Education 2047 #Blog 13 (03 JUL 2023)
Our universities have existed, thrived and evolved performing the role of repository and generator of knowledge. The teachers have kept them going on, as holders and transmitters of knowledge- equipping graduates with knowledge and values who in turn should create value out of the resources and knowledge around. They have also indulged in research which is about challenging the status quo or exploration beyond the boundary of known knowledge or creation/ synthesis of new knowledge; and, preparing new researchers in the process. Research takes in knowledge as a resource and also requires infrastructure and funds, besides a supervisor, for a university-run doctoral program. Now that updated knowledge and tools are freely available for academic research and plugging into a global group (for specialized knowledge and training) is a right-hand & left-click away, why not open up independent research in the universities, without supervisors? Teaching-learning has been redefined post pandemic; why not research? After all, it is counted in as a 21st-century skill, powered now by Artificial Intelligence!
A university doctoral program is demanding on the critical thinking abilities of a postgraduate (or an exceptionally bright graduate); and is training in methods and methodologies of research. Also, training in using the relevant tools and techniques; experimentation and data acquisition; data analysis and interpretation; and, documentation of findings and communicating it. The young researcher gets ample opportunity to interact with peers, listen to experts, participate in conferences, get trained in the tools to be used, pick up analytical abilities, and acquire communication skills in the run-up to the dissertation. Much of it is built around or is dependent on the supervisor and there are a lot of unsavory things/ experiences also (that remain unpublished). This hasn't changed for generations and is the primary reason for perpetuation of incremental research in universities.
The researchers in universities have the advantage of taking huge risks and should be into blue-sky or beyond-boundary investigations; which sadly isn't the case as most settle for something more than the supervisor has done. One of the reasons I am prompted to write this is the change in approach I could see, the under-/ post- graduate dissertations are prepared. Conventionally, it is a literature review which sets the ground for research- the guide asking the research scholar to find the gap and define a problem/ hypothesis to proceed further. Of late, it is observed that literature review is being conducted at the end, basically to fulfill the requirements of a structured dissertation/ thesis. There are a few reasons for this trend as I see- firstly, the problem to work on can be picked quickly from the internet or domain groups (without requiring a guide). Secondly, an updated global research work is a click away which obviates the review of work already done. Thirdly, there are tools and techniques (including Artificial Intelligence) available to define the research problem. Today workshops are being conducted on Chat GPT enabling researchers to generate research ideas, refine questions, and improve proposals and manuscripts, the latest shot in the arm for independent researchers! So why not promote doctoral programs without a supervisor? Let's be mindful that AI is going to completely change the way research is done.
Without a research supervisor, students have the freedom to pursue research topics and methodologies that align with their specific interests and goals; allowing for greater customization of their doctoral experience; enjoying the autonomy of cross-pollination of ideas and interdisciplinary research approaches; and seeking mentorship from a range of global experts. By removing the traditional supervisor-student dynamic, doctoral programs without research supervisors can stimulate unconventional thinking and foster innovation, potentially leading to groundbreaking research contributions. With the elimination of potential delays caused by supervisor availability or conflicts, doctoral candidates may experience accelerated progress and completion of their research projects. On the personal front, this would hone the critical thinking and problem-solving skills of the researcher while navigating challenges and making independent decisions. This would also develop an entrepreneurial mindset, fostering creativity, resourcefulness, and adaptability in pursuing their research objectives. Supervisor-free programs can, additionally equip doctoral candidates with the skills needed to excel in non-academic career paths, where independent research and problem-solving skills are highly valued.
Universities just need to open their mind to reflect on the proposition, and also their heart. Let a guide, to start with, be made optional (or be there as a collaborator) and push independent researchers against a high bar for publications; alternatively, a parallel doctoral program with independent research path alongside existing one can be opened. Not only will new fronts open for deeper explorations which will increase publications, the supervisors too will have to raise their quality or lose out to independent research; after all, it is not very high-quality papers that must be the output of doctoral programs but researchers as well. It is very common and unfortunate that a researcher after becoming a supervisor rests the oars and maximum publications emerge as co-authors based on the work of research scholars. Single-author publications are the true indicator of the metal and mettle of an individual researcher and proposed independent research paths should formatively encourage this as well.
Persisting with supervisor-led research under university doctoral programs may increase the research papers (and researchers), but the unleashing is warranted for forays into multi-, inter-, cross-, or trans- (MICT) disciplinary domains needed for our ascendancy in the Amrit Kaal (time span till 2047, the centenary of India’s Independence); following trodden paths will keep us in tact as followers. I know this would be earth-shattering, but that's how spaces for breakthroughs would be created and paradigms change. This proposition, in no way challenges the capability of a faculty to supervise but examines the opportunity of improving the quality of research, researchers (including supervisors) and research culture in universities; needless to add they will have wider choice of dedicated collaborators to pick from, for their projects. The ability to switch/ traverse into new areas should boost the confidence of young researchers (come as they do with exploratory and entrepreneurial proclivities) and this also needs to be encouraged by the agencies funding research especially when the National Education Policy (NEP2020) stresses multidisciplinary education and research. They can access equipment and software valued in excess of Fifty billion Indian Rupees onboard I-STEM (Indian Science Technology and Engineering facilities Map- an initiative of the Office of Principal Scientific Advisor to the Government of India) portal at a nominal cost.
The benefits of the upcoming National Research Foundation (NRF), expected to lead to the democratization of research, can be maximized and in true sense, if doctoral programs with independent research paths are supported. More graduates 'm-powered' as they are, would come forward to pursue research and this would massively boost research in MICT disciplines as well. As proposed in the NEP 2020, undertaking a doctoral program of study requires either a master's degree or a 4-year bachelor's degree with research. In the under graduate program of 4 years (of eight semesters duration), the student has to complete a rigorous research project in the major area(s) of study. For those who have completed the 3-year bachelor's degree program, a 2-year master's degree program with the second year devoted entirely to research has been suggested. It is clear that before taking up the doctoral program, the student would have had sufficient exposure to research; add to it the free access to information, availability of online tools and guidance from multiple sources of choice- wherewithal that previous generations of researchers were bereft of. Time is, therefore, ripe for an additional model in universities that of 'independent & collaborative research' (with a clear departure from 'supervised & supervising research'), which should also accelerate research in MICT domains. Now that the world of information and knowledge stands democratized as do the AI-based tools, the pitch grows stronger for independent doctoral pursuit, chasing blue-sky and possibly for a 'Nobel' cause too!
***
Author is a Scientist in Technology Information, Forecasting & Assessment Council (TIFAC) and an Ex-Adviser of the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE).
Views are personal.
Feedback appreciated in the comment box below. 👍
Previous blogs
Elevating Teachers for India's Amrit Kaal
Re-engineering Educational Systems for Maximizing Learning
'Rubricating' Education for Better Learning Outcomes
Indiscipline in Disciplines for Multidisciplinary Education!
Re'class'ification of Learning for the New Normal
Reconfiguring Education as 'APP' Learning
Rejigging Universities with a COVID moment
Reimagining Engineering Education for 'Techcelerating' Times
Uprighting STEM Education with 7x24 Labs
Dismantling Macaulay's Schools with 'Online' Support
Moving Towards Education Without Examinations
Disruptive Technologies in Education and Challenges in its Governance
This is bound to happen in future. And if it is certain, why not take lead and do it now? Is UGC listening ? Come on, let's get ahead of others in something in our Azaadi ka Amrit Kaal.
ReplyDelete