OK, I’m not actually an academic. For a considerable period in my life (more than 30 years, actually), I was involved with academics; both as a student, researcher, part-time lecturer, and as a facilitator of short learning programmes for working adults on behalf of academic institutions.
For the sake of fairness, I must confess two things here, namely that I was a full-time member of academic staff only for six months in 2014, and, secondly, my experiences are more or less limited to the sciences of Economics and Management.
O-yes, there's another consideration to keep in mind: My ieads are abviously shaped by my own career-specofoc exposures.
The contents of this article must be read in that context.
Be as it may, here it goes!
Academic institutions normally define their mandate in terms of three core functions, namely teaching, research and community work. It is especially the first two that ultimately determine an academic’s standing, and therefore his or her promotion.
My problem with the current academic model is that there is seemingly very little relationship between effort and result. Academics’ performance is not assessed in terms of their ability to get students (learners) ready for the world of work. In the model that QS World University Rankings use to rank universities, only 10% of the assessment weight is allocated to reputation among prospective employers.
A good friend of mine, once a professor at one of South Africa’s universities, astonished me a few years back when he told me that, during a peer-review process of the specific university, one of the key critiques against the academic department of which he was a member, was that the contents of their curricula was not theoretical enough.
Logic tell me that theory only has value-adding worth in terms of the paradigmatic roots it is providing to a practice (or practices). Without it, theory became words, numbers and concepts without value-adding impact. To illustrate the point: Newton’s laws of motion are value-adding because of the relevance for and application thereof in the design and operation of transportation systems and related engineering works (practices).
Einstein’s law of General Relativity forms the basis for the current description of gravitation in modern physics. The common denominator in these examples, is the fact that the theory has provided the fundamental basis (“paradigms”) for the practice of a science. It is in this simple fact that their value lies.
If you detach the theory from the practice, you are left with intellectual waste (not meaninglessness, because inherently it may be brilliant, and not at all meaningless; but waste, because it has no tangible value-adding worth). The question is whether there is any value in a parallel reality (that of theory [the Academic World]) if it is so advanced that it has lost almost all meaningful interaction with the everyday reality of the World of Practice?
As it is currently, the two realities (“Worlds”) are separating. As it is currently, we have reached the “fork in the road”; one path leading to Town Academia, where a small but fancy little community stay, and the other to City Practice, where the workers stay (a very large community, and also the one that produce the goods and services used by both Towns to survive). The primary reason for this growing divide, is our inability to leave the Industrial Age behind and adapt our teaching, learning and research methodologies to an Information Age reality.
The current system has resulted in what I have labelled for myself as the “theory/practice-divide”. Theory is supposed to be the building-blocks from which both learning and practice must spring. From this perspective, theory must provide the basis for constant and continuous renewal and improvement. The key, the absolute non-negotiable requirement, is that these two (theory and practice) must not “separate” (divide). However, academics without any (or very little) practical experience have developed theories that do not recognise practical realities, because they are simply not aware of such realities; and if they are, they have never faced it in practice, and tend to formulate over-complicated solutions out of context (typical of lengthy exposure to an academic milieu in a context where the only certai9nty is uncertainty, where the only change is constant change, and where Industrial Age “one-rule” hypotheses does not apply any longer). Furthermore, because of the nature of the system, they are building theories on theory, and are constantly losing their grip on reality (the practice of work).
Practitioners, on the other hand, has unconsciously lost faith in the ability of the tertiary educational system to provide practical solutions to their problems; they attend academic institutions to obtain the required qualifications that open doors to quick [-er] promotions and to illuminate stumbling-blocks in their career paths. One thing is sure: They certainly do not see academics as partners in the growth of their businesses or organisations. How could they? Academics have very little of substance to offer them. In the times we are living in, the golden chain that is supposed to bind theory and practice together has almost completed broken; we are dealing with theory and (separately) with practical challenges.
The rationale for this approach is to be found in the extreme value that the world of Academia places on peer review. Everything they touch is subject to “peer review.” Come-on, however you look at this, at the core of it is the “locking in” of value creation! (one academic [read: theorist] is assessing the work of another academic [read: theorist]). Who on earth assess the value of academics’ (theorists) work if an assessment of the merit thereof is entrenched in the confines of a relatively small academic fraternity?
My point is that, given the extreme amounts of money poured into the academic (teaching, learning and research) the ultimate criteria to measure the success or failure of the academic system must be its ability to steer and facilitate development. Perhaps in a bit of an over-simplified manner, I would nevertheless use the example of the medical sciences’ ability to prevent illnesses, or cure more patients faster and cheaper, as an example of scientific excellence. That undoubtedly merited the money made available for medical research (and the ability to transfer this knowledge, the money made available for medical training).
If we want real value from the tertiary education system, we must allow the place where this value is created (and added), namely the world where the work is done, to determine what is needed, and in what package. That is, we must allow practitioners to prescribe solutions, and academics to meet these demands by designing fitting theories and models.
University Rankings
Let me return for a moment to QS World University Rankings assessment model, and the weights allocated in terms of its scales. An astonishing weight of 40% in the total assessment value is allocated to academic reputation, which is then defined as being “… measured using a global survey, in which academics are asked to identify the institutions where they believe the best work is currently taking place within their own field of expertise.” Citations per faculty is allocated a weight of 20%, defined as “… to assess research impact. A ‘citation’ means a piece of research being cited (referred to) within another piece of research. Generally, the more often a piece of research is cited, the more influential it is.”
Please explain to me how “academic reputation” justify the billions upon billions spent on subsidies to academic institutions, bursaries, fees, donations and other forms of money allocation to academic institutions? What value does it add? It is not totally unimportant, but 40%, really?
(Just to conclude the QS World University Rankings assessment model: The remaining criteria are student-to-faculty ratio [that is, the number of students in relation to academics] (20%), and the number of foreign students in relation to faculty staff [5%]) (QS, Downloaded December 2016).
Granted, there are indeed alternative grading models that also consider factors such as alumni that have been awarded Nobel prices and other awards. If these were at the centre of the most prominent grading systems, there would not have been any complaints from me (although, to be fair, the awarding of a Nobel (or other) prize per se does not necessarily implies value adding). The point is that, where these prizes are awarded for theories or research that actually add value to the lives of ordinary people, communities, industries, society and the body practitioners, it is indeed worthy. However, where and when this happen, it actually supports my argument.
Academics are regarded in high esteem because, through research, teaching and community work, they are seen as the intellectual problem-solvers of society; allowing us to continuously progress and renew ourselves. They must not be judged in terms of a system that internalise knowledge sharing with very little value to improve and develop the world we live in – that is, with very little practical value.
Currently the entire system is deeply inward focused. Academics are expected to write articles (for citation purposes, note the requirement in the QS World University Rankings assessment model); universities’ subsidies are (among others [together with student output]) dependent on the number of articles produced. Publications of articles are dependent on the results of peer reviews.
Am I the only one that envisage the possibility that “peer”-everything opens a wide door for crony back-rubbings and institutionalisation of self-interest in the context of a small fraternity with shared interests? More importantly, where are the value-adding guarantees; that is, how is provision made to ensure that the products (knowledge resources) produced for the market promote economic and community growth and development, excellence, efficiency and effectiveness? Where is the guarantee that research outputs improve current systems and processes, and take society, the economy and technology forward? Surely, without that guarantee, government, and taxpayers, are wasting money on a highly inclusive small bureaucracy with no tangible evidence of return-on-investment.
We do not need peer review, we need review by practitioners; or, perhaps, shared, dualistic reviews by reputable academics and practitioners alike. I think that the really good reviewers, with the required academic and practical knowledge and exposure to evaluate the true merit of scientific theory (and writings) are a precious, extremely scarce commodity, and that reviewers must be accredited, before being allowed to review articles to be published in accredited journals. The core requirement for accreditation must be the ability to explore ideals based on three intertwined criteria for excellence, namely practical value (application), academic merit (excellence through teaching) and value-adding (societal development, with societal meaning in-inclusive economic, social, technological and scientific capital).
In theory research must be original, honest, replicable where appropriate and well-articulated (Bozzoli, 2016). However, in practice it is mostly an exercise in academics writing and re-writing each other’s’ work. In the process, existing knowledge are repeated over-and-over again, without delivering meaningful, value-adding theories or solutions to practitioners. My question is: What value is added in the process?
It is true that academic institutions have designed their bureaucracies to encourage publications in reputable, credible (and preferably internationally) accredited journals; which is indeed important, and loosen the inward focus on the system a bid. However, endless hours of review and effort are spent on critiquing spelling, grammar, and the methods of source referencing, rather than contents. More importantly, practical application potential is not only almost non-existent as a criterion, it is often a deterrent. The weight of an article is much more dependent on a comma, point and the correct method of citation than on the practical value of the contents of an article.
One of the very (precious) few new theories that I have ever came across over the more than two decades’ involvement in the administrative and management sciences was that of the Balanced Scorecard (the theory whereby organisational and individual performance is measured in a balanced manner based on the strategy of an organisation). It is widely used in government, private and non-governmental organisations throughout the world. In spite of all its weaknesses, it is a theory that has added immense value.
Strictly speaking this theory originated from the consulting world, and not the academic one. The greatest criticism against it from academics? Guess what? Ha!: The champions thereof, Kaplan and Norton notoriously failed to include “adequate” citation of earlier works in their initial papers on the topic! As we say in Afrikaans: “Red ‘n nasie!” Fact of the matter is that virtually none of the never-ending stream of properly cited articles produced by academics are able to produce a useful theory to measure the performance of organisations in a balanced manner even remotely as useful of that of Kaplan and Norton.
In a tertiary system, worthy of the billions spent on it all over the world, academics should have developed the theory of the Balanced Scorecard, and the management consultants would have assisted practitioners to apply it. Better even, the academics developing it should have been the advising consultants. Instead, academics are full of criticisms against it; not about something essential to its application as a practical solution, but because it lacks citation. What value that promotes institutional effectiveness or community development is added!?
Another management theory that I found extremely useful as a management consultant is Enterprise Risk Management. Again, it was not developed by academics, but by business organisations and specifically institutions such as COSO (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission).
Academics produce academic research articles, full of citations, with very little practical value. Who read it – let alone implement it? Truth to be told, generally, not even other academics (well, not on a large scale, anyway [perhaps only the “peer reviewers!”]). Sometimes these ‘reputable publications’ are used as reading material in the waiting rooms of managers in consulting firms, government agencies and companies, where bored visitors page through it to pass the time. (Or managers put it on a bookshelf, clearly visible, to emphasise his or her willingness to stay informed about the most recent developments in the science they are practicing).
The situation is a bit better when it comes to research based on post-graduate dissertations and thesis’ (but not much). Honestly, I could never understand how on earth the requirement to construct your study on existing theories is a requirement to critically analyse and stimulate innovative though about existing practices. Fact of the matter is that post-graduate students have a valid point when they argue that they engage in a specific topic exactly because they do not find existing theories capable of effectively dealing with the challenges they are facing.
Currently the response of the academic model is to force them back into the acceptable theoretical parameters with endless requirements for citations and compliance with existing theory. We are suppressing innovation and critical thought. More importantly, the entire system is suppressing renewal and the correcting of failed theories (and, ultimately, practices).
The academic system actively discourages innovative solutions or creativity. It is astonishing, the topics post-graduate students often select. It irritates me endlessly, the themes and topics selected for Ph.D theses and Master dissertations: The history of this-and-that, the application of a system in a specific organisation, the South African model of the one or other theory – and so I could go on. (Just for the sake of clarity, my argument is that the topics should be: Design of a workable system, based on the historical failures of the current (ones); a revision of the application of a system, in a specific organisation to improve organisational effectiveness and efficiency against pre-determined criteria; Developing a uniquely South African theory to streamline sustainable development).
The problem is that we have lost the ability to think beyond existing wisdom, and those who still have the ability, are supressed back into line, into the confines of what is known and familiar to the academics that must guide them. We are supposed to shape the ultimate cream of society in our Masters and Doctor-degree students, but we are failing miserably. Most, by far the most, the overwhelming majority, of these students do not question existing wisdom in a meaningful manner, and do not produce new theories, systems, model or process, because the academic system does not encourage of even allows them to do so. The system does not coach from first year to do this, and neither does it really allow it.
South Africa
Let me concentrate on the place where I have been born, and where I have lived my entire life: South Africa.
The academics’ argument is that the country must compare itself with academic institutions in other countries because it must remain internationally competitive. This is fine, but it could never be the ultimate aim, which must be to ensure a competent workforce in South Africa. At the end of the day, it is the South African taxpayers that subsidize tertiary education in the country. What would I care if my academic institution is regarded as rubbish by “peers” in the USA, Europe, Asia, or wherever, as long as it produces competent excellence in the South African context?
Research, and therefore also the contents of articles and other publications, must explore the possible application of indigent knowledge systems; preferably integrated with popular globally recognised theories. Where internationally best practices are recommended, academics must explain how it must be applied in a South African context; which is NOT the same as in the USA, Europe or even Asia.
Most importantly: Research must produce theories and models that could be practically applied to improve current practices. Teaching must produce knowledge resources capable of doing the work in an innovative manner. Resources and practices developed and teach at South African academic institutions must solve South African problems, and facilitate development in South Africa.
The sporadic criticism from government circles about the outputs produced by tertiary institutions being too academic and theoretical is entirely justified, given the country’s development status and available resources (in fact, in spite of all the faults of the South African government, they are actually extremely polite and patient regarding this matter). I am also aware of the fact that subtle attempts by government to politely request tertiary educational institutions to present material applicable to the actual demands of the workplace, are often met with holier-than-you attitudes and barely disguised contempt.
I find it unbelievable that a person who has spent his or her entire (or almost entire) career in an environment of theory could possibly think that they are adequately equipped to smug at the everyday experiences of practitioners who live and work in the real world, where they actually face the boundaries, the limitations of the possible – and where they are acutely aware of cause-and-results relationships. (And, very importantly, where they are actually faced with the implications and penalties of outcomes (results) produced by the mixture of theory and practice).
My my world, endless citations and quotation of existing theories are suppose to be secondary. Students should actively encouraged to formulate innovative new theories based on their understanding of the practice, their experiences “in the filed” and their conceptualisation of the underlying foundations that must make a theory work and add practical value.
Please note that I am not proposing any neglect of in-depth, thorough research, not for a moment! I am simply saying that we must encourage innovative research, out-of-the-box, and not necessarily based on current (existing) theoretical wisdom! The second thing I am adamant about, is that any new theories should be practice-based, and be able to clearly show who or what will benefit from it (and how this or that will benefit).
I am of the opinion that no person should be awarded an Ph. D degree if he or she could not clearly indicate how the research that they have produced will benefit somebody (or something (in terms of a system or process), and if they are not able to explain how their proposed theories will improve current practices. With all due respect, how on earth does the millions of Ph.DE theses in libraries across the worl that never got rerad, add one ounce of value to society or the economy?
Also, researchers must perform the research (and produce the results) in collaboration with a selection (sample) from the proposed beneficiaries (the practitioners) (and with that I do not mean something like ‘A Case Study of the Performance Management System in XYZ institutions!’ I mean that XYZ’s management must be actively involved in the research, stating their requirements, assessing the results until they are satisfied that the new theory suit their requirements, and committing themselves to implement the new theory, system, process or model flowing from it).
The targets in the NDP about the number of Ph. D degrees that must be awarded per year. The chasing after Ph. D qualifications skew the rightful emphasis of the educational system. A Ph. D degree must be awarded to a precious few with the proven ability to constantly improve and innovate. Furthermore, the entire system must coach students to gradually advanced from knowledge transfers, to knowledge acquisition, to knowledge application and then to knowledge expansion (innovation). (By the way, if that is what is currently envisaged by the NQF levels system, I certainly do not see it in the practice of academics).
Currently, exposure to academic theory stimulate strategic thinking and self-development, but offer very little in terms of practical solutions. If the focus of the tertiary education sector is shifted to practical solutions, none of the strategic advantages will be lost (innovative think will still be stimulated) but much, much more practical value will be added. I am not proposing diminishing excellence, but rather re-focused (and re-contextualised) knowledge gains.
It is impossible for a person that has been taken from the student benches, because of his or her academic excellence, and made a lecturer, without any (or with very few) practical exposure and experience, to develop theories and solutions that must be applied in the world of practice; they simply do not even know that their fancy academic ideas are impractical, because they do not have the required exposure to the world of work to know it (they do not have the conceptual point of reference). Their only meaningful exposure is to the theoretical experiences and ideas of other academics (peers). In their minds, these theories make perfect sense, and the practitioners are simply too ignorant to properly apply it.
That is why the theories and workable applications of the world today often came from consultants, who normally have had exposure to both the practice, as well as academic (theoretical) dimensions of their sciences. Yet academic institutions mostly discourage their academics (through bureaucratic policies) from engaging in consulting work.
I would have made it compulsory for a lecturer at any tertiary institution to have a minimum of 10 years’ practical experience (and a professor at least twenty-five years). We must promote a system where practitioners are encouraged to publish in reputable academic journals during the scope of their careers (as oppose to the current system, where academics dominate these publications). In fact, such publications must become part of the career advancement requirements of all practitioners in the institutionalised corporate world (such as large public corporations and government institutions). They must be institutionally forced to become strategic thinkers, with a core knowledge and understanding of the limitations of the operational level of application, to contribute pro-actively renew and develop.
For me the proven ability to produce value-adding theories that work in practice must be the determinant for promotions at academic institutions, rather than the ability to produce a magnitude of “peer-reviewed” research outputs. If you want to publish in an accredited, reputable academic journal, you should be able to state your “practice-partner”, and the practical, systemic value that the results of the research will produce.
Academic institutions force academics to retire at 60. In actual affect, academic institutions should be the places where vastly experienced practitioners, with the best academic qualifications and practical exposure available, will ‘retreat’ after a life-time of moulding theory and practice together into workable solutions in their minds. Not only should they then be welcomed with open arms at these academic institutions, but they should be paid very good salaries, and allowed to continue engaging with practitioners as university-supported consultants. The cream of our consultants should come from academic institutions; in a 21st Century, knowledge-based idiom, consulting is part and parcel of the concept of “knowledge gains.” They should not only be allowed to stay at these institutions as long as they possible could, but should indeed be encouraged to do it.
Furthermore, I would strongly promote a system of part-time lecturing by working practitioners. Academic institutions must stop the ridiculous policies to restrict the involvement of academics in the world of work; we desperately need our academics to be exposed to the realities of the practical world of work. However, then they will have to be paid much, much more than what is currently the practice – and encouraged to do work externally funded, such as consulting work. (Ironically, if they are allowed to consult, the remuneration associated with this will largely take care of better remuneration packages).
So, in conclusion, if I must design a university ranking system for South Africa, it will look like this:
Reputation among potential employers: 50%
Number of new theoretical models implemented in the world of work (alternatively: Nobel or other reputable acknowledgements awarded to alumni): 30%
Reputation in the academic fraternity; nationally and internationally: 5%
Enrolment (student-to-lecturer ratio and number): 10%
International standing, including number of foreign student attracted: 5%
Bozzoli, B. (2016, December 14). How did Mbulaheni Maguvhe become a UNISA Professor? Retrieved from Politicsweb: http://www.politicsweb.co.za/opinion/how-did-mbulaheni-maguvhe-become-a-unisa-professor
QS, M. (Downloaded December 2016). QS World University Rankings. Retrieved from QS World University Rankings: http://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology
Image source: Pexels
コメント