Higher education in peril: prescription for progress

System was supposed to promote objective evaluations, prevent nepotism, favoritism which were then rife

Two decades ago, Higher Education Commission introduced a new system, based on quantifying research output, for hiring and promotion of faculty in universities in Pakistan. This was part of a global trend towards quantification as part of good management. The system was supposed to promote objective evaluations, and prevent nepotism and favoritism which were then rife. The new system has produced a monster which could not be imagined at the time it was introduced.

The focus shifted from quality to quantity. Instead of trying to publish in high quality journals, which requires more time and effort, faculty shifted to the lowest ranked journals in the categories defined by the HEC. Many unhealthy practices came into vogue. Each paper has multiple authors because a publication counts for each author separately. Many fake journals sprang up, which would publish for money. Many universities launched journals, allowing their own faculty to self-publish. I have personally examined CVs where the professor in question had zero publications until a certain year and then over 100 publications within the next two years. It is horrifying to contemplate the enormous amount of time, effort and money spent on this meaningless pursuit of publication count using papers which add nothing at all to our knowledge. But far more disastrous than wasting time, this race has led to the rise of people who are incompetent to the top. The perverse incentives created by this system create adverse outcomes for genuine scholars who create high quality research.

Before going on to suggest solutions, it is worth pausing briefly to point out the deeper source of the problem which is the positivist philosophy which emerged in early 20^th Century. According to positivism, we can never have real knowledge of unobservable and qualitative phenomena unless we reduce them to observable and measurable manifestations. This led to the attempt to measure things which are inherently unmeasurable, like intelligence, love, faith and corruption. In Business Schools, this led to widespread belief in the myth that “you cannot manage what you cannot measure”. There are many examples of disasters which result from trying to measure what is not measurable. For example, when police performance was measured by the number of challans, the police started handing out challans for everything, indiscriminately. This is an illustration of “Goodhart’s Law”: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.

So, what should be done? I think it is important to start with the recognition that this system of quantifying research by counting papers has been an unmitigated disaster, and must be abolished as soon as possible. I propose two remedies. First, we must shift focus from counting publications to “relevant” research. Second, we must emphasise teaching over research.

By relevant research, I mean research which attempts to provide solutions to problems facing Pakistan. Most of the research currently being done at universities fails to do this. Neutral third parties can easily assess relevance and applicability of research, which has nothing to do with publication count, nor with rankings of journals. In fact, highly ranked journals would not consider locally relevant research as it would not be of interest to Western academia. The current system discourages research on burning issues facing Pakistan, such as widespread malnutrition, improving quality of education in public schools, healthcare, and governance. Encouragingly, PIDE has recently taken the lead in promoting local research for solutions to local problems, and is providing grants via a competitive process to scholars for this purpose. But, moving from small initiatives to a nationwide emphasis on relevant research is a big task, requiring urgent attention.

Good teaching is an essential foundation for creating good research. Unfortunately, making improvements in this dimension is a very difficult task. In the physical sciences, we need to focus on using existing technologies to solve local problems, rather than on advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Modern social sciences teach us how to shape our societies on Western patterns, under the Eurocentric assumption that progress is defined by resemblance with Europe. While the struggles between capitalists and labourers occupy centre stage in advanced capitalist economies, the social struggles and classes which shape modern Pakistan cannot be found in existing textbooks, written by Western authors. We must acquire the confidence to analyse our own social problems and develop our own theoretical frameworks for this analysis. But this is impossible in an environment where publications in Western journals carry the greatest weight in hiring and promotions. Far deadlier than the economic crisis caused by excessive imports is the intellectual crisis caused by imported knowledge. The path forward requires a shift from imported insights to the cultivation of our intellectual autonomy — a transformation essential for the future of higher education in Pakistan.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 23^rd, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.