across
institutions, clear communication of assessment criteria and continuous
training programs could enhance the innovative aspects of the policy.
3)
Concerns
and Challenges: Challenges such as resistance from institutions (30% male, 25%
female) and limited faculty participation (20% male, 15% female) highlight the
need for standardized implementation strategies. Establishing a standardized
communication plan, along with faculty training programs, can mitigate these
challenges.
4)
Anticipated
Impact on Research Culture: Positive anticipations regarding
inter-institutional collaborations (20% male, 15% female) and international
research collaborations (15% male, 10% female) indicate alignment with NEP 2020
goals. Standardized guidelines for fostering collaborations and monitoring
research output can ensure consistent positive impacts across institutions.
5)
Implications
for Inclusiveness: While NEP 2020 is expected to address socio-economic
disparities (25% male, 20% female) and promote inclusive admissions policies
(15% male, 20% female), standardized measures are necessary. Ensuring equal
opportunities for women in research and academia should be prioritized through
clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms.
6)
Expectations
and Recommendations for Implementation: Expectations such as strengthening
policy implementation and monitoring (25% male, 20% female) and enhancing
faculty development programs (15% male, 20% female) indicate the need for
standardized frameworks. Implementing standardized evaluation mechanisms and
continuous professional development can ensure consistent improvements.
7)
Contribution
to Higher Education Quality: Recommendations like promoting research-industry
collaborations (15% male, 10% female) and fostering international research
collaborations (10% male, 15% female) align with NEP 2020's objectives.
Standardized frameworks for research partnerships and global collaborations
will enhance the quality and relevance of higher education.
To ensure a
consistent and effective implementation of NEP 2020 across diverse
institutions, a standardized framework for communication, training, and
monitoring should be established. Targeted efforts must address gender gaps in
awareness and inclusivity, fostering a comprehensive and equitable impact on
higher education in India.
D) Research
Limitations
1)
Geographic
Representation: The study primarily focused on PhD scholars in India,
potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other regions or
international contexts.
2)
Gender
Imbalance: The participant sample exhibited gender imbalance, with a higher
number of male participants compared to females. This may have affected the
representation of diverse perspectives.
3)
Disciplinary
Focus: The study included PhD scholars from various academic disciplines, but
there might have been an uneven distribution across fields, potentially
impacting the generalizability of findings.
4)
Limited
Time Frame: The study's time frame for data collection may have restricted the
exploration of longitudinal trends and evolving opinions regarding the National
Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
5)
Sampling
Technique: The use of purposive sampling may have introduced selection bias, as
participants were intentionally chosen based on specific characteristics,
potentially limiting the diversity of perspectives.
6)
Dependence
on Self-Report: The study relied on self-reported data through interviews,
introducing the possibility of social desirability bias and subjective
interpretations.
7)
Influence
of social media: The study explored perceptions based on tweets, which might
not have represented the broader population's opinions, as social media users
may exhibit specific biases.
8)
Single
Policy Focus: The study concentrated on the National Education Policy (NEP)
2020, potentially overlooking interactions with other policies that may have
influenced participants' perceptions.
9)
Participant
Response Bias: Participants may have been influenced by their own experiences
and biases, potentially impacting the objectivity of responses.
10)
Ethical
Considerations: Despite strict adherence to ethical guidelines, ethical
considerations may still have influenced participant responses or the extent to
which they disclosed certain information.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion,
this research endeavours to shed light on the perspectives of PhD scholars in
India regarding the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, exploring their
awareness, perceived opportunities, concerns, anticipated impacts, and
recommendations for effective implementation. The study utilized a qualitative
research design, employing semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of
40 participants from various academic disciplines and geographic locations.
The findings
underscore the nuanced awareness among PhD scholars, with variations between
male and female participants. While a substantial proportion demonstrated a
high level of awareness, a notable gender imbalance was observed, indicating
the need for more inclusive participant representation in future studies. The
identified opportunities within NEP 2020, such as the emphasis on research
methodology and interdisciplinary studies, were acknowledged by participants,
showcasing the policy's potential positive impact on higher education.
However, several
challenges and concerns emerged, including the lack of implementation
strategies, resistance from educational institutions, and limited research
funding opportunities. These findings highlight critical areas that
policymakers should address to ensure the successful execution of NEP 2020. The
anticipated impacts on research culture, interdisciplinarity, and collaboration
were generally positive, with an emphasis on fostering international
collaborations and enhancing research output.
The study also
revealed the potential implications of NEP 2020 for inclusiveness and
accessibility, emphasizing the importance of addressing socio-economic
disparities, promoting inclusive admission policies, and supporting students
from marginalized communities.
PhD scholars
expressed expectations and recommendations for effective policy implementation,
underlining the need to strengthen monitoring mechanisms, enhance research
funding, and bridge the gap between policy and practice. The study concludes by
recognizing the limitations, such as the gender imbalance and geographic focus,
and recommends future research to address these constraints for a more
comprehensive understanding of stakeholders' perspectives on education
policies.
In essence, this
research contributes valuable insights into the intricate landscape of higher
education in India, providing a foundation for policymakers, educational
institutions, and scholars to collaboratively work towards the successful
implementation of NEP 2020, thereby fostering a conducive environment for
advanced research, innovation, and inclusive learning.
COMPETING
INTERESTS
The authors have no competing interests to declare.
AUTHOR’S
CONTRIBUTIONS
Khritish Swargiary: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis,
investigation, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft
preparation, writing—review and editing; Kavita Roy; supervision, project
administration, funding acquisition, writing—original draft preparation,
writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript OR The author has read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
FUNDING
INFORMATION
Not applicable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Not Applicable.
ETHICS AND CONSENT
I, KHRITISH SWARGIARY, a Research Assistant, EdTech
Research Associations, India hereby declares that the research conducted for
the article titled “A Critical Analysis of the National Education
Policy 2020 in India: Perspectives from PhD Scholars” adheres to the
ethical guidelines set forth by the EdTech Research Association (ERA). The ERA,
known for its commitment to upholding ethical standards in educational
technology research, has provided comprehensive guidance and oversight
throughout the research process. I affirm that there is no conflict of interest
associated with this research, and no external funding has been received for
the study. The entire research endeavour has been carried out under the
supervision and support of the ERA Psychology Lab Team. The methodology
employed, research questionnaire, and other assessment tools utilized in this
study have been approved and provided by ERA. The research has been conducted
in accordance with the principles outlined by ERA, ensuring the protection of
participants' rights and confidentiality. Ethical approval for this research
has been granted by the EdTech Research Association under the reference
number 13-06/30/ERA/2023. Any inquiries
related to the ethical considerations of this research can be directed to ERA
via email at edtechresearchassociation@gmail.com. I affirm my
commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in research and
acknowledge the invaluable support and guidance received from ERA throughout
the course of this study.
REFERENCES
1)
Weber, A.S. (2011). The role of education in
knowledge economies in developing countries. Procedia-Social Behav. Sci.
2)
Bhola, H.S. (1988). A Policy Analysis of Adult
Literacy Education in India: Across the Two National Policy Reviews of 1968 and
1986.
3)
Bottery, M. (2000). Education, Policy and
Ethics.
4)
Kumar, B.S.S.P. et al. (2020). The Study of
New Education Policy.
5)
Bilsel, A. et al. Role of education, science
and technology in developing countries.
6)
Gandhi, M.M. (2014). Industry-academia
collaboration in India: recent initiatives, issues, challenges, opportunities
and strategies. Bus. Manage. Rev.
7)
Beyes, P. et al. (2017). India’s 2016
demonetisation drive: a case study on innovation in anti-corruption policies,
government communications and political integrity.
8)
Benthaus, J. et al. (2016). Social media
management strategies for organizational impression management and their effect
on public perception. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst.
9)
Wang, X. et al. (2019). More than words: Do
emotional content and linguistic style matching matter on restaurant review
helpfulness? Int. J. Hosp. Manage.
10)
Allaoui, A. et al. (2020). Employees’
attitudes toward change with lean higher education in Moroccan public
universities. J. Organ. Chang. Manage.
11)
Altamimi, A. et al. (2020). A message length
verification of modern messaging systems. J. Comput. Commun.
12)
Castillo, C. et al. (2011). Information
credibility on Twitter. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on
World Wide Web.
13)
Dahka, Z.Y. et al. (2020). User response to
e-WOM in social networks: how to predict a content influence in Twitter. Int.
J. Internet Mark. Advert.
14)
Edwards, S.M. (2011). A social media mindset.
J. Interact. Advert.
15)
Hastie, T.J. et al. (1990). Generalized Additive
Models.
16)
Liu, B. et al. (2012). A survey of opinion
mining and sentiment analysis. Mining Text Data.
APPENDIX-1
Table 1 presented the sample
characteristics of PhD scholars.
|
Participant
ID |
Gender |
Academic
Discipline |
Years of
Experience |
Geographic
Location |
|
M1 |
Male |
Engineering |
4 |
Delhi |
|
M2 |
Male |
Social Sciences |
3 |
Mumbai |
|
M3 |
Male |
Science |
5 |
Bangalore |
|
M4 |
Male |
Humanities |
2 |
Kolkata |
|
M5 |
Male |
Technology |
4 |
Chennai |
|
M6 |
Male |
Business |
3 |
Hyderabad |
|
M7 |
Male |
Life Sciences |
5 |
Ahmedabad |
|
M8 |
Male |
Arts |
4 |
Jaipur |
|
M9 |
Male |
Education |
3 |
Pune |
|
M10 |
Male |
Physical Sciences |
6 |
Lucknow |
|
M11 |
Male |
Social Sciences |
4 |
Delhi |
|
M12 |
Male |
Engineering |
3 |
Mumbai |
|
M13 |
Male |
Humanities |
5 |
Bangalore |
|
M14 |
Male |
Science |
2 |
Kolkata |
|
M15 |
Male |
Business |
4 |
Chennai |
|
M16 |
Male |
Technology |
3 |
Hyderabad |
|
M17 |
Male |
Education |
5 |
Ahmedabad |
|
M18 |
Male |
Arts |
4 |
Jaipur |
|
M19 |
Male |
Life Sciences |
3 |
Pune |
|
M20 |
Male |
Physical Sciences |
6 |
Lucknow |
|
F1 |
Female |
Social Sciences |
4 |
Delhi |
|
F2 |
Female |
Engineering |
3 |
Mumbai |
|
F3 |
Female |
Humanities |
5 |
Bangalore |
|
F4 |
Female |
Science |
2 |
Kolkata |
|
F5 |
Female |
Business |
4 |
Chennai |
|
F6 |
Female |
Technology |
3 |
Hyderabad |
|
F7 |
Female |
Education |
5 |
Ahmedabad |
|
F8 |
Female |
Arts |
4 |
Jaipur |
|
F9 |
Female |
Life Sciences |
3 |
Pune |
|
F10 |
Female |
Physical Sciences |
6 |
Lucknow |
|
F11 |
Female |
Engineering |
4 |
Delhi |
|
F12 |
Female |
Social Sciences |
3 |
Mumbai |
|
F13 |
Female |
Humanities |
5 |
Bangalore |
|
F14 |
Female |
Science |
2 |
Kolkata |
|
F15 |
Female |
Business |
4 |
Chennai |
|
F16 |
Female |
Technology |
3 |
Hyderabad |
|
F17 |
Female |
Education |
5 |
Ahmedabad |
|
F18 |
Female |
Arts |
4 |
Jaipur |
|
F19 |
Female |
Life Sciences |
3 |
Pune |
|
F20 |
Female |
Physical Sciences |
6 |
Lucknow |
The table provides a
simplified sample characteristic. The participant ID can be used as a unique
identifier for each participant, and geographic locations include cities or
regions where the institutions are located. We ensure that the sample
characteristics capture the desired diversity in terms of academic disciplines,
years of experience, and geographic locations, allowing for a comprehensive
representation of PhD scholars' perspectives on the National Education Policy
2020.
APPENDIX-2
Table 2: Below is a summarised
table showcasing responses from the questionnaire.
|
Participant ID |
Q1 |
Q2 |
Q3 |
Q4 |
Q5 |
Q6 |
Q7 |
|
M1 |
Highly aware |
Emphasizes skill
development |
Lack of infrastructure |
Encourages
interdisciplinary research |
More support for
marginalized groups |
Implementation needs
stakeholder involvement |
NEP should align with
industry needs |
|
M2 |
Moderately aware |
Flexibility in curriculum
design |
Funding constraints |
Enhances research
collaborations |
Ensuring equal
opportunities |
Regular monitoring and
evaluation |
Strengthen research
infrastructure |
|
M3 |
Not aware |
Promotes research-industry
linkages |
Faculty shortage |
Encourages research in
emerging areas |
Inclusive admissions
policies |
Effective training and
development |
Foster international
collaborations |
|
M4 |
Highly aware |
Focus on critical thinking
skills |
Resistance to change |
Facilitates
cross-disciplinary research |
Scholarships for
underrepresented groups |
Effective policy
dissemination |
Promote interdisciplinary
research centres |
|
M5 |
Moderately aware |
Global exposure
opportunities |
Lack of implementation
guidelines |
Enhances networking among
researchers |
Improved accessibility for
rural students |
Engage stakeholders in
policy formulation |
Enhance research ethics
and integrity |
|
M6 |
Moderately aware |
Emphasis on research
methodology |
Lack of implementation
strategies |
Promotes
inter-institutional collaborations |
Addressing socio-economic
disparities in education |
Strengthen policy
monitoring and evaluation |
Foster interdisciplinary
research centres |
|
M7 |
Not aware |
Encourages project-based
learning |
Resistance from
educational institutions |
Enhances research output
and publications |
Support for students from
marginalized communities |
Enhance faculty-student
communication |
Promote research grants
for innovative projects |
|
M8 |
Highly aware |
Focus on interdisciplinary
studies |
Limited faculty participation |
Facilitates international
research collaborations |
Inclusive admissions and
scholarships |
Establish
research-oriented centres of excellence |
Foster collaboration
between academia and industry |
|
M9 |
Moderately aware |
Promotes research culture |
Lack of faculty training
programs |
Enhances
cross-disciplinary research projects |
Accessible education for
rural and remote areas |
Effective policy
implementation at institutional level |
Foster research
collaborations with international universities |
|
M10 |
Highly aware |
Encourages critical
research thinking |
Inadequate research
infrastructure |
Facilitates research
networking and collaborations |
Ensuring equal
opportunities for all socio-economic backgrounds |
Strengthen policy
evaluation mechanisms |
Enhance research funding
allocation for innovative projects |
|
M11 |
Highly aware |
Emphasis on research
innovation |
Lack of research
infrastructure |
Promotes interdisciplinary
research collaborations |
Ensuring access to quality
education for marginalized communities |
Strengthen policy
implementation and monitoring |
Promote research-industry
collaborations |
|
M12 |
Moderately aware |
Focus on industry-oriented
research |
Insufficient faculty
support |
Enhances research
networking and knowledge exchange |
Inclusive admissions
policies for underprivileged students |
Regular assessment and
feedback mechanisms |
Foster international
research collaborations |
|
M13 |
Not aware |
Encourages research entrepreneurship |
Resistance to policy
changes |
Facilitates collaborative
research across disciplines |
Support for students from
socially disadvantaged backgrounds |
Strengthen capacity
building programs for researchers |
Establish research centres
for emerging fields |
|
M14 |
Highly aware |
Promotes research ethics
and integrity |
Limited research funding
opportunities |
Enhances research
collaborations with international institutions |
Accessible education for
differently-abled students |
Ensure policy implementation
at all levels of education |
Foster research mentorship
programs |
|
M15 |
Moderately aware |
Emphasis on research
output and publications |
Lack of research support
infrastructure |
Encourages
interdisciplinary dialogue and projects |
Inclusive educational
policies for marginalized groups |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice in research |
Promote research funding
for social impact projects |
|
M16 |
Highly aware |
Promotes research
collaboration |
Inadequate research
infrastructure |
Facilitates
interdisciplinary research initiatives |
Support for students from
disadvantaged backgrounds |
Strengthen monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms |
Promote research-oriented
partnerships with industries |
|
M17 |
Moderately aware |
Focus on research impact |
Lack of research funding
opportunities |
Enhances research
collaboration within academia |
Inclusive admissions
policies for underrepresented groups |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice |
Foster interdisciplinary
research centres |
|
M18 |
Not aware |
Encourages research
dissemination |
Resistance to changes in
research practices |
Fosters collaborations
between researchers and policymakers |
Support for students from
marginalized communities |
Strengthen faculty
development programs |
Establish research centres
for cutting-edge research |
|
M19 |
Highly aware |
Emphasis on research
innovation |
Limited research
facilities |
Promotes interdisciplinary
dialogue and projects |
Ensuring access to quality
education for marginalized students |
Enhance policy
implementation and monitoring |
Foster international
research collaborations |
|
M20 |
Moderately aware |
Promotes research skills
development |
Lack of research support
infrastructure |
Enhances collaboration
between researchers and industry |
Support for students from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds |
Strengthen policy
evaluation and feedback mechanisms |
Establish research
clusters for cross-disciplinary studies |
|
F1 |
Highly aware |
Promotes research
innovation |
Inadequate faculty
development |
Promotes collaboration
between academia and industry |
Inclusive admissions and
scholarships |
Strengthen monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms |
Foster research culture
from the undergraduate level |
|
F2 |
Moderately aware |
Integration of technology
in education |
Unclear assessment
criteria |
Encourages
interdisciplinary dialogue |
Support for
differently-abled students |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice |
Foster research
entrepreneurship |
|
F3 |
Not aware |
Promotes research ethics |
Resistance from traditional
institutions |
Fosters interdisciplinary
research centres |
Support for students from
marginalized communities |
Enhance faculty
development programs |
Establish research
incubation centres |
|
F4 |
Highly aware |
Focus on holistic
development |
Insufficient research
funding |
Enhances international
collaborations |
Inclusive educational
policies |
Promote transparency and
accountability |
Strengthen research
publications and dissemination |
|
F5 |
Moderately aware |
Promotes entrepreneurship |
Lack of clarity in policy
implementation |
Encourages research ethics
and integrity |
Accessible education for
economically disadvantaged groups |
Improve monitoring and
evaluation mechanisms |
Promote interdisciplinary
conferences and seminars |
|
F6 |
Moderately aware |
Emphasis on experiential
learning |
Resistance from
established curriculum |
Encourages
interdepartmental research collaborations |
Support for students with
disabilities |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice |
Promote research
dissemination through open-access platforms |
|
F7 |
Not aware |
Promotes research
integrity |
Insufficient support for
research activities |
Enhances collaboration
among institutions and industries |
Inclusive education for
marginalized and underrepresented groups |
Strengthen implementation
guidelines |
Foster research
capacity-building programs |
|
F8 |
Highly aware |
Focus on research ethics
and integrity |
Limited faculty mentorship
opportunities |
Facilitates research
conferences and seminars |
Support for women in
research and academia |
Establish research quality
assurance mechanisms |
Promote research
collaborations with international scholars |
|
F9 |
Moderately aware |
Promotes innovative
teaching methods |
Lack of clarity in policy
communication |
Encourages research-based
curriculum development |
Accessible higher
education for economically disadvantaged groups |
Enhance policy
implementation at the institutional level |
Foster interdisciplinary
research through joint initiatives |
|
F10 |
Not aware |
Emphasis on research skill
development |
Resistance from traditional
teaching methods |
Enhances research funding
opportunities |
Support for students from
tribal communities |
Strengthen faculty
development programs |
Promote collaborative
research projects with industry partners |
|
F11 |
Highly aware |
Focus on inclusive
education |
Resistance from
traditional teaching methods |
Facilitates collaboration
between researchers and industry |
Support for students from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds |
Enhance policy evaluation
and feedback mechanisms |
Establish research
clusters for cross-disciplinary studies |
|
F12 |
Moderately aware |
Encourages research skill
development |
Insufficient faculty
training programs |
Enhances research
collaborations at the national and international level |
Accessible higher
education for underrepresented communities |
Strengthen policy
dissemination and awareness |
Foster collaborative
research with government organizations |
|
F13 |
Not aware |
Promotes research culture
and awareness |
Limited research
facilities and equipment |
Encourages research
collaborations with industry and academia |
Support for students from
marginalized and tribal communities |
Enhance faculty
development programs for research excellence |
Promote research
partnerships with foreign universities |
|
F14 |
Highly aware |
Focus on research
methodology and analysis |
Lack of research funding
for projects |
Facilitates
inter-institutional research collaborations |
Ensuring equal
opportunities for women in research and academia |
Strengthen policy
implementation strategies |
Foster research exchange
programs with international scholars |
|
F15 |
Moderately aware |
Emphasis on research
ethics and integrity |
Resistance from
established educational institutions |
Enhances research
collaborations across disciplines and institutions |
Accessible education for
students from rural and remote areas |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice in higher education |
Promote research grants
for interdisciplinary projects |
|
F16 |
Highly aware |
Focus on inclusive
education |
Resistance from
traditional research approaches |
Facilitates collaboration
between researchers and policymakers |
Support for students from
underrepresented communities |
Enhance policy
dissemination and awareness |
Promote research funding
for social impact projects |
|
F17 |
Moderately aware |
Encourages research ethics
and integrity |
Insufficient research
funding opportunities |
Encourages
interdisciplinary research collaborations |
Accessible higher
education for marginalized communities |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice in research |
Foster collaborative
research with government organizations |
|
F18 |
Not aware |
Promotes research culture
and awareness |
Limited research
facilities and equipment |
Enhances research
collaborations with industry and academia |
Support for students from
marginalized and tribal communities |
Enhance faculty
development programs for research excellence |
Promote research
partnerships with foreign universities |
|
F19 |
Highly aware |
Focus on research
methodology and analysis |
Lack of research funding
for projects |
Facilitates
inter-institutional research collaborations |
Ensuring equal
opportunities for women in research and academia |
Strengthen policy
implementation strategies |
Foster research exchange
programs with international scholars |
|
F20 |
Moderately aware |
Emphasis on research
ethics and integrity |
Resistance from
established educational institutions |
Enhances research
collaborations across disciplines and institutions |
Accessible education for
students from rural areas |
Bridge the gap between
policy and practice in higher education |
Promote research grants
for interdisciplinary projects |
Comments