|
|
|
April 29, 2007
Something borrowed…
S. Zulfiqar Gilani explains why professors are prone to plagiarism
THE issue of plagiarism in Punjab University and steps taken by the University authorities as well as the HEC have been in the news recently. This controversy brings to the fore some wider and more important issues that are bedevilling academia in the country. Plagiarism is just a symptom of the deeper structural and procedural malaise of higher education.
Why do some professors indulge in plagiarism? For starters, the overall environment in departments, institutes, and universities is neither scholarly nor collegial. The conditions for knowledge-creating research are close to non-existent: There are the oft-mentioned problems of weak libraries, outdated equipment, inequitable work (read teaching) loads, and scarce funds, which are real handicaps. One of the problems is the absence of communities of scholars who can communicate, share problems and ideas, provide feedback and engage in critical dialogue. Such communities are the backbone of scholarship which, besides being an intellectual enterprise, is in its essence also a social activity. Publishing one’s work is the accepted way of sharing findings and generating conversations with colleagues engaged in similar work.
Despite a deeply disabling intellectual environment and the absence of any of the prerequisites, there is a demand from our professors, akin to colleagues in the developed world, to publish because without publications they are denied promotions and other pecuniary benefits. It is like demanding a product without providing the raw materials or necessary tools, and in the absence of others who make the components required for production. The result is shoddy research, if at all, published in questionable journals, or plagiarism. The lack of integrity of publications is another story that needs separate examination. However, there is one scam which has gone unnoticed, that is, professors copying chapters from books, doing a simple cut and paste job, and getting copies printed with authorship in their name/s. Such textbooks are then required for the courses they teach. It is a straightforward matter of stealing the work of the original author(s) (plagiarism) and fleecing students.
There are also the somewhat misplaced and highly unrealistic benchmarks of research requirements of western universities imposed upon our Professors. Such expectations are unrealistic because universities there and in Pakistan could very well be on different (socio-cultural-intellectual) planets. By and large, our universities fail to perform the basic function of the dissemination of knowledge (through adequate curricula, readings, and teaching), so to expect the professoriate to be engaged in the creation of knowledge (the primary aim of research) is unrealistic.
However, the roots of the problem run deeper than those touched upon above. They have a nexus with the wider governance environment in which universities operate, and the socio-cultural and psychological environment from which the professoriate is drawn. The essential question is what gives status and power to an individual in our society? Surely it is not a person who questions and critically examines issues – the scholar. If anything, the safest route to gaining status, power and success is through conformity and obedience, coupled with having been born in the right family and inclusion in a patronage network. In such a socio-cultural milieu, it is not surprising that the best do not opt for the professoriate as the career of choice. More alarming is the reality that with time, the socio-psychological environment in the country, and by default in universities, is increasingly moving towards closing of the minds, intolerance, uncritical acquiescence to the dominant values, and “making it” by any means. Barring all exceptions, the prevailing socio-cultural and intellectual environment in the universities and society at large is incapable of producing individuals who can raise critical questions and examine matters in an objective and scientific manner. The professoriate is, thus, largely peopled by individuals with limited capacities for creating knowledge through original research. The point to note here is that this is not because of weak cognitive abilities but deeper personality traits, which are acquired because of our stultifying socio-psychological milieu.
The governance and management structures of universities have now been almost completely militarised, the relevant hallmarks of which are rigid hierarchy and a command-and-obey mentality. (This is also true for all institutions in the country). Thus, the unwritten and inviolable principle is that “the boss knows all and best”. The whole edifice is highly centralised and personalised. The apex of the higher education pyramid is the person of the President of Pakistan as he chairs the Chancellors Committee. Then, there is the HEC that sits at the pinnacle of all universities, symbolised in the person of its Chairman. In the current plagiarism controversy, this centralised and hierarchic approach is being amply demonstrated by the position of the HEC (read chairman). He has averred that the professors who plagiarised must be removed from service; otherwise the development funds of Punjab University will be frozen. On the face of it, this seems fair enough, some individuals have indulged in plagiarism so they must be punished, which will also be an example for others and deter future plagiarism. And if the punishment the university has imposed is not what the HEC deems appropriate, then the whole university has to suffer.
The stance of the HEC is in line with the way it has been dealing with universities since its establishment in 2002. The HEC knows all and best. Most universities do as they are told and have no problems with the micromanagement of their affairs by the HEC. For them, the largesse is also substantial. However, there are times where institutions seem to forget the lessons of obedience, ingratiation and flattery. It so happens that the plagiarism controversy got media attention. There are numerous other bigger skeletons in the closet but with a tight lid maintained by the HEC and the disempowered and fearful (so-called) leadership of universities and the professoriate. There are no systems of checks and balances on the powers of the HEC and there are more people in academia trying to mimic the attainment of similar unbridled power than there are voices of reason, balance, justice and true rule of law.
The writer is a visiting scholar at the department of Theory and Policy Studies, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto, Canada
|
|
|
|
