[COLUMNIST] A system that rewards mediocrity: Why are we surprised?

THE recent revelation in the News Straits Times that 1,119 research projects worth a staggering RM148 million were deemed unsatisfactory in 2023 is both alarming and unsurprising. It is alarming because this represents a huge waste of public funds and is unsurprising. After all, it is merely a symptom of deeper systemic flaws that have plagued Malaysia’s research ecosystem for years. The real question we should be asking is not why this happened but why we continue to allow it.

The failure of more than a thousand research projects is not merely an underperformance issue; it indicates a system lacking proper oversight, transparency, and accountability. Public research funds drive innovation, contribute to national development, and enhance Malaysia’s global competitiveness. Yet, year after year, we hear about projects that fail to deliver, researchers who do not publish or produce meaningful outcomes, and a system that shrugs its shoulders instead of demanding answers.

Who is held accountable when such failures occur? Are these researchers required to return the funds? Are they barred from future grants? Are institutions penalised for failing to oversee their faculty’s research commitments? The answer, as always, is a resounding no. Why would we expect anything different if there are no real consequences for poor research performance?

The core issue is that research grants in Malaysia are often awarded based on factors that have little to do with research excellence, capacity, or credibility. Many researchers secure grants not because they have demonstrated a track record of impactful research but because they know how to navigate the system, submit proposals that tick bureaucratic boxes, and leverage relationships rather than credentials.

If we dig deep into the list of these 1,200 underperforming researchers, we would likely find many repeat offenders with a history of receiving grants without delivering meaningful results. Yet, they continue to receive funding cycle after cycle. Why? Because the system facilitates mediocrity and irresponsibility rather than rewards innovation and excellence.

Another pressing issue is the culture of low expectations. Researchers sometimes approach grants as entitlements rather than competitive funding that demands excellence. There is little motivation to push boundaries, publish in top-tier journals, or translate research into real-world applications. Instead, many operate with the mindset that completing a project—regardless of its quality—is sufficient.

Moreover, grant providers often neglect to implement stringent evaluation mechanisms. Mid-project reviews, milestone assessments, and post-project audits are either ineffective or absent. Researchers who fail to deliver are rarely blacklisted, nor are their institutions held accountable for ensuring the effective use of funds.

If we are serious about strengthening Malaysia’s research landscape, we must address these systemic failures. Researchers who do not meet project deliverables should face consequences, including ineligibility for future grants. Institutions should be required to co-monitor research progress and share partial accountability for failures.

Grant allocation must be based on rigorous, transparent criteria prioritising research impact, feasibility, and a proven track record of excellence. Project evaluators should be appointed based on quality and not institutional favouritism or tokenistic diversity considerations, which often override merit-based selection. Political and personal affiliations should not be considered in research funding decisions. Mid-term project reviews should be enforced, with the option to terminate projects that show no progress. Completed research should undergo stringent quality assessments before final payments are disbursed. Excellence, not completion, should be the benchmark for success. Researchers must be encouraged and incentivised to publish in high-impact journals and contribute to national development goals.

Malaysia cannot afford to waste millions of ringgit on subpar research. If we continue to reward mediocrity, we should not be surprised when mediocrity prevails. It is time for a serious overhaul of our research funding system—one that values accountability, credibility, and real impact. Otherwise, we will be writing this same article again next year.

---

Dr Rozilini Mary Fernandez-Chung is a Principal Fellow of Higher Education Academy, UK, an Associate Professor at the University of Nottingham Malaysia, and a life member of PenDaPaT.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.

Read the latest news here