Volume 7, 2024

Hierarchy and the Case of Indian Academia

Pragya Chaube
DST Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru
Moumita Koley
DST Centre for Policy Research, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru

Published 2024-03-13


  • Academic Hierarchy; Organizational Structure; Organizational Culture; Academic Bullying; Authorship Abuse; Work Environment

How to Cite

Chaube, P., & Koley, M. (2024). Hierarchy and the Case of Indian Academia. DIALOGUE: Science, Scientists and Society, 7, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.29195/DSSS.07.01.82


Universities and research institutions perpetuate rigid academic hierarchies for a variety of reasons, including tradition, the need for clear lines of authority, and the belief that it is necessary for efficient functioning. However, organizational structure and culture are known to have a huge impact on productivity. Traditional academic hierarchical structures in academic institutions can have negative effects, such as hindering the free flow of ideas, limiting opportunities for junior faculty, and creating a culture of competition rather than collaboration. Here, we discuss the consequences of a rigid hierarchical system on academic research, particularly in the Indian context.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...


  1. Ahmad, S., Kalim, R., & Kaleem, A. (2017). Academics’ perceptions of bullying at work: Insights from Pakistan.
  2. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2015-0141
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. In Research in Organizational
  4. Behaviour (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). JAI Press Inc. https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Group_Performance/Amabile_A_Model_of_CreativityOrg.Beh_v10_pp123-167.pdf
  5. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/1998/09/how-to-killcreativity
  6. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for
  7. creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995
  8. Amin, A. (2021, September 8). The implicit and explicit biases that follow women from school to the lab.
  9. The Wire. https://science.thewire.in/education/the-implicit-and-explicit-biases-that-follow-women-fromschool-to-the-lab/
  10. Bartlett, M. J., Arslan, F. N., Bankston, A., & Sarabipour, S. (2021). Ten simple rules to improve academic work–life balance. PLOS Computational Biology, 17(7), Article e1009124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009124
  11. Carvalho, T., & Diogo, S. (2018). Exploring the relationship between institutional and professional autonomy: A comparative study between Portugal and Finland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(1), 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2018.1395916
  12. Chaudhari, S. (2022). IISER teacher blamed for young researcher’s suicide. Telegraph India. https://www.telegraphindia.com/my-kolkata/news/iiser-teacher-blamed-for-young-researchers-suicide/cid/1859486
  13. Dhingra, D., & Mishra, D. (2014). Publication misconduct among medical professionals in India. Indian
  14. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2014.026
  15. Fontanarosa, P., Bauchner, H., & Flanagin, A. (2017). Authorship and Team Science. JAMA, 318(24), Article
  16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19341
  17. Ghosh, R. (2022). Why most faculty members have little time for research. The Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/94136410.cmsutm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
  18. Grieger, M. C. A. (2005). Authorship: An ethical dilemma of science. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 123(5), 242-246. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802005000500008
  19. Guglielmi, G. (2018). Who gets credit? Survey digs into the thorny question of authorship. Nature. https://
  20. doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05280-0
  21. Gupta, R., Bakhshi, A., & Einarsen, S. (2017). Investigating workplace bullying in India: Psychometric
  22. Properties, validity, and cutoff scores of negative acts questionnaire–revised. SAGE Open, 7(2), Article 215824401771567. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017715674
  23. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.).McGraw-Hill.
  24. India Today Education Desk. (2023). UGC issues new regulations for students’ grievance redressal. India
  25. Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/ugc-issues-new-regulations-for-studentsgrievance-redressal-2360757-2023-04-16
  26. Jabbehdari, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2017). Authorship norms and project structures in science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 42(5), 872–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917697192
  27. Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational theory, design, and change (7th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. https://industri.fatek.unpatti.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/085-Organizational-Theory-Design-and-Change-Gareth-R.-Jones-Edisi-7-2013.pdf
  28. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2010). Faculty experiences with bullying in higher education: causes,
  29. consequences, and management. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 32(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP10841806320103
  30. Keashly, L., & Neuman, J. H. (2013). Bullying in higher education. In Workplace Bullying in Higher Education(pp. 1–22). Taylor and Francis. https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Workplace_Bullying_in_Higher_Education/Q26wCurr5KkC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=academic+bullying+higher+education&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
  31. Khalifa, A. A. (2022). Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties. Ethics,
  32. Medicine and Public Health, 20, Article 100735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100735
  33. Kinman, G. (2014). Doing more with less? Work and wellbeing in academics. Somatechnics, 4(2), 219–235.
  34. https://doi.org/10.3366/soma.2014.0129
  35. Kohll, A. (2018). The evolving definition of work-life balance. Forbes.
  36. Kurup, A., R, M., B, K., & Godbole, R. (2010). Trained scientific women power: How much are we losing and
  37. why? [IAS-NIAS Research Report]. National Institute of Advanced Studies. http://eprints.nias.res.in/142/1/IAS-NIAS-Report.pdf
  38. Kurup, A., & Raj, A. (2022). Changing Patterns of work–life balance of women scientists and engineers in
  39. India. Science, Technology and Society, 27(4), 485–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/09717218221075129
  40. Martin, B. (1998). Hierarchy. Tied Knowledge: Power in Higher Education. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/98tk/tk03.html
  41. Mendiratta, N. (2022, March). Women in science and engineering – KIRAN (WISE-KIRAN) A step towards
  42. gender equity in STI. Science Reporter, 59(3). https://nopr.niscpr.res.in/handle/123456789/59212
  43. Morgan, J. (2015). The 5 types of organizational structures: Part 1, The hierarchy. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2015/07/06/the-5-types-of-organizational-structures-part-1-thehierarchy/?sh=26c5de085252
  44. Mukhopadhyay, U. (2023). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on academic performance and work–life balance
  45. of women academicians. Asian Journal of Social Science, 51(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajss.2022.07.003
  46. Newsome, J. L. (2008). The chemistry PhD: The impact on women’s retention. Royal Society Chemistry. https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/02-about-us/our-strategy/diversity-community-hub/2008-chemistry-phd_imapcton-womens-retention.pdf
  47. Paltogolu, A. E. (2021, November 3). Should we do away with hierarchy in higher education? https://www.
  48. timeshighereducation.com/campus/should-we-do-away-hierarchy-higher-education
  49. Rajan, R. G., & Lamba, R. (2023). Breaking the Mould: Reimagining India’s economic future. Penguin Random House India.
  50. Ramakrishnan, S. (2018). When doctorate becomes a degree of harassment. The New Indian Express.
  51. https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2018/apr/29/when-doctorate-becomes-a-degree-ofharassment-1807779.html
  52. Sabharwal, N. S., Henderson, E. F., & Joseph, R. S. (2020). Hidden social exclusion in Indian academia: Gender, caste and conference participation. Gender and Education, 32(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2019.1685657
  53. Samhita, L. (2019). How Happy is the scientific workforce in India? The Wire. https://thewire.in/the-sciences/
  54. how-happy-is-the-scientific-workforce-in-india
  55. Sancheti, S., & Pillai, L. (2020). Institutional autonomy in Indian higher education system. Need for a serious
  56. debate. In Reimagining Indian Universities. Association of Indian Universities.
  57. Shah, A., Rajasekaran, S., Bhat, A., & Solomon, J. M. (2018). Frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship in Indian biomedical journals: Analysis of Papers published from 2012 to 2013. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264617751475
  58. Sharma, H., & Verma, S. (2018). Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter
  59. fruit of trade. Tropical Parasitology, 8(2), 62. https://doi.org/10.4103/tp.TP_27_18
  60. Simpson, R., & Cohen, C. (2004). Dangerous work: The gendered nature of bullying in the context of higher
  61. education. Gender, Work and Organization, 11(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14680432.2004.00227.x
  62. Singh, M. P. (2016). PhD scholar’s family files FIR against research guide, HoD and Dean, alleges harassment. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/phd-scholars-family-files-firagainst-research-guide-hod-and-dean-alleges-harassment/
  63. Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology,
  64. (3), C567–C575. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008
  65. The Hindu. (2019). IIT-Kanpur ‘vendetta’ against Dalit teacher flayed. https://www.thehindu.com/news/
  66. national/other-states/iit-kanpur-vendetta-against-dalit-teacher-flayed/article26738022.ece
  67. Walter, C. (2012). Work environment barriers prohibiting creativity. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
  68. , 642–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.243
  69. Wellcome Trust. (2020). What researchers think about the culture they work in. https://wellcome.org/reports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture
  70. Woolston, C. (2019). PhDs: The tortuous truth. Nature, 575(7782), 403–406. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586019-03459-7