Bridging the gap: Synchronizing faculty with the evolving landscape of higher education

The most challenging task I’ve faced is persuading the faculty to adapt to the evolving landscape of higher education. This difficulty stems from the significant shift in the work environment, transforming both from education and grooming in the 1980s to education, grooming and business-oriented in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, the education system tilted more toward a business-oriented model where students are viewed as buyers and faculty as sellers, completely ignoring the grooming part which is essential to produce well-rounded graduates. In this new paradigm, the business rule that the customer is always right applies, creating a fundamental shift in how education is perceived and delivered. Unfortunately, majority faculty members hardly synchronized their mindsets with this changed landscape, resulting in a gap of understanding that leads to frustration, anxiety, and ultimately, demotivation.

In the 1980s, higher education was more than just imparting knowledge; it was about grooming students for the future. Faculty members were not just educators but also mentors who shaped the holistic development of their students. This approach emphasized character building, critical thinking and personal growth alongside academic excellence. By the late 1990s, this landscape began to shift dramatically. The advent of market-driven policies and the commercialization of education introduced a business-oriented approach. Universities and colleges started to operate more like businesses, with students viewed as customers and education as a product. The primary focus shifted from holistic development to meeting the demands and expectations of students as consumers.

By the early 2002s, the higher education landscape began to evolve again, incorporating education, grooming, business and research and development. Emphasis was increasingly placed on research and development, product development and patent development, aligning more closely with models seen in developed countries. It became evident that unless universities adopted this model and implemented it fully, the education system would struggle to progress.

To achieve the desired outcomes, a shift in hiring practices needs to changed but unfortunately not. The proposed hiring model: hiring faculty based on their strengths in either research or teaching, or a combination thereof. For example, faculty involved in research would need to secure research grants through a competitive grant system, with their teaching load adjusted accordingly. Faculty hired solely for teaching would take on a full teaching load, regardless of their status. Universities can implement this faculty hiring policy on current faculty by seeking their consent.        

A historical perspective: The landscape of higher education in Pakistan underwent a significant transformation in 2002 when the University Grants Commission (UGC) was replaced by the Higher Education Commission (HEC), with Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman appointed as its first chairman. This marked a pivotal shift in the country’s higher education system, aiming to align with global standards and enhance the quality and accessibility of education. The establishment of the HEC represented a paradigm shift in the governance and funding of higher education in Pakistan. The new body was tasked with driving reforms and ensuring the development of higher education institutions (HEIs) across the country. Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman’s leadership brought a renewed focus on research, innovation and quality assurance. Key reforms and initiatives were undertaken to meet challenges emerging by rapidly changing landscape of higher education globally. A few of them are as under:

1. Research and development: One of the primary objectives of the HEC was to promote research and development. Significant funding was allocated to establish research facilities, provide research grants and encourage collaboration between academia and industry. This led to a marked increase in research output and the quality of academic publications from Pakistan.
2. Faculty development: The HEC introduced numerous programs aimed at faculty development, including scholarships for advanced studies, training programs and opportunities for international collaboration. These initiatives were designed to enhance the qualifications and capabilities of the faculty, aligning them with global standards.
3. Quality assurance: Quality assurance mechanisms were introduced to monitor and evaluate the performance of HEIs. Accreditation bodies were established to ensure that institutions met the required standards. This was a significant shift from the previous approach, which had less emphasis on quality metrics.
4. Access and equity: The HEC worked to expand access to higher education by establishing new universities and campuses, particularly in underserved areas. Scholarships and financial aid programs were introduced to support students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds.
5. Technological integration: Recognizing the importance of technology in modern education, the HEC promoted the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in teaching and learning. Digital libraries, online resources, and e-learning platforms were developed to support both students and faculty.

This rapidly changed the landscape of higher education in Pakistan and majority coming from social sciences departments hardly adapted to it which caused a substantial gap even within university faculty. This changed faculty’s role from mentors to service providers. In the traditional model, faculty members were seen as authoritative figures whose primary responsibility was to educate and groom students. Their roles encompassed a broad spectrum of activities, from teaching and research to mentorship and community engagement. With the commercialization of education, faculty members found themselves in a new role: service providers. The expectation was no longer just to impart knowledge but to cater to the needs and preferences of students. This shift required a change in mindset and approach, which many faculty members struggled to embrace.

The transition from mentors to service providers created a significant gap in understanding. Faculty members, who were accustomed to the traditional model, found it challenging to adjust to the new expectations. This gap led to several issues:

1. Frustration: Faculty members felt frustrated as their roles and responsibilities changed. The emphasis on student satisfaction and market-driven metrics often conflicted with their academic values and principles.
2. Anxiety: The pressure to meet the demands of students and administrators created anxiety among faculty members. They were expected to deliver results and meet targets that were often at odds with their educational philosophies.
3. Demotivation: The shift in focus from education and grooming to education business led to a sense of demotivation. Faculty members who entered academia to make a difference in students’ lives found themselves in a system that prioritized profit over purpose.

Strategies to Synchronize Faculty with the Changing Landscape: To bridge this gap and help faculty members adapt to the evolving landscape of higher education, several strategies can be implemented:

1. Professional development: Invest in continuous professional development programs that help faculty members understand and adapt to the changing educational environment. Workshops, seminars, and training sessions on topics such as student engagement, market-driven education and modern teaching methodologies can be beneficial.
2. Open communication: Foster an environment of open communication where faculty members can express their concerns and challenges. Regular meetings, feedback sessions and forums for discussion can help address issues and find collaborative solutions.
3. Mentorship programs: Establish mentorship programs where experienced faculty members who have successfully adapted to the new landscape can guide their peers. These programs can provide support, share best practices and offer practical advice on navigating the changes.
4. Collaborative decision-making: Involve faculty members in the decision-making process related to educational policies and practices. This inclusion can help them feel valued and give them a sense of ownership over the changes.
5. Recognition and rewards: Implement recognition and reward systems that acknowledge faculty members’ efforts to adapt and excel in the new environment. Celebrating successes and achievements can boost morale and motivation.
6. Balancing tradition and innovation: Encourage a balanced approach that respects traditional educational values while embracing innovation. Faculty members should feel that they can uphold academic integrity and quality while meeting the demands of the modern educational landscape.
7. Constituting a Research Board: Each university must constitute a research board consisting of top-performing scientists in research and development. As the apex body of research and development, this board will have comprehensive terms of reference including:
8. Developing the research agenda: Formulating the research direction and priorities for the university.
9. Quality publications: Encouraging and motivating faculty for quality research and its publications in quality referred journals.
10. Products and patents development: Guiding and supporting the development of new products and patents in collaboration with the Director of Research.
11. Funding and grants: Advising faculty on securing research grants and funding from various agencies.
12. Researchers training: Conducting training sessions on research planning, proposal development, and research methodologies.
13. Record keeping: Maintaining a repository of research outputs, publications, and patents.
14. Scientific conferences: Organizing and hosting scientific conferences, workshops, and seminars to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing.
15. Mentorship: Offering mentorship and support to researchers in their respective fields.
16. Quality assurance: Ensuring the quality and integrity of research conducted at the university.

By fostering an environment that supports innovation through strong IPR policies, developing countries can stimulate economic growth, increase productivity, and improve their global competitiveness. Scientists in universities play a key role in this process, driving research and innovation that can be protected and commercialized for the benefit of their countries. Scientists from universities can significantly contribute to the development of intellectual property rights (IPR) for their nation’s progress. This milestone can only be achieved through the following strategies:

1. IPR integration in curriculum: Incorporate IPR topics into university programs to ensure that scientists and students understand the significance of protecting intellectual property.
2. Organized workshops and seminars: Conduct workshops and seminars focusing on IPR, patent processes, and the economic advantages of safeguarding innovations.
3. Promote innovative research: Encourage and support research initiatives that have commercialization potential and can be patented.
4. Foster collaborative research: Establish collaborations between universities and industries to align research with market needs and commercial viability.
5. Advisory positions: Scientists can serve as advisors to government bodies on IPR policies, contributing to the creation of supportive regulations.
6. Public awareness campaigns: Engage in campaigns to educate the public on the importance of IPR in fostering innovation and economic development.
7. Establish IPR offices: Create dedicated IPR offices within universities to assist researchers with identifying patentable inventions and navigating the patent application process.
8. Provide legal support: Offer legal assistance to help scientists protect their inventions and negotiate licensing agreements.
9. Form industry partnerships: Develop partnerships with industries to translate academic research into marketable products.
10. Create technology transfer offices: Set up technology transfer offices to facilitate the commercialization of university research and protect intellectual property.
11. Leverage government programs: Utilize government programs that support innovation and IPR, such as grants, subsidies and tax incentives.
12. Engage in international cooperation: Collaborate with international organizations and universities to access global knowledge and resources on IPR.
13. Establish incubators: Create incubators and accelerators within universities to support startups and spin-offs based on academic research.
14. Encourage funding and investment: Promote venture capital investment in university research to bring innovative ideas to market.
15. IRP importance in economic growth: Intellectual property rights are crucial for promoting innovation, which is directly linked to economic growth. Protecting intellectual property incentivizes creativity and investment in new technologies, leading to:
16. Enhanced productivity: Innovations can significantly boost productivity in various sectors, contributing to overall economic efficiency.
17. Job creation: New industries and businesses arising from protected innovations create jobs and stimulate economic activity.
18. Attraction of foreign investment: Strong IPR protection can attract foreign direct investment, as investors seek secure environments for their investments.
19. Improved global competitiveness: Countries with robust IPR frameworks are more competitive globally, as they can better protect and capitalize on their innovations.

A case study of India exemplifies a developing economy focusing on increasing productivity through innovation:

1. Policy reforms: India has undertaken significant policy reforms to strengthen its IPR regime, including the National IPR Policy.
2. Innovation ecosystems: The government has established innovation ecosystems, such as Startup India and Atal Innovation Mission, to support startups and innovation.
3. Education and awareness: Initiatives like IPR chairs in universities and IP awareness programs are promoting a culture of innovation and IPR protection.
4. International collaboration: India collaborates with international bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization to enhance its IPR framework.

Conclusion: The shift from education and grooming to education, grooming, business and research and development has transformed the landscape of higher education, posing significant challenges for faculty members. The gap in understanding and the resulting frustration, anxiety, and demotivation highlight the need for effective strategies to help faculty adapt to these changes. By investing in professional development, fostering open communication, establishing mentorship programs, involving faculty in decision-making, and recognizing their efforts, we can bridge this gap and create a more harmonious and effective educational environment. Additionally, integrating a focus on intellectual property rights will further enhance the role of faculty in contributing to national progress through innovation. Ultimately, aligning faculty with the evolving landscape of higher education is not just about adapting to change but ensuring that the core values of education remain intact while meeting the needs of a dynamic and market-driven world.

The Author is a Pro-Rector, The University of Lahore, Sargodha Campus