Paradigm shift in RI higher education
Setiono, Lecturer , Atmajaya Catholic University, Jakarta
It is not enough to keep abreast with advances in science and technology -- higher learning institutions should also be pioneers.
Universities, especially, must make an effort to enhance their roles as institutions at the center of intellectual discourse, putting an emphasis not only on teaching but also on research.
The idea universities are places for research owes much to the views of Wilhelm von Humbolt. Humbolt, the founder of the University of Berlin in 1809, argued that university professors should be scholars and researchers, as well as teachers. His idea has had an enormous impact on academia.
His model of higher education first gained popularity among quickly growing universities in America and then spread to Europe.
So influential has become the role of the universities in research that many now claim they are the source of most new knowledge.
However, research activities in this country are presently undergoing a sharp decline, with universities churning out graduates more concerned about their teaching careers than discovery.
Worst still, the "publish or perish" syndrome, which once dominated academia, has diminished.
Attention has turned away from research to teaching. Many claim the pursuit of research has gone too far. They are of the opinion teaching should be prioritized because striving for excellence in teaching, they believe, guarantees a rewarding and successful career.
Consequently, universities and colleges have declared higher education is about teaching rather than the number of papers they publish.
Many of our higher education institutions, including the famous ones, are now devaluing the original purposes of their predecessors. Teaching has become the primary concern.
Seminars are conducted everywhere to train teachers to improve their teaching. Workshops show lecturers how to adopt new "innovative techniques".
Sadly, the drive to demystify unresolved phenomena through research is no longer appreciated, and is even ignored. This suggests Humboldt's arguments for emphasizing research are no longer valid to many academics in this country.
Our education system is no longer stressing the importance of research. This is evident from the limited number of research articles published both nationally and internationally.
And while there is no doubt some research is being carried out, it is quantity, rather than quality, which now counts most.
Consequently, this published "research" contributes something that is of little or even of no significance.
The publication of research papers that do not meet recognized standards has become a common practice in most universities in the country. Large numbers of research papers are published primarily to obtain points needed for promotion rather than being motivated by any inquisitiveness.
The more papers the teachers write, the more points they will obtain. The more points they accumulate, the sooner they will become a professor. No wonder many universities in the country are overloaded with teaching rather than research professors.
The major obstacles impeding our efforts to keep abreast of new developments, it seems, come from ourselves. We are simply ignorant of -- and insensitive to -- new phenomena. Our minds are no longer full of inquisitiveness.
Further, we regard ourselves as simply transmitters of knowledge, who are responsible for teaching and nothing else. It is often said that teachers do their own business as teachers, and researchers do theirs as researchers -- a claim that clearly marks the demarcation between the two.
The above statement raises a fundamental question: Should university teachers become researchers at the same time? The answer is a big yes if we are willing to swing back the pendulum, revive Humboldt's original idea and preserve the "publish or perish" syndrome.
By instilling in teachers the "publish or perish" habit, universities can maintain their distinctly scientific orientation, which has been their benchmark for centuries.