Dear Editor,
In the debate on the relative roles of research and teaching at UG, it would be constructive to avoid the temptation of assuming that I was advocating in my letter (‘UG should emphasize teaching, not research’ SN and KN, July 7) that UG should opt out of research altogether. UG should not. Settled. My position is not based on an either-one-or-the-other model, but on a sliding scale with research at one end and teaching at the other. As research and teaching are competing for the same set of finite human and other resources at UG, the question becomes where on the scale do we place the marker.
In my letter, I used several lines of reasoning to show why teaching should be given higher priority. I pointed to (i) the demand of stakeholders (employers, etc) for quality graduates, (ii) the low demand for research outputs from potential consumers, meaning government and the private sector, (iii) the serious opportunity cost incurred in pushing research over teaching, and (iv) the changing goals of higher education.
To advance the debate, I wish to respond to several points made by Stabroek News (in its editorial of July 12, titled ‘UG’) and by letter writers. Firstly, it is a misassumption to suggest that a university (or tertiary institution) is the only place where research could be done. Research is also conducted in specialized research centres and in R&D labs in industry. The role of research centres is particularly relevant to Guyana, because the country has established several, such as NARI, CARDI, IAST, and NCERD. In addition, in regulatory agencies, such as GGMC, EPA, and GFC, research is also done. Research centres, of course, enjoy the advantage of applying dedicated resources to one specific objective. The country may be better served by upgrading and expanding this network of research centres and by streamlining research nationally to allow UG to also serve its other critical functions.
Secondly, we must keep addressing this issue in the Guyana context. And in Guyana today, the bigger obstacle to national development is not the incapacity to create knowledge, but the inability of the majority of the young population to apply knowledge.
The mass of students at the secondary and tertiary levels who are incapable of reasoning, analyzing, comprehending, communicating, etc, could only be termed a national scandal. We need to focus our hard-pressed teaching resources to turn this nightmare around. More than anything else, the country needs a massive injection of resources into teaching at all levels.
It would be a greater failure on the part of the university to produce incompetent graduates than to produce small amounts of research. While teaching does not enjoy the international glory and the honour as does research, it would be a folly to determine our priorities in this way.
Thirdly, it is true that lecturers can keep abreast of their field by engaging in research, and that good research can lift the standard of teaching. We can therefore add this point in the pro column for research. Whether it significantly shifts the balance is another matter. Bear in mind that academic staff can also keep updated by reading the latest journals in their fields, by attending conferences and training workshops, and by serving on technical committees.
UG must continue to do research. But it must not do so to the detriment of the more important responsibility of educating persons to be problem-solvers, critical and creative thinkers and change agents.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
I fear, Sherwood Lowe that much of this current letter pf yours reiterates what you have said before in your previous message and to me it does appear that you are stating the obvious facts in plain English. Thank you for that.
I fear that any reader who could not understand your advice in your original helpful contribution may similarly be challenged this time round.
Thanks for trying again; however you can take a horse to water but one cannot make that reluctant horse drink unless it wants to do so…
Japan, the US, Israel, Canada, Australia and many others have excelled because they have developed or created knowledge on how to improve their productivity. The knowledge creation which has given them this advantage came from years or tireless research. Research is incrementally pushing back the boundaries of knowledge. Without research society and civilizations will not evolve.
Sherwood Lowe, your argument is most fallacious. It is quite unacceptable for someone with your opinions should hold the position of Dean.
I wonder why you forgot to mention CHINA, Benjamin. Could it be because China’s nearly premier position in the world is because it improves productivity and raw research in its view is just a waste of money.
A few of the other countries you quoted are also open to analysis however, you obviously have made up your mind and that is your prerogative.
Not entirely true Satish what China is doing is harnessing technology the best it can that is already available but they do have to do some of their own research and now they have hit that production en masse volume and this is why they are producing so many scientists and mathematicians that amazon and others are leveraging to do their research in china.
Benjamin, I see your passion on this issue but don’t agree with you. It is my view that Lowe and Satish are right on this one and even the editor at Stabroenews is wrong. Guyana needs critical and creative thinkers at this point and the educational system should be geared to produce that. I say this because Guyana is at the low end of the world’s economic spectrum (<$4000pci) therefore the industries which should be the main stay of the economy should fall into the “mature industry” category. For mature industries, research has been exhausted and cost stripping through low wage labor(in abundance in Guyana) is crucial for profitability. Frankly, if Guyana had some creative thinkers and fewer researchers they would have recognized that with an exchange rate of $200.00 to $1 and sitting right on the door steps of North America and Europe that that place can out compete China (exchange rate 8.00) for manufactured goods on this side of the atlantic.More advanced economies, like the countries you mentioned, (should) operate at early stage industry so research and high priced labor is important for profitability. I am sure you don’t want UG working on the next cancer drug, do you?
Let’s get Guyana’s per capita income to up around $25,000.00 then we can revisit the research issue.One step at a time my friend.
Cummins et. al.
at 200/1, is the exchange rate not such that decent research at least in the social sciences e.g. economics, history, sociology &c. can be funded? Guyana-specific empirical study in these areas would do a lot to answer questions about how our firms can do better, settle a lot of debate of about our recent history (at least among open-minded people), say whether our crime-fighting strategies are bearing fruit etc. There are a lot of donor-funded projects that are going on on a continual basis. Many of these projects could be benefit from having an information-orient framework built in that captures datasets that would be useful for doing applied research. Open source statistical packages are available for analysis. One does not need huge amounts of money to pursue good research.
Funding my own data collection, I was able to undertake empirical research on Guyanese SMEs for a master’s dissertation at a top-ranked UK Business school. One of my frustrations was the lack of Guyana-specific empirical studies on which to build. During my research, much of the findings varied from what obtained in the “typical” research laboratories of the developed world to which we usually look to “copy” or apply. On the other hand, some of my findings were corroborated by findings obtained in countries with backgrounds that were similar in many ways, Botswana, Zimbabwe etc. Mind you, the latter were serious evidence-based studies published in peer-reviewed journals based on work done in these “third-world” countries.
No. The biggest obstacle to national development is a number of things.Foremost.Too much politics. Guyanese are too obsessed with politics,which is a waste of time and a divisive tactic used by politicians.Yet, many are not sensible enough to observe this.Thus roughly 50% of Guyanese do not support reconstruction in any way, leaving the rest to rebuild the nation. We need to replace the ramshackle capital, an eyesore,a filthy place,a disgrace of seedy sweaty backrooms of Lombard street one block from the Public Buildings, the entire area lying in a Louisiana 9th Ward catastrophic flood zone.A mudflat.We must have less government and more people involvement.There is too much bureaucracy, too many government entities, and it is an impediment.A taxpayer burden. Government spending is out of control.Do not envision projects where there is no money to fund these projects.We need to cut government spending by 50%. Next.There is too little Guyanese participation in sharing the natural resources. Guyanese must own outright, or be minority shareholders in all foreign gold and diamond mines and timber concessions.Guyanese also need to be re educated in schools and universities,to develop morals and values, along the Nort American line.Finally,if you are going to embark on national development,where is your model?Guyana needs a developmental model.A pattern. ‘How are you going to develop Guyana? Along European lines, Canadian, or US? Which one?’ If you do not have a pattern for a foundation, you are not secure at the top.Guyana should adopt the US model.If tiny Singapore(you get a caning or spitting in public) can do it, we can.Yet we have a very bad historical example of developmental strategy that is considered lavishly quite imbecilic. Granted of course that the nation was looted and destroyed by the forces of merciless vandals, usurpers,dependencies,spongers,career criminals,for years, we have officials travelling for decades to North America,yet they would not implement any of the advancements seen.Not a single city or town is patterned along North American or European lines.Not a single street.Everything in place is helter skelter.There is no plan.This is an indication we have a comprehensive collection of collective dunces at work here.
TOUGH CALL Caesar.
SOMETIMES HOME-TRUTHS ARE NECESSARY.
YOUR COMMENT IS A WAKE-UP CALL TO ALL GUYANESE… ESPECIALLY THE BIG ONES
What a pile of cow manure! Come on Caesar, stop venting and start thinking. Say something useful. Looks like you finally lost it. What’s with this epistle?
Problem-solvers and critical thinkers are better molded by research rather than having a textbook regurgitated in front of a classroom. UG must do research as well as those specialized institutions Sherwood Lowe mentioned. I really do not think we should see a tradeoff between research and teaching – there has to be a symbiotic relationship between the two.
Sherwood Lowe is seeing the contribution of research as something static. I see it as a dynamic process always changing and adding economic value. Indeed, the research profile of many developing countries is increasing, especially China. Once the economy exhausts the land and low productivity economic sectors, it needs to find new ones and research could play a role in this innovation – a la a Schumpeterian process. Therefore, research has to be an integral part of any development strategy.
By the way, what about research in the social sciences? What about business research? What about economic research? Guyana needs those too. There is no specialized center doing that. I know IDS does economic research, but that cannot fill the necessary gap of economic research. So should the folks in the economics department do no research because IDS does some? And I know capable faculty who can do it if the resources are available and the university promotes systems for research.
Well argued. Discarding research will produce a static society, one that is stuck in the dark ages. Even in theocracies such as Iran and the Vatican there is constant research being done to further knowledge and understanding. There is so much more that mankind is yet to grasp and understand and the only way this will be done is through research.
How else will we understand the true reality of the universe, we have to look for it, ….research it.
I know I may have strayed a bit from the topic but I am trying to present the big picture about research.
Sponzinelli,at the rate you are going with your wayward comments,in a scrape,you would likely be the first one to skulk from school,or more appropriately,start a panic on the battlefield.Think.Instead of attacking me, attack the issue.And make a worthwhile comment instead of embracing negativism.