The production of social science research in Nigeria: status and systemic determinants

The paper examines why Nigeria’s social science research (SSR) output does not match the size of its research system despite the country’s large population, economy, and extensive higher education sector. It highlights the importance of SSR for addressing complex development challenges and for informing context-specific policies. The authors aim to analyze the quantity and quality of SSR in Nigeria (including peer review and open access) and to identify systemic determinants influencing output: (i) inputs—personnel, funding, and researcher time; and (ii) the research support system—institutions/policy and support services. The study is motivated by Nigeria’s status as one of Africa’s largest overall research producers and the second-largest SSR producer, yet with substantially lower output than smaller systems like South Africa. The central research questions are: why does such a large SSR system produce relatively little, and what can be done to improve it?

The study builds on the Doing Research Assessment (DRA) framework to conceptualize how inputs and the research support system shape outputs. It discusses known limitations of bibliometric databases for African SSR (under-coverage of local journals and humanities/social sciences; AU-NEPAD 2010, 2014; Duermeijer et al., 2018; Gaillard, 1992) and the need to consider both international and local outlets to reflect national research performance. Prior work documents Nigeria’s high but comparatively lower research output than South Africa (Mba and Ekechukwu, 2019), governance and system challenges affecting research (Ngozi et al., 2016; Cloete and Bunting, 2013; Begum, 2006), and prevalence of low-visibility or predatory outlets (Ezema, 2010; Ezema et al., 2017). Bibliometric studies (e.g., Mouton, 2010; Confraria and Godinho, 2015) provide aggregate trends but limited insight into system determinants, motivating the mixed-methods approach.

The study applies the DRA mixed-methods design combining desk review, bibliometrics, survey, and key informant interviews. Desk research compiled secondary data on Nigerian SSR, including the 2009 national R&D survey (NACETEM, 2010) due to scarcity of recent, disaggregated indicators (e.g., SSR-specific expenditure and personnel). Bibliometric analysis used Scimago (chosen for broader coverage of developing-country outputs) to collect publication counts, citations, peer review status, and open access for 2015–2017 across four Scimago disciplinary areas aligned to SSR: Business, Management and Accounting; Economics, Econometrics and Finance; Psychology; and Social Sciences. To capture outputs beyond indexed publications, a survey asked researchers about diverse output types over the preceding three years. Empirical context mapping identified 1,825 SSR-relevant organizations in Nigeria (170 higher education institutions; 75 government/funding agencies; 65 private sector organizations; 1,515 civil society organizations). From these, 130 organizations were selected (stratified by type, size, location) and individuals were randomly sampled, yielding 805 invitees with an 85% response rate (684 responses: 506 researchers, 117 administrators, 61 policymakers). Seventeen purposively selected key informants (universities, research institutes, media, regulator, government/funders, civil society, legislators) were interviewed pre-, during, and post-survey to complement and interpret quantitative findings. For personnel estimates, the study integrated NUC university staff counts (~62,000 academic staff in 2017) with NACETEM’s research institute counts (1,885 researchers) to estimate total researchers (~63,885) and derived SSR researcher ranges using funding-share and faculty-share assumptions (10–50%). Funding estimates used NACETEM GERD (₦45.9 billion; 0.2% of GDP in 2007/09 PPP) and SSR shares in universities and research institutes to approximate SSR GERD and per-researcher values. Limitations such as dated personnel/funding data and database under-coverage were addressed through ranges, extrapolations, and triangulation with survey and interviews.

- Output volume and position: Nigeria was the second-largest producer of SSR in Africa (2005–2009), producing about a quarter of South Africa’s SSR output and thrice Egypt’s (Table 3). For 2015–2017, Scimago recorded 4,085 Nigerian-attributed SSR publications, of which 97.7% were peer-reviewed; 33.6% were open access (Table 4). Field breakdowns (2015–2017): Business 776 (98.1% peer-reviewed; 17.9% OA); Economics 609 (98.7% peer-reviewed; 44.0% OA); Psychology 234 (96.2% peer-reviewed; 24.8% OA); Social Sciences 2,466 (97.5% peer-reviewed; 36.8% OA). Survey evidence shows journal articles, conference proceedings, and book chapters as the most common output types. - Open access: Approximately one-third of SSR outputs were OA overall; Economics had the highest OA rate (44%), supported by OA outlets such as MRPA and AJOL. - Quality and incentives: Peer-reviewed output dominates due to promotion criteria emphasizing publication counts within short windows. This emphasis on quantity fosters predatory publishing, publication slicing, and potential quality issues; many local journals are short-lived and absent from international indexes. - Output relative to system size: 3,991 SSR publications over 2015–2017 translate to about 2.2 publications per identified SSR-actor organization (1,825) or ~23.4 per university if all were confined to universities, indicating output below potential for a system of Nigeria’s size. - Personnel: Estimated total researchers ~63,885 (62,000 university academic staff + 1,885 in research institutes). SSR researchers estimated between 6,389 (10%) and 31,943 (50%). Around 36% of researchers held a Ph.D. by 2007/09: in universities 38% had Ph.D.s; in research institutes ~19% held Ph.D.s. - Funding: GERD was ~₦45.9 billion (USD 583.2 million, 2009 PPP), ~0.2% of GDP (well below UNESCO’s 1% target). Government supplied ~96% of funding; private non-profit ~2%; foreign ~1%; for-profit private sector ~0.2%. Approximately 9.3% of GERD went to SSR (about ₦3.3b in universities and ₦1.0b in research institutes). Estimated SSR GERD per researcher ranged from ~₦0.48m to ₦2.42m (USD ~6,000–31,000 in 2009 PPP), indicating low funding intensity. Foreign grants are substantial yet underreported and often drive donor-aligned agendas with limited local relevance. - Time allocation: 68% of sampled social science researchers reported insufficient time for research. Average time spent on research was 39.3% (SE 1.08) with a median of ~30%, implying only ~75 full research days per year (assuming 250 working days). Heavy teaching loads, high student–teacher ratios, administrative burdens, and inefficient support offices erode research time and morale. - Support system and coordination: Nigeria lacks a central SSR council or coordinating body; there is no national SSR policy. The system is fragmented, with duplication of efforts and weak linkages between research institutes and universities. Attempts to establish a National Research and Innovation Council did not materialize. Researchers report dissatisfaction with institutional support services (time/stress management, recruitment, grants management), citing bureaucratic delays, limited competencies in support offices, and financial management challenges that derail projects. - Overall: Nigeria’s SSR production is sizable and largely peer-reviewed with considerable OA presence, but it underperforms relative to the scale of its research system due to low inputs (funding and time) and a weak, poorly coordinated support infrastructure.

The findings directly address the research questions by showing that Nigeria’s SSR underperformance relative to system size stems from two systemic determinants. First, research inputs are insufficient: GERD is low (0.2% of GDP), SSR receives a small share of total R&D spending, and researchers devote limited time to research due to heavy teaching/administrative workloads and poor organizational climates. Second, the support system is weak: there is no central SSR coordinating institution or national SSR policy, leading to fragmented efforts, duplication, and thinly spread resources. Inefficient research management and administrative support further reduce productivity and morale. While the publication ecosystem shows strong peer-review prevalence and notable OA rates, incentive structures emphasizing counts over impact encourage lower-quality outlets and predatory publishing. Collectively, these conditions explain why output volume and quality potential do not match the system’s size. Strengthening coordination, policies, and institutional support, alongside improving funding and rebalancing academic workloads, is crucial for enhancing the relevance, visibility, and impact of Nigerian SSR.

The study provides a comprehensive assessment of Nigeria’s SSR production and its systemic determinants using a mixed-methods DRA framework. It concludes that underperformance arises from low inputs (funding and limited researcher time due to burdensome organizational climates) and a weak, poorly coordinated support system lacking a central SSR authority and national policy. Policy and system recommendations include: (1) Establish a central, state-led SSR coordinating body (e.g., a national research foundation or council) and a national SSR policy to set priorities, align with development goals, coordinate actors, and create funding synergies. (2) Develop a localized bibliographic database and a national journal accreditation system (akin to South Africa’s), and reform promotion criteria to emphasize quality and impact over counts, improving visibility and curbing predatory outlets. (3) Improve the research environment in universities and research institutes: increase funding, leverage and protect research/sabbatical leave for actual research, consider optional research leave with exemptions from teaching/administration, address understaffing, and professionalize research management offices. These measures can enhance productivity, relevance, and impact of SSR in Nigeria and help realize the potential implied by the system’s scale.

Key limitations include: (1) Scarcity of recent, system-wide, discipline-disaggregated data; estimates rely on the 2009 national R&D survey (NACETEM, 2010) and assumptions (e.g., funding-share or faculty-share to estimate SSR personnel). (2) Bibliometric under-coverage of African and local SSR outlets; Scimago-based indicators (2015–2017) may underestimate actual output and exclude outputs like technical reports and policy briefs. (3) Absence of national monitoring/reporting for foreign grants means foreign funding is underreported; some grants bypass institutional records. (4) Dynamic publication databases imply that replication at a later date could yield different counts. These constraints necessitated triangulation with surveys and interviews and the use of ranges/extrapolations, which may affect precision and generalizability.