Qualitative study reveals how institutional identity and nomenclature marginalize undergraduate education, suggesting reforms.
In Indian academia, the designation of academic departments as “PG and Research” units reflects not only administrative structuring but also embedded ideological hierarchies. This study interrogates the cultural and historical assumptions underpinning such nomenclature and reveals how it often marginalizes undergraduate education and perpetuates an outdated prestige economy rooted in colonial and elitist frameworks. Drawing on qualitative content analysis, institutional case studies, and theoretical insights from Pierre Bourdieu and Ernest Boyer, the research explores the performative and symbolic dimensions of departmental titles. The findings show that these naming conventions shape perceptions of academic value, visibility, and legitimacy across levels of study. The article calls for a paradigmatic shift toward inclusive academic discourse that affirms equity across all programmes and disciplines. By rethinking institutional language, the study contributes to broader conversations on policy reform, symbolic justice, and the politics of recognition in Indian higher education.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jessica Sekar (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: