Indonesia’s Grant Divide in Faculty Development

By fransiskusmacguire1988 Jan 14, 2026

fransiskusmacguire1988, "Indonesia’s Grant Divide in Faculty Development." Enago Academy. January 7, 2026. https://www.enago.com/academy/guestposts/fransiskusmacguire1988/indonesia-grant-divide-faculty-development/.

Copy

Introduction: The Paradox of Progress

Indonesia’s higher education landscape stands at a crossroads of remarkable potential and profound disparity. While the nation strives to enhance its academic global standing, a systemic fissure threatens to undermine these ambitions: a deep and persistent gap in access to competitive research, development, and community service grants among its lecturers. This inequity is not a random occurrence but a structural feature, historically favoring institutions under the Ministry of Research and Technology/National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) and the Directorate General of Islamic Higher Education (Ditjen PTAI). This essay presents a comprehensive analysis of this “grant divide,” arguing that it is a primary driver of regional and disciplinary competency disparities. By examining its root causes, systemic impacts, and potential remedies, we outline a pathway toward a more inclusive, equitable, and effective research funding ecosystem that can empower all of Indonesia’s academic talent.

The Architecture of Inequity: Root Causes of the Grant Gap

The hypothesis of a significant grant access gap is fundamentally supported by policy narratives and systemic structures (Source 1). Grants are key state instruments for advancing the twin pillars of the Tri Dharma Perguruan Tinggi: research and community service. Consequently, inequitable distribution directly translates to unequal opportunities for academic capacity building. Grant-funded activities, such as proposal writing training (Source 3) and research publication (Source 15), inherently enhance lecturers’ methodological, analytical, and collaborative skills. Studies on teacher professional development in Indonesia affirm that positive lecturer-student interaction and professional program participation boost teaching quality and academic achievement (Sources 5, 25). Thus, the grant gap transcends mere financial inequality; it represents a critical barrier to career-advancing developmental opportunities (Sources 21, 45).

The dominance of grant recipients from BRIN and Ditjen PTAI-affiliated institutions is a logical consequence of a complex, layered policy architecture. A primary factor is the inherent strategic alignment or preferential advantage embedded within these entities’ mandates. BRIN, as an integrated research agency, centrally functions to advance national technological priorities. It likely employs highly selective, internally-biased grant schemes aimed at maximizing research output relevant to its national mission. This explains why institutions under its umbrella tend to excel in grant acquisition. Conversely, Ditjen PTAI manages a specific religious higher education ecosystem, encompassing State Islamic Universities (UIN), Institutes (IAIN), and Colleges (STAIN). Its budget allocation mechanisms are likely more centralized and mission-driven, prioritizing research aligned with religious values, local wisdom, or specific needs of Indonesian Muslim communities—such as wetland environmental studies relevant to sharia law (Source 30) or village empowerment programs (Source 2). Internal initiatives like UMSIDA PRESS further demonstrate institutional efforts to promote publication, an integral part of successful grant cycles (Source 20).

Divergent funding models across institutions further reinforce the gap. Schemes like the State University Operational Assistance (BOPTN), regulated by the Minister of Finance Regulation (PMK), provide operational funds to universities (Source 4). However, this top-down model often lacks sufficient flexibility to support competitive individual research initiatives (Source 17). Well-established universities with strong research reputations—typically under BRIN or with strong Ditjen PTAI affiliations—are more likely to receive larger BOPTN allocations. This, in turn, allows them to fund internal research or provide robust administrative support for lecturers seeking external grants. For lecturers at non-affiliated institutions, securing grants from general sources like the Directorate of Research and Community Service (DRPM) becomes far more competitive and difficult. Without strong institutional support in project management, facilities, or expert administrative staff, their proposals are less competitive compared to those from well-resourced universities.

Finally, organizational culture and institutional capability play pivotal roles. Leading universities often possess a deeply ingrained research-supportive culture (Source 31). They house centers of excellence, advanced laboratories, and specialized administrative teams skilled in grant management and financial reporting. Services like proposal training (Source 3) and grant management guides (Source 16) are not equally available across all institutions. Smaller or regionally located universities may have lower institutional capacity to support lecturers in the national grant arena. In conclusion, the dominance of specific recipient clusters is not an indicator of individual failure elsewhere but a reflection of a layered policy architecture, comprising explicit ministerial mandates and implicit policies shaped by funding models, institutional capabilities, and heterogeneous research cultures.

The Competency Chasm: Impacts of Unequal Access

Persistent, uncorrected grant inequality triggers structural repercussions that hinder national lecturer competency development. The impact is both individual and domino-like, affecting institutions and the entire higher education system. A significant consequence is the reproduction of long-term inequality. Success in securing a grant allows a lecturer to conduct research, publish in reputable journals (Source 40), and execute measurable community projects. This track record becomes a crucial asset for promotion, higher academic rank, and scholarly status. Enhanced status, in turn, unlocks access to larger grants, research students, and international collaborations. This creates a “virtuous cycle” for the already advantaged, while less fortunate groups are trapped in a “vicious cycle” where a lack of grant access impedes the ability to build a solid academic portfolio.

Parallelly, this gap directly fuels geographic competency disparities. Historically, major research universities are clustered in urban centers on Java, such as Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, and Surabaya. Other regions, especially in Eastern Indonesia or remote areas, host far fewer such institutions. Consequently, lecturers there have severely limited access to nationally competitive grants. Well-intentioned policies like free education to improve access (Source 10), if not balanced with equitable research resource distribution, risk widening this gap. Lecturers in remote areas lack not only funding but also access to vital scientific conferences, professional networks, and mentorship, resulting in a growing chasm in the quality and relevance of knowledge produced between central intellectual hubs and peripheral institutions.

Furthermore, the dominance of specific institutions can narrow the national spectrum of developed disciplines. BRIN, by mandate, likely prioritizes Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Ditjen PTAI, by mission, focuses on social sciences, humanities, and religious studies. While both are essential, if they dominate grant distribution, other fields—such as arts, philosophy, or pure social sciences—in many other public universities may be neglected. This imbalance potentially narrows the national intellectual horizon and reduces the diversity of perspectives needed to address complex national challenges. It may also skew university curricula, leading to the robust development of some disciplines and the stagnation or disappearance of others.

A Comparative Analysis: BRIN vs. Ditjen PTAI Grant Schemes

A deeper understanding requires a comparative analysis of the grant schemes managed by BRIN and Ditjen PTAI. The fundamental difference lies in their funding philosophy: BRIN tends toward an internal, top-down alignment with national strategic priorities, while Ditjen PTAI employs a more mission-driven, bottom-up model responsive to community needs.

BRIN’s schemes are designed to maximize research output relevant to its national development agenda. Selection is typically stringent, based on academic quality, innovative potential, and project relevance to national priorities, often favoring fundamental and applied STEM research. This effectively achieves specific goals but risks marginalizing disciplines outside core priorities.

Conversely, Ditjen PTAI’s grant schemes are rooted in the mission of religious higher education. Priorities often reflect the needs of Indonesian Muslim communities and religious values. Selection criteria likely emphasize social relevance, community impact, and contribution to religious understanding alongside methodological quality. Institutions like UINs and IAINs have easy access due to their aligned missions, creating a supportive ecosystem for their lecturers’ Tri Dharma activities.

The table below summarizes key differences:

Comparison Aspect	BRIN Grant Scheme	Ditjen PTAI Grant Scheme
Funding Philosophy	Internal Alignment (Top-Down)	External/Mission Alignment (Bottom-Up)
Primary Objective	Achieve national research priorities (e.g., STEM)	Support religious HE mission & community needs
Key Selection Criteria	Academic quality, innovation, national relevance	Social relevance, community impact, religious values
Program Focus	Fundamental & Applied Research (STEM)	Community Service, Local Knowledge Integration, Religious & Sharia Studies
Example Programs	—	Village Empowerment (Source 2), Wetland Environment (Sharia Law) (Source 30)
Distribution Structure	Centralized, performance-based	Decentralized, mission-based

This analysis reveals the grant gap is not merely a budget allocation issue but a manifestation of two distinct policy philosophies, each effective in its domain but collectively creating peripheries for institutions that do not align with either model.

Systemic Implications and the Path Forward

The systemic grant gap reshapes Indonesia’s intellectual map and regional development. It reinforces geographic polarization in research activity, contradicting sustainable development goals of equity and inclusion. Without intervention, this disparity can stifle innovation potential from other regions and strengthen intellectual dependency on existing centers.

Moreover, it narrows the national scholarly spectrum. While BRIN promotes STEM and Ditjen PTAI promotes social sciences/humanities/religion, other vital fields may be underfunded, reducing the diversity of intellectual perspectives needed to solve multidimensional problems and affecting curriculum diversity nationwide.

Addressing these implications requires a holistic policy approach:

Create Targeted Grant Schemes: Design “inclusive” grants like seed funding, capacity-building grants, or collaborative grants requiring partnerships between leading and regional institutions, focusing on applied research and local knowledge integration (Source 24).
Enhance National Infrastructure & Capability: Invest in open-access national research facilities (e.g., shared labs, digital libraries (Source 40)) and fund sustained national training programs in research methodology and proposal development (Source 3).
Reform Funding Regulations: Evaluate regulations like the PMK for BOPTN to ensure greater flexibility, allowing universities more autonomy to fund competitive individual research (Sources 4, 17).
Diversify Excellence Recognition: Design grant schemes that value not only fundamental research but also applied research, public policy studies, local knowledge integration, and pedagogical innovation.

Conclusion: Toward an Equitable Ecosystem

Closing the grant divide demands synergistic collaboration from all stakeholders. Policymakers must craft inclusive, transparent, and equitable funding frameworks. Institutional leaders must prioritize research support, build networks, and leverage local context. Lecturers must engage in continuous professional development, active networking, and rigorous output production. By implementing pragmatic, solution-oriented strategies, Indonesia can build a fairer higher education system where every lecturer has an equal opportunity to develop, contribute, and drive national progress. The goal is not merely to redistribute funds but to fundamentally restructure the ecosystem to recognize and nurture the diverse talents and potentials spread across the archipelago, ensuring the nation’s intellectual growth is as vibrant and varied as its culture.