Theorists needed
In academic & policy circles there is a growing emphasis on collecting data & evidence, be it in education or health
The writer is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute professor of Biomedical Engineering, International Health and Medicine at Boston University. He tweets @mhzaman
Thomas Kuhn, presumably one of the most important scientific philosophers of the last century argued in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions that existing models and theoretical structures, no matter how flawed, continue to operate until they are replaced. We are therefore likely to stay stuck in archaic models and theories until we replace them with better ones that are more accurate descriptions of our reality. Operating without a theoretical framework is just as bad as operating with one that is irrelevant.
In recent years, theory and model development, has taken a back seat and a severe beating. Theory has become a bad word, associated with abstraction, distraction and far from utility. Not just in science, where theory is out of fashion and awfully hard to get funding for, we have seen lack of intellectual activity and strong waves of anti-theory in social sciences and policy. The flavour of our time is impact, translational science and practical and pragmatic solutions. The importance of impact cannot be denied and I am in favour of strong structures that help those who are in most need. But unfortunately we have gone too far in the camp of immediate impact and translation, and have traded those against laying foundations for sustainable growth.
In the academic and policy circles there is a growing emphasis on collecting data and evidence, be it in education or in health. Unfortunately, despite having data, we often do not know what to do with that data. In the absence of models and theories, vision and missions that are rooted in strong intellectual frameworks, the data itself offers little solution for long-term growth and biases us towards short-term impulsive decisions. Whether it is policy or science, absence of an intellectual framework means that your data is unlikely to take you forward.
Let us illustrate this by an example from data that is often discussed in the print and electronic media. We now have reasonably good quality data that a high number of children are out of school, or that a large number of schools suffer from lack of teachers. Indeed this is deeply disturbing and problematic. But any solution to this problem, be it an economic one or political one, has to be within a framework. There is poor theoretical framework (beyond the shallow analysis and political blame) that explains both the causes of this calamity and how to think about long-term fix that is not tied to the current fad. Providing a laptop to every child does not solve the education crisis. Mapping the number of teachers who do not show up using a smart phone may provide data, but the solution will come from both the rigorous analysis of the problem, and a solution framework that is rigorous and multi-faceted. In the absence of this framework the policy is likely to be of much long-term use.
The problems in higher education are even worse, where our analysis is non-existent. Our emphasis has become solely on metrics of papers, patents and students graduated. There is no theoretical framework describing how higher education fits into the national development and how to best channel and utilise the resources to reach that national goal of development beyond the metrics.
In my own research area of biomedical engineering and public health, there is little appreciation of what the national vision is, how innovation fits into the vision and how to create awareness, demand and enthusiasm for achieving the national vision.
There is a lot of empty rhetoric on national issues of education and innovation that make excellent talking points, but dig a little deeper for robust literature and concrete theory, and there is not much to hang on to. A good policy is not one that sounds nice, it is also something that stands on rigorous foundations. In our world that desperately needs solutions not just for some of us but for all of us, not just for today but also for tomorrow, we need new models and better theories.
A little philosophy and some good theory may be the antidote for our diseased approach of immediacy.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2016.
In recent years, theory and model development, has taken a back seat and a severe beating. Theory has become a bad word, associated with abstraction, distraction and far from utility. Not just in science, where theory is out of fashion and awfully hard to get funding for, we have seen lack of intellectual activity and strong waves of anti-theory in social sciences and policy. The flavour of our time is impact, translational science and practical and pragmatic solutions. The importance of impact cannot be denied and I am in favour of strong structures that help those who are in most need. But unfortunately we have gone too far in the camp of immediate impact and translation, and have traded those against laying foundations for sustainable growth.
In the academic and policy circles there is a growing emphasis on collecting data and evidence, be it in education or in health. Unfortunately, despite having data, we often do not know what to do with that data. In the absence of models and theories, vision and missions that are rooted in strong intellectual frameworks, the data itself offers little solution for long-term growth and biases us towards short-term impulsive decisions. Whether it is policy or science, absence of an intellectual framework means that your data is unlikely to take you forward.
Let us illustrate this by an example from data that is often discussed in the print and electronic media. We now have reasonably good quality data that a high number of children are out of school, or that a large number of schools suffer from lack of teachers. Indeed this is deeply disturbing and problematic. But any solution to this problem, be it an economic one or political one, has to be within a framework. There is poor theoretical framework (beyond the shallow analysis and political blame) that explains both the causes of this calamity and how to think about long-term fix that is not tied to the current fad. Providing a laptop to every child does not solve the education crisis. Mapping the number of teachers who do not show up using a smart phone may provide data, but the solution will come from both the rigorous analysis of the problem, and a solution framework that is rigorous and multi-faceted. In the absence of this framework the policy is likely to be of much long-term use.
The problems in higher education are even worse, where our analysis is non-existent. Our emphasis has become solely on metrics of papers, patents and students graduated. There is no theoretical framework describing how higher education fits into the national development and how to best channel and utilise the resources to reach that national goal of development beyond the metrics.
In my own research area of biomedical engineering and public health, there is little appreciation of what the national vision is, how innovation fits into the vision and how to create awareness, demand and enthusiasm for achieving the national vision.
There is a lot of empty rhetoric on national issues of education and innovation that make excellent talking points, but dig a little deeper for robust literature and concrete theory, and there is not much to hang on to. A good policy is not one that sounds nice, it is also something that stands on rigorous foundations. In our world that desperately needs solutions not just for some of us but for all of us, not just for today but also for tomorrow, we need new models and better theories.
A little philosophy and some good theory may be the antidote for our diseased approach of immediacy.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2016.