Borneo Research Education Conference (BREC 2013)
Developing as a researcher through the culture of sharing
Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia (20-21 Aug 2013)
Monday, July 15, 2013
Sunday, June 9, 2013
More Value to Higher Education
Tertiary education strategies involving masters and doctoral-level qualifications should include some degree of local context and not be based solely on international standards or those of elite institutions in the West.
THE media and blogosphere are abuzz with opinions disparaging the value of several master’s and doctoral level qualifications. Articles published in respectable publications such as Nature, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes have in the recent past set the tone of this debate, casting doubts about the “return on investment” (RoI) of higher degrees. These RoI-based discussions seem to focus on the socio-economic circumstances of the developed countries. These discussions do not reflect the higher education priorities of the rapidly developing parts of the world.
Higher education strategies in developing countries must be based on the ground realities obtained there and not merely transferred from a developed country. While global standards of educational excellence are fine, there must be a degree of adaptation to the local context. I shall illustrate this through two examples drawn from India and Malaysia respectively, deriving from those examples, two simple propositions for further debate.
Let us consider MBA-like degrees in India. There are over 2,400 institutions offering such degrees (3,300 by another reckoning), currently targeting a pool of about 400,000 potential applicants every year (both fresh graduates and working executives, in more or less equal numbers).
In India, about 25 institutions offering MBA-like degrees belong to the top-tier, accommodating about 4,000 new students, who are the top-performing students in various entrance tests, every year. The next 75 institutions constitute a middle-tier, accommodating about 9,000 new students every year. This leaves a vast majority of applicants (around 387,000) who could not make it to one of the top- or middle-tier institutions. These remaining applicants are willing to pay for a postgraduate qualification that would enhance their employability and launch them into a career of their choice.
The 2,300 (or 3,200) remaining institutions are challenged to offer a valuable qualification. Thousands of Indian students would enrol in these institutions because, either they are not sufficiently prepared for the employment market or they see in this an opportunity to rebuild their careers. For this majority group of applicants, there is a need to enhance the value of the postgraduate qualification they will acquire.
Learning agenda
I am not aware of any systematic effort towards reassessing the learning outcomes and customising the curriculums of these institutions (those which are not in the top 100), where the vast majority of the applicants enrol. I am aware of attempts to turn these institutions into clones of the more elite ones; be it in infrastructure, learning resources or pedagogy.
These elite Indian institutions are themselves based on institutions in the United States such as Harvard, Sloan or Wharton. But these elite Indian institutions may not be the best models, because they have adapted themselves to the needs and capabilities of a specific minority, ie., only the top 3 percent of the applicants.
Proposition 1: It could be counterproductive to apply the same model of excellence on all institutions. Different types of institutions should have the opportunity to define their learning agenda differently and establish operations to suit that agenda. Of course, they also need to evolve mechanisms to generate timely feedback on whether, and how well, they are accomplishing that agenda.
What about Malaysia?
Now let us turn our attention to doctoral degrees in Malaysia. As a rapidly developing country, Malaysia is keen to expand higher education to support an innovation-led economy. Accordingly, the Government sponsors Malaysian students for research degrees (both master’s and PhD) within the country and abroad.
Malaysia has 64 universities (20 public, 37 private and seven foreign universities). The total number of PhD holders in the country was about 12,000 in 2010, while the number of students enrolled in doctoral programmes (in Malaysia and abroad) was about 17,000. Assuming that one-tenth of the enrolled students will complete each year, we can expect about 1,700 new PhDs every year (although not all of them will work in Malaysia).
The country has ambitious targets to produce 48,000 PhD holders by 2020 and 60,000 PhD holders by 2023. Despite these extraordinary targets and the corresponding financial support programmes, the number of new applicants for doctoral study in Malaysia is not encouraging.
The PhD dilemma
In the student community, there are doubts about career options after the PhD. Some students think that a PhD qualification could reduce their employability if potential employers consider it an over-qualification. However, there is no doubt that the higher education sector needs more PhD holders; moreover, PhD-qualified researchers are also needed in the industry, perhaps in equal measure.
Global studies reveal that the industry needs researchers who have acquired a number of skills, in addition to expertise in their research area. Besides relevant scientific competencies, researchers are expected to demonstrate project and team management skills, specific personal and interpersonal skills. They should be competent in the new ways of doing research (eg. transdisciplinary collaborative research) and have the capacity to handle the conflicting demands of the research-based professions (eg. balancing research objectives with commercial interests).
Proposition 2: Increasing the number of PhD holders may not translate into the expected capacity for innovation-led growth unless the PhD holders meet the specific expectations of the industry and academia. There is a need for the government and industry to collaborate with universities to design research education programmes which are relevant for the country, thus enhancing the attractiveness of research as a career option.
This article appeared in The Star, Malaysia (Jun 9, 2013).
THE media and blogosphere are abuzz with opinions disparaging the value of several master’s and doctoral level qualifications. Articles published in respectable publications such as Nature, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes have in the recent past set the tone of this debate, casting doubts about the “return on investment” (RoI) of higher degrees. These RoI-based discussions seem to focus on the socio-economic circumstances of the developed countries. These discussions do not reflect the higher education priorities of the rapidly developing parts of the world.
Higher education strategies in developing countries must be based on the ground realities obtained there and not merely transferred from a developed country. While global standards of educational excellence are fine, there must be a degree of adaptation to the local context. I shall illustrate this through two examples drawn from India and Malaysia respectively, deriving from those examples, two simple propositions for further debate.
Let us consider MBA-like degrees in India. There are over 2,400 institutions offering such degrees (3,300 by another reckoning), currently targeting a pool of about 400,000 potential applicants every year (both fresh graduates and working executives, in more or less equal numbers).
In India, about 25 institutions offering MBA-like degrees belong to the top-tier, accommodating about 4,000 new students, who are the top-performing students in various entrance tests, every year. The next 75 institutions constitute a middle-tier, accommodating about 9,000 new students every year. This leaves a vast majority of applicants (around 387,000) who could not make it to one of the top- or middle-tier institutions. These remaining applicants are willing to pay for a postgraduate qualification that would enhance their employability and launch them into a career of their choice.
The 2,300 (or 3,200) remaining institutions are challenged to offer a valuable qualification. Thousands of Indian students would enrol in these institutions because, either they are not sufficiently prepared for the employment market or they see in this an opportunity to rebuild their careers. For this majority group of applicants, there is a need to enhance the value of the postgraduate qualification they will acquire.
Learning agenda
I am not aware of any systematic effort towards reassessing the learning outcomes and customising the curriculums of these institutions (those which are not in the top 100), where the vast majority of the applicants enrol. I am aware of attempts to turn these institutions into clones of the more elite ones; be it in infrastructure, learning resources or pedagogy.
These elite Indian institutions are themselves based on institutions in the United States such as Harvard, Sloan or Wharton. But these elite Indian institutions may not be the best models, because they have adapted themselves to the needs and capabilities of a specific minority, ie., only the top 3 percent of the applicants.
Proposition 1: It could be counterproductive to apply the same model of excellence on all institutions. Different types of institutions should have the opportunity to define their learning agenda differently and establish operations to suit that agenda. Of course, they also need to evolve mechanisms to generate timely feedback on whether, and how well, they are accomplishing that agenda.
What about Malaysia?
Now let us turn our attention to doctoral degrees in Malaysia. As a rapidly developing country, Malaysia is keen to expand higher education to support an innovation-led economy. Accordingly, the Government sponsors Malaysian students for research degrees (both master’s and PhD) within the country and abroad.
Malaysia has 64 universities (20 public, 37 private and seven foreign universities). The total number of PhD holders in the country was about 12,000 in 2010, while the number of students enrolled in doctoral programmes (in Malaysia and abroad) was about 17,000. Assuming that one-tenth of the enrolled students will complete each year, we can expect about 1,700 new PhDs every year (although not all of them will work in Malaysia).
The country has ambitious targets to produce 48,000 PhD holders by 2020 and 60,000 PhD holders by 2023. Despite these extraordinary targets and the corresponding financial support programmes, the number of new applicants for doctoral study in Malaysia is not encouraging.
The PhD dilemma
In the student community, there are doubts about career options after the PhD. Some students think that a PhD qualification could reduce their employability if potential employers consider it an over-qualification. However, there is no doubt that the higher education sector needs more PhD holders; moreover, PhD-qualified researchers are also needed in the industry, perhaps in equal measure.
Global studies reveal that the industry needs researchers who have acquired a number of skills, in addition to expertise in their research area. Besides relevant scientific competencies, researchers are expected to demonstrate project and team management skills, specific personal and interpersonal skills. They should be competent in the new ways of doing research (eg. transdisciplinary collaborative research) and have the capacity to handle the conflicting demands of the research-based professions (eg. balancing research objectives with commercial interests).
Proposition 2: Increasing the number of PhD holders may not translate into the expected capacity for innovation-led growth unless the PhD holders meet the specific expectations of the industry and academia. There is a need for the government and industry to collaborate with universities to design research education programmes which are relevant for the country, thus enhancing the attractiveness of research as a career option.
This article appeared in The Star, Malaysia (Jun 9, 2013).
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Borneo Day
.jpg)
Tense with clouds;
Abundant, vigorous,
Midnight rain;
Glorious morning,
Moist and crisp;
Promising, divine,
Borneo day.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Gawai 2012 in Lawas: Another Name-Changing Experience
From David Panai to David Panai Satu
This time, I spent my Gawai holidays (1-2 Jun 2012) in Lawas, Sarawak. The main attraction was to experience Gawai in the Lun Bawang way. It was once again my Lun Bawang student, Elisha, who created this interest in me and facilitated my travel from Kuching to Lawas, via Kota Kinabalu. I felt very comfortable in the small-city environment of Lawas. I was made to feel very welcome by Elisha's family. In the true Lun Bawang tradition, I was symbolically adopted into the family, when I inherited the family name Satu, in the presence of Elisha's paternal grandparents. Thus, I became David Panai Satu and Elisha became my nephew. In the process, I acquired a new father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, and two nephews! At one point, I was so overwhelmed by the intensity of this inclusion, I just couldn't control my tears . . .
Gawai in Lawas was a community fiesta, in which religion, culture, and society came together in mutually reinforcing ways. Prayers, handicraft, costumes, community sports, music, dance, traditional food, and messages of Lun Bawang unity were what I chiefly experienced during my short stay there.
PS: Here is the story of how DP became David Panai in the first place.
This time, I spent my Gawai holidays (1-2 Jun 2012) in Lawas, Sarawak. The main attraction was to experience Gawai in the Lun Bawang way. It was once again my Lun Bawang student, Elisha, who created this interest in me and facilitated my travel from Kuching to Lawas, via Kota Kinabalu. I felt very comfortable in the small-city environment of Lawas. I was made to feel very welcome by Elisha's family. In the true Lun Bawang tradition, I was symbolically adopted into the family, when I inherited the family name Satu, in the presence of Elisha's paternal grandparents. Thus, I became David Panai Satu and Elisha became my nephew. In the process, I acquired a new father, mother, brother, sister-in-law, and two nephews! At one point, I was so overwhelmed by the intensity of this inclusion, I just couldn't control my tears . . .Gawai in Lawas was a community fiesta, in which religion, culture, and society came together in mutually reinforcing ways. Prayers, handicraft, costumes, community sports, music, dance, traditional food, and messages of Lun Bawang unity were what I chiefly experienced during my short stay there.
PS: Here is the story of how DP became David Panai in the first place.
Assessing Research Proposals
Government ministries, research councils, universities and other agencies connected with research assess research proposals frequently. These agencies have an interest in allocating limited funds to research which has the potential to yield outcomes they consider relevant. Although one may assume that research projects that aim to produce immediate social or economic benefits should get priority in funding, the matter is seldom that simple.
First, there is no guarantee that a research project will achieve its objective. This is partly so because of the inherently uncertain nature of research. The funding agency must be satisfied that the research team has the necessary expertise and wherewithal to carry out the project successfully. Research projects may flounder due to poor project planning and management. For example, in health research, the required number of volunteers from a community may not be available easily.
Second, even if the research turns out to be successful, translating the results into practical benefits may not be straightforward. It may require further effort in terms of new infrastructure (e.g. a new type of communication network), technological retrofitting (e.g. modifying current machineries), or changing social behaviour (e.g. changing eating habits).
Third, research projects that do not aim at immediate social or economic value may also be attractive to funding agencies due to their potential to generate future developments in certain technical or professional fields. For example, the study of astronomy may trigger developments in satellite communication; study of a classical language may trigger developments in knowledge representation in artificial intelligence.
Finally, purely curiosity-driven basic research, even without envisaging any practical benefit, can still play a role in the development of knowledge. Such fundamental research, when published in reputed journals, can generate visibility and prestige for the researchers and the supporting agency.
Accordingly, there are different types of questions to be answered while assessing a research proposal: (a) Is it likely to succeed? (b) Can the results be translated to produce some practical benefit? (c) Is the project likely to trigger new developments in other fields? (d) Can the research generate prestige?
These questions may appear simple but are pretty difficult to answer in reality. First of all, these are all questions about the future. A good deal of subjectivity can enter into the assessment process. Research fund managers tend to look for evidence of past success on which they may base their assessment. This is applicable where a research group has a history of engagement in a specific area of research and there is a record of objective outcomes over time.
But, how does one assess new research groups that do not have such a track record? Well, the common approach is to look for at least one individual member in the group who has a positive track record.
In the world of research, there are various ways to assess the quality and quantity of contribution of an individual. “Bibliometric measures” are used for this purpose in many countries. Such measures focus on assessing the quality of research articles coming from a specific source (which could be an individual, an institution, a journal, etc).
In bibliometric analysis, the quality of an article is measured by the number of times other articles cite it. This logic is applied to compute a quality index for a whole set of articles (maybe written by one person, or originating from one institution, or published in one journal volume, etc). A common index is computed for a specific set of articles, such as the average number of citations to those articles (i.e. total number of citations to that set of articles divided by the number of articles in the set). This is called the “impact factor”, which has different forms and applications in research assessment.
Impact factors, based as they are on citation counts, reflect the level of peer recognition within the global research community. There has been considerable debate on the appropriate use of such measures. Sometimes an article is cited for the “wrong reasons”, for example, when a flaw is pointed out. Citation rates often have to do more with current academic fads than with the intrinsic merit of what is cited. There are phenomena such as “citation cartels” in which groups of authors mainly cite one another, ignoring other relevant work.
The validity of such bibliometric research assessment has been a hot topic of debate. A recent opinion survey of a broad sample of scientists from all over the world showed that the opinion is “neither positive nor negative”. Despite its shortcomings, there are practical benefits of having a bibliometric measure of research quality. For instance, in institutional environments where the expertise to assess research quality is not available, a bibliometric measure does provide a reasonable indication. Of course, it is not perfect.
This article appeared in The Borneo Post, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia (May 30, 2012).
First, there is no guarantee that a research project will achieve its objective. This is partly so because of the inherently uncertain nature of research. The funding agency must be satisfied that the research team has the necessary expertise and wherewithal to carry out the project successfully. Research projects may flounder due to poor project planning and management. For example, in health research, the required number of volunteers from a community may not be available easily.
Second, even if the research turns out to be successful, translating the results into practical benefits may not be straightforward. It may require further effort in terms of new infrastructure (e.g. a new type of communication network), technological retrofitting (e.g. modifying current machineries), or changing social behaviour (e.g. changing eating habits).
Third, research projects that do not aim at immediate social or economic value may also be attractive to funding agencies due to their potential to generate future developments in certain technical or professional fields. For example, the study of astronomy may trigger developments in satellite communication; study of a classical language may trigger developments in knowledge representation in artificial intelligence.
Finally, purely curiosity-driven basic research, even without envisaging any practical benefit, can still play a role in the development of knowledge. Such fundamental research, when published in reputed journals, can generate visibility and prestige for the researchers and the supporting agency.
Accordingly, there are different types of questions to be answered while assessing a research proposal: (a) Is it likely to succeed? (b) Can the results be translated to produce some practical benefit? (c) Is the project likely to trigger new developments in other fields? (d) Can the research generate prestige?
These questions may appear simple but are pretty difficult to answer in reality. First of all, these are all questions about the future. A good deal of subjectivity can enter into the assessment process. Research fund managers tend to look for evidence of past success on which they may base their assessment. This is applicable where a research group has a history of engagement in a specific area of research and there is a record of objective outcomes over time.
But, how does one assess new research groups that do not have such a track record? Well, the common approach is to look for at least one individual member in the group who has a positive track record.
In the world of research, there are various ways to assess the quality and quantity of contribution of an individual. “Bibliometric measures” are used for this purpose in many countries. Such measures focus on assessing the quality of research articles coming from a specific source (which could be an individual, an institution, a journal, etc).
In bibliometric analysis, the quality of an article is measured by the number of times other articles cite it. This logic is applied to compute a quality index for a whole set of articles (maybe written by one person, or originating from one institution, or published in one journal volume, etc). A common index is computed for a specific set of articles, such as the average number of citations to those articles (i.e. total number of citations to that set of articles divided by the number of articles in the set). This is called the “impact factor”, which has different forms and applications in research assessment.
Impact factors, based as they are on citation counts, reflect the level of peer recognition within the global research community. There has been considerable debate on the appropriate use of such measures. Sometimes an article is cited for the “wrong reasons”, for example, when a flaw is pointed out. Citation rates often have to do more with current academic fads than with the intrinsic merit of what is cited. There are phenomena such as “citation cartels” in which groups of authors mainly cite one another, ignoring other relevant work.
The validity of such bibliometric research assessment has been a hot topic of debate. A recent opinion survey of a broad sample of scientists from all over the world showed that the opinion is “neither positive nor negative”. Despite its shortcomings, there are practical benefits of having a bibliometric measure of research quality. For instance, in institutional environments where the expertise to assess research quality is not available, a bibliometric measure does provide a reasonable indication. Of course, it is not perfect.
This article appeared in The Borneo Post, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia (May 30, 2012).
Saturday, February 18, 2012
DP or David Panai
Today I was very proud to be rechristened David Panai (a new expansion of my nickname, DP!), by a senior member of the Lun Bawang community, Rotarian Patrick Panai, who is also an Elder in the Borneo Evangelical Church (or SIB, Sidang Injil Borneo).
Upon the invitation of Mr Fred Black, my Chonglin Park friend, I was attending this church service at SIB today. After prayers and hymns, Patrick was making announcements before starting his talk on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. He was welcoming the visitors when he spontaneously expanded my nickname DP to David Panai after welcoming me to the church.
Later, Patrick said it was common for the Lun Bawang to give an ethnic name to a visitor, to facilitate easier recognition and assimilation within the community. To me, this was a precious gift and it makes me feel very privileged! I knew a little about this Sarawakian ethnic group from my Lun Bawang student, Elisha Batuncang, who seemed pretty serious about his ethnic identity. This was important to me as I am only too aware of the assault of modernity on traditional cultures around the world. Today, I feel I am born again, as a Lun Bawang!
What a unique privilege!
Upon the invitation of Mr Fred Black, my Chonglin Park friend, I was attending this church service at SIB today. After prayers and hymns, Patrick was making announcements before starting his talk on St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. He was welcoming the visitors when he spontaneously expanded my nickname DP to David Panai after welcoming me to the church.
Later, Patrick said it was common for the Lun Bawang to give an ethnic name to a visitor, to facilitate easier recognition and assimilation within the community. To me, this was a precious gift and it makes me feel very privileged! I knew a little about this Sarawakian ethnic group from my Lun Bawang student, Elisha Batuncang, who seemed pretty serious about his ethnic identity. This was important to me as I am only too aware of the assault of modernity on traditional cultures around the world. Today, I feel I am born again, as a Lun Bawang!
What a unique privilege!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Touched by the Ch'i
Kuching, February 3, 2011
Chinese New Year
Touched by the Ch'i
That blows over me
At the door of the Rabbit
I stand here free.
Fu, Lu, Shou
Do their part
To lift my soul
Spring-cleaned heart.
Lifted from sludge
Freed from chains
I see in my eyes
Pattern of veins.
Ch'i come again
Blow over my eyes
Clear up the veins
Shake off my lies.
Acknowledgements. Thanks to Enn, George, Mung Ling, Lily, and Vie Ming for their kind company on the Chinese New Year day. This poem would not have been possible without their presence and their rich inputs on Chinese cultural symbols.
Chinese New Year
That blows over me
At the door of the Rabbit
I stand here free.
Fu, Lu, Shou
Do their part
To lift my soul
Spring-cleaned heart.
Lifted from sludge
Freed from chains
I see in my eyes
Pattern of veins.
Ch'i come again
Blow over my eyes
Clear up the veins
Shake off my lies.
Acknowledgements. Thanks to Enn, George, Mung Ling, Lily, and Vie Ming for their kind company on the Chinese New Year day. This poem would not have been possible without their presence and their rich inputs on Chinese cultural symbols.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)