Abstract
Globalisation has presaged new economies throughout the world which, in turn, has required new sorts of job skills for what Prof. Pravin J. Patel is calling ‘the knowledge society’ in his paper, ‘Research Culture in Indian Universities’. A country such as the United States once relied on manufacturing for jobs that expanded the middle class. Today, the economy focuses more on what some have called ‘symbolic analysts’—work that requires skills in social media and technology rather than driving a truck or making products such as cars. Many large and small industries and jobs have faded. The steel industry was once a prime employer for particular areas of the United States and those jobs have vanished. Travel agents, secretaries and cashiers are jobs that have been made redundant by advances in technology.
Prof. Patel’s ‘knowledge society’ has come about in part because of advances discovered in research universities. Ironically, those innovations also may require research universities themselves to restructure and rethink their missions. The newspaper industry, for example, has gone through a major restructuring as consumer tastes have shifted away from print and towards digital media. The remarkable increase in social media has cost the traditional newspaper industry thousands of jobs. Many predict that the same sorts of changes will occur in universities as the industry is forced to move from a traditional mode of teaching and learning to one that more aggressively utilises advances in technology and our understanding of optimal learning contexts for students. Consumer tastes change as well; students no longer want an elongated learning experience that spans several years and instead desire a more efficient way to acquire the skills necessary to participate in the new economy. The result is that Prof. Patel’s thoughts come at a timely moment—not only because of the problems he delineates in his article, but also because the research university needs to rethink how it conducts its work in order to meet the needs and demands of the new economy.
Considering the American Model
One of the primary effects of globalisation on tertiary education is that institutions increasingly compare themselves with similar and dissimilar institutions around the world by employing global rankings of ‘world class universities’. As Prof. Patel notes, the American model of the research university is often the most lauded and emulated of tertiary institutions. Whether one is a supporter or critic of global rankings (Altbach, 2007; Marginson, 2006; Salmi & Saroyan, 2007; Tierney, 2009; Webster, 1992) one term that frequently gets employed when discussing international rankings is the ‘American model’. For example, Wanhua Ma (2007) noted that ‘The success of American research universities has been recognised as a model for higher education worldwide’ (p. 32). João Steiner (2007) observed, ‘The US system of higher learning is currently one of the most admired in the world’ (p. 175). Simon Marginson and Marijk van der Wende (2007) commented on the circular logic involved in the rankings that privilege English language universities, and hence, ‘rankings were intuitively plausible because they confirmed the reputations of the leading American and British universities’ (p. 309). Altbach (2001) has pointed out how ‘the American higher education system has become the worldwide “gold standard” for higher education, respected for its leadership in research and scholarship and for providing access to large numbers of students’ (p. 11). The use of terms such as ‘model’ or ‘gold standard’ with regard to American tertiary education assumes that the American research university is a model to be emulated. It is useful to remember, however, that a century ago if there had been international rankings all but one or two American universities would not have made the list. How did the American research university become so predominant in the 20th century and what lessons might it hold for those of us concerned about higher education in India?
Observers frequently speak of the financial structures of American universities as the ‘special sauce’ that has enabled the improvement of American higher education as if budgeting mechanisms make an institution great. From this perspective, privatisation is a crucial determinant for American research excellence and the casualisation of labour, outsourcing of jobs, and passing off the costs of education to the consumer/student is a prerequisite for academic improvement (Tierney, 2010). I disagree with such an analysis and have found little evidence that what enabled American higher education to improve had anything to do with a privatised framework.
Instead, I suggest that certain key principles have defined American higher education. Regardless of whether the institution is a private or public university, these principles have served as core values of the organisation’s culture and are most likely embedded in every institution’s constitution, faculty handbook and by-laws. Permit me to focus on those three principles that most academics agree have been essential.
Academic Freedom
Academic freedom came about in the early part of the 20th century in large part because professors were being dismissed from their positions because of what they said in the classroom or wrote in articles pertaining to their research. Multiple examples exist of individuals who were from different disciplines—sociology, political science, law, to name but a few—and different types of institutions—such as Stanford University, a private institution and the University of Wisconsin, a public institution—who lost their jobs. The result was the creation of a faculty-led association, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which created what has become a central totem of the American academy: the idea of academic freedom.
One key component of the AAUP’s statement on academic freedom states:
The purpose of this statement is to promote public understanding and support of academic freedom and tenure and agreement upon procedures to assure them in colleges and universities. Institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of either individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free speech for truth and its exposition. Academic freedom is essential to these purposes. (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 1940/1970)
Although professors at public institutions are technically public employees, they are different from a civil servant who does not enjoy the protection of academic freedom, and consequently must not criticise the government. The removal of universities from state or federal control so that professors are free to speak their minds without fear of repercussions has been affirmed in multiple venues. Approximately 95 per cent of all four-year institutions in the United States have a statement affirming the rights of faculty to hold academic freedom. State legislatures and governors also have stated quite clearly over the years that interference with the professoriate’s right to argue openly and publicly about topics on which they are versed is unacceptable.
Most importantly, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the principle by stating, ‘… our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned’ (Keyishian et al. vs. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York et al., 1967). The assumption is that tenure protects academic freedom and in its protection more than an individual’s rights are made secure. A nation that has colleges and universities where academic freedom exists is of benefit for a country where a commitment to democratic principles is paramount (Tierney & Lanford, 2014).
Civic and Personal Responsibility
Public and private universities have been seen as part of the public good. Public institutions have long received a substantial amount of fiscal support from the state; the assumption has been that public monies are an example of citizenry supporting education for all who are able to attend.
Private and public institutions have received philanthropic support from foundations and individuals for over a century. The willingness of individuals to donate substantial sums of money to a university has been seen as a quasi-obligation. To be sure, not all wealthy individuals or all alumni give money to an institution, but the amount of giving nevertheless remains substantial. Indeed, the governing authority of most private and public universities is known as the board of trustees. The assumption is that the board holds the trust of the institution, and by doing so it has an obligation to ensure the continued well-being of the university. Federal and state governments have enabled substantial donations by the tax laws of the country that encourage donations to non-profit organisations. Philanthropic donations also need to come without requirements, or a quid pro quo that helps the donor. Donors provide funding to an institution in order to advance the mission of the institution, not as a tax shelter or trade-off for benefits from a state legislature. The chief beneficiary of philanthropy has been the research university.
At the same time, tuition, or student fees, always has been part of the post-secondary structure. Although costs have been historically low at some institutions, such as a public state college, individuals have borne some share of the cost of going to college. The assumption has been that while society benefits from an educated citizenry it is also true that the individual benefits from a college degree and therefore should bear some of the cost of going to college, even if it is minimal, or is a loan that will be paid back over time.
The federal government, and to a certain extent state governments, as well as philanthropic foundations, has provided an inordinate amount of research funding for basic and applied research. These forms of support have enabled scientists to have the infrastructure to undertake their research. Although the system has not been perfect, the vast majority of funds have come through strict forms of peer review where only the most qualified research projects have been funded.
Autonomy and Shared Governance
Dartmouth College is a private college in the northeastern United States. Thirty years after the American Revolution, the legislature of the state of New Hampshire, the location of Dartmouth, sought to overrule the Board of Trustees and reinstate a deposed president. The trustees objected that the legislature had no role in the internal affairs of a privately chartered institution and sought to have the ruling of the legislature declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The decision in 1819 by the Supreme Court supported the trustees of the college and said that the state had no role in the internal affairs of the college insofar as the corporation had a contract that could not be interfered with by a government. The ruling, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, is viewed as one of the most important decisions the Court has ever rendered.
The result is that private colleges have had a great deal of autonomy with regard to the decisions they make about issues such as admissions, research, curricula, teaching and learning, and the makeup of the faculty. Although all private institutions must adhere to federal and state laws and auditing requirements, the state and federal government has no right to insert its opinion or judgement about who should be hired or on what an individual faculty member studies, says or writes.
Although public institutions have less autonomy than private universities, the autonomy of public universities is considerable. They are looked on as institutions one step removed from the political realm. For example, a department of water and power, or a department of transportation really has no autonomy from the state government that funds the operations of the department and the salaries of its employees. Public universities, however, have their own boards of trustees that oversee the organisation. When public trustees function properly, they provide a buffer between the state government and the public university.
The concept of shared governance has been in existence for a century. Along with the idea of academic freedom came the belief about the role of faculty in the governance of the university. Although the board of trustees has the ultimate legal authority for the institution, the governance of the institution has been seen as shared by a triumvirate of parties—the board, the administration and the faculty. The lines of authority have been frequently unclear, and significant conflict may arise over the action of one or another group, but the precept that the university is removed from the political realm and that the governance of the institution lies with internal actors has been a long-standing belief. The legislature, or a donor, then, has provided significant sums of money to an institution with actually a quite minimal level of interference.
The idea of autonomy, when coupled with the idea of shared governance, has created a culture that is much more decentralised than centralised. Departments and schools have a great deal of authority with regard to decisions that determine the lives of individuals within the unit. Decentralisation enables local participants to feel invested in the system in a manner that a centralised decision-making structure does not allow. The result is that units have autonomy from a central administration just as the university itself has autonomy from the larger state or federal structure. The risk, of course, is that any sense of a cohesive strategy will be hard to implement but the opportunities have outweighed the risks for American research universities for the better part of a century. The system functions based on a culture of trust.
Parenthetically, it is useful to note that these strategies are largely going through a reformulation in American higher education due to the intensification of globalisation. The casualisation and outsourcing of labour has increased. Faculty participation in governance has decreased. Protections to academic freedom have been weakened, if not abolished, and agreements about security of academic appointments have been abrogated in many states. The rise of for-profit institutions has required greater oversight from the government in order to ensure consumer protection. Nevertheless, if one wants to mirror the sorts of excellence that brought about research excellence of the kind Prof. Patel has considered then what I have written stands as pillars upon which to build a research infrastructure aimed at improving Indian higher education.
Standards for Improving the Research Culture of the Indian University: ‘5 in 5’
Prof. Patel points to the individual accomplishments of many distinguished Indian scientists who have made significant discoveries and won prestigious awards. One could add to the list by noting the substantial canon of Indian literature, the rich historical, sociological and anthropological scholarship, and the wealth of philosophical treatises that have been authored by Indian intellectuals. What is telling, however, is that although many of these individuals are associated with a university, the sum is not greater than the parts. That is, numerous individuals stand out for their intellectual work, but they appear to have done it more on their own, or even in spite of, a university infrastructure. In the United States, the opposite occurred throughout the 20th century. The culture of the university supported intellectuals in the work they did, and in doing so, the sum was greater than the parts.
Because of the knowledge society to which Prof. Patel refers, most countries are trying to grapple with massification and substantially increase postsecondary enrollments. At the same time, these same countries are trying to build a research infrastructure so that they might claim to have a world-class university. The vast majority of countries have neither the resources nor the ability to undertake simultaneously both tasks. What is unique about India is that a research capacity already exists. What is lacking is the structure and academic culture to take advantage of these strengths. Indeed, as a thought experiment based on the American experience, assume that India wishes to have five universities ranked as one of the top-tier institutions in the world within five years. I can think of no other country that has the human resources to attempt such an ambitious task. To do so, however, requires a substantial commitment on the part of the government, the academy and India’s intellectuals. My assumption is that these institutions already exist if we were to focus on a five-year time horizon. Only the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has been able to become a top-tier university, and it took 20 years from its inception. What follows, then, are the lineaments of what these tasks might entail.
Reorganisation
The system of higher education in India does not take advantage of the strengths that exist across the broad spectrum of academic disciplines. One type of institution offers a strong engineering faculty, and an entirely different unit at another institution has a strong social science department. A medical school may exist as a stand-alone institution and the strong colleges of central universities operate more as separate entities rather than part of a cohesive unit. At a time when the most innovative work is occurring across disciplines (Tierney, 2008; Tierney & Holley, 2008), a reorganisation would need to occur to bring together the most respected intellectuals across academic areas to work in the five institutions designated for top-tier status.
Investment
To be sure, the government needs to substantially increase its support of a research infrastructure for its best institutions. When China’s research budget for one of its premier institutions surpasses that of the combined research budget of all 18 Indian Institutes of Technology (Bothwell, 2015: 8), one is hard-pressed to assume that research excellence can be accomplished. At the same time, the American model has never relied solely on government support. The best research universities in the United States have always depended on substantial philanthropic support. Again, unlike many countries, what is particularly useful for India is the number of extremely wealthy individuals who have the ability to donate on a level equivalent to that of the United States. Finally, although significant revenue from technology transfer only impact the budgets of no more than 30 American universities, those universities are America’s best institutions, and the same sort of profit-sharing models should exist for India’s designated elite universities.
Leadership and Governance
Vice chancellors and faculty need to play a much more activist and reformist role. If revenue is short, then the vice chancellors need to be the stewards of the budget both in finding cost savings and generating new revenue. They need to make the case to the nation and the government about why investment in higher education is essential. Faculty need to ensure that the basic mission of the institution is preserved and encroachment by external agents is resisted. Rather than the casualisation of labour aggressive efforts need to be made to dramatically increase the number of early career faculty who will account for the ultimate success of sustaining and extending India’s research capacity.
Research Practices
America’s best universities have established research practices that have primarily been put into place by the professorate. Such practices account for ensuring that academic work is of the highest quality. Examples run the gamut from determining how work is done, where it is published, and what occurs when someone errs, for example, by plagiarising the work of others. What I discussed above in terms of ensuring academic freedom exists and is fostered is a crucial example of research practices that lead to a climate for research excellence.
Organisational Culture
This final point has two essential components. On the one hand, if India were to attempt to establish five world class universities within five years, a commitment needs to be made by external authorities and internal actors to a sense of integrity that repulses any attempts at academic corruption whether it be monetary transactions or political interference of one kind or another.
On the other hand, such an ambitious goal needs to be met with a sense of aggressive optimism. If what I have suggested seems impossible, then a goal of ‘5 in 5’ will never be met. Perhaps the most interesting conclusion I might make of Prof. Patel’s thought-provoking article is not the problems that exist in improving India’s research infrastructure, but instead the potential that India has because of its enormous individual intellectual strengths.