#Title

Is research university an oxymoron?
Derived from Greek words oxys (sharp, pointed) and moros (stupid), the word “oxymoron” often denotes a meaningless and self-contradictory expression. It is also a literary device in which contradictory words are placed together to convey a deeper meaning. For example, Badiuzzaman Bay, in a recent column in this daily commenting on Bangladeshis being close to the bottom on a UN-initiated happiness index, wrote that Bangladeshis are “happily sad,” not willing to do anything about the causes inducing the sadness. Is the term research university as an oxymoron a meaningless gibberish, or is there a deeper message in it?
Syed Saad Andaleeb and colleagues including Ahrar Ahmad, Adnan Z Morshed, Halimur R Khan and others have been writing recently about the higher education experience in Bangladesh. The Daily Star is to be commended for providing the space for the “Academic Experience Project.”
One would mostly agree with the diagnostics of the problems the writers have put forth. We are familiar with the stress and strain that students and teachers suffer, the nature of desired pedagogy in a higher education institution, the infrastructure inadequacies and the meagre resources, and the dystopic mindset that these conditions generate among all the actors involved. But then, are we looking only at the symptoms of a deeper malaise that should be probed and talked about?
In a day-long Asiatic Society seminar on March 18 this year, I had the opportunity to speak about “Higher Education Priorities for a Prosperous Bangladesh.” A question posed was: do we have a consensus or common understanding about the criteria and relevance of higher education for a developing country?
A commonly argued point by the university academics, reflected to an extent in the columns in the Academic Experience Project, is that the most important function of the university is research (some may argue it’s more important than teaching), and that universities are the only place where research happens. So we hear such broad assertions as, the epicentre of research is the university. A research university is the engine for change and transformation of society. Examples of university research in developed countries such as the United States and newly emerging economies such as China are cited.
With a tone of disapproval, the academics say that our universities are engaged mainly in undergraduate teaching with a strict UGC-mandated curriculum focused on building basic student competencies. The teachers teach a course, administer tests, and grade students with little academic space to cultivate critical thinking and a research mindset among students.
The thought that strikes me is, is something wrong with universities giving attention to undergraduate teaching? Cultivating research mindset and critical thinking among students is important, but does this require foregoing the necessary academic routine of “teaching a course, administering tests, and grading students”? I personally would be very pleased if universities actually followed these routines diligently.
Is there a misreading of the character of university research in richer countries? And how relevant is it to try to compare apples and oranges, i.e. to measure universities in the US, UK or even China and those in Bangladesh by the same measuring scale, such as the global university ranking tables?
The National Science Foundation of the US reports that academic institutions in the country have been responsible for performing about half of all basic research and about 10 - 15 percent of total research and development (R&D) in the US. Over 85 percent of R&D, largely in applied research and experimental development, are undertaken by the corporate sector. In academic research, there is a dominance of basic research (generating new knowledge) with two of every three academic R&D dollars spent on basic research. Two fields – biological and biomedical sciences and engineering – have primarily seen increases in academic research, driven by funding in these fields provided mostly by the federal government supplemented by corporations.
About 150 universities, described by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as doctoral universities with a high level of research activities, performed more than three-quarters of academic R&D. All of these doctoral universities, with strong postgraduate research and teaching activities, also have highly regarded undergraduate teaching programmes. These add up to a fraction of the total of over 4,000 higher education institutions. The rest are of all kinds directly and primarily engaged in teaching. These include full universities, four-year colleges, and even cosmetology institutes.
Two points to be noted from the above sketch of research in the US are: research and teaching are twin functions of higher education, but the main task for the large majority of institutions is good teaching. And universities are not the main sources or locale of research in any country. In Bangladesh, the total research effort is meagre, but one should note that a lot of development-relevant research is being carried out outside the universities. Research and experiments by Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) has enabled the country to feed its growing population over the years. One can also name Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR) and Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) in the public sector, and non-state research institutions such as the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) and Education Watch of CAMPE, the latter producing an annual survey-based research on education for almost two decades.
The World Economic Forum, in a review of the relevance of the world university league tables, considers the high value placed on these rankings in higher education decision-making in developing countries as “disturbing and alarming.” The criteria for the ranking of universities are based on certain premises and assumptions, such as:
* Primary and secondary education prepare and equip most higher education students with foundational skills of reading, writing and study habits.
* They have a safe place to stay on or off campus, can partake of necessary nutrition at an affordable price, and can live and study without being harassed or tortured by their peers.
* They have access to free computer labs and affordable internet and well-stocked library open for long hours.
* They can go to a gym, engage in sports of their choice, and join in entertainment and cultural activities in the student centre.
* Their professors and administrators are appointed fairly for their ability and integrity, not for their loyalty to political patrons.
These conditions are taken for granted in the ranking criteria, so are not included in the criteria. But these are the basic conditions we have not been able to provide for our students in our best and oldest universities, even in the “Oxford of the East.”
Where do we stand on the national commitment and political priority, and commitment of resources, for achieving the quality and relevant goals of higher education? We cannot have within the space of this column a discussion on how the university charters both for public and private universities established by law are actually being applied and enforced, the overall governance capabilities and practices of the principal bodies such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), education ministry and the respective governing bodies of universities, and the meagre public funding for higher education. Discussion on these issues in various forums makes it amply clear that there is a massive political failure to nurture and protect a quality higher education system. The academics’ dream of the ideal students, teachers and ambiance cannot be fulfilled unless the basic failure is addressed.
Dr Manzoor Ahmed
is professor emeritus at Brac University, chair of Bangladesh ECD Network, and vice-chair of the Campaign for Popular Education (CAMPE). Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.
We cannot have within the space of this column a discussion on how the university charters both for public and private universities established by law are actually being applied and enforced, the overall governance capabilities and practices of the principal bodies such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), education ministry and the respective governing bodies of universities, and the meagre public funding for higher education. Discussion on these issues in various forums makes it amply clear that there is a massive political failure to nurture and protect a quality higher education system.