Across the global south -- and I'm thinking about South Asia where I am from in particular -- higher ed institutions and often governments are rapidly shifting their focus to "measurement" of research/scholarship production. While they assume that the measurements reflect "impact," most current indexes do NOT push scholars toward research/publication that will solve the most critical or immediate social challenge in their own countries or regions (not to mention occupations and communities beyond urban centers). For instance, if an agricultural scientists who came from rural India into Delhi and is rewarded for publication in English (which is not understandable to most farmers or other stakeholders her research is about), for publication that will never reach the community that it is about, for publication that seeks the attention and approval of scientists across the world (rather than contributing to local programs, policies, or practice) ... then, what is the point of the "impact factor" that this scientist's university demands?
My question is: How do scholars in the global south even begin to turn the new ship of research and scholarship in the right direction for their own society and community? What are practical strategies for communicating to decision makers and policy makers to steer their own, their academic community's, their university's, and their society's research in the right direction?
This is such an important issue that needs critical attention. In South Asia, specifically, the politics of research impact factor is not yet very common--the research culture is not developed per se. But, this neoliberal politics of research impact factor originated from the Western societies, will likely be a case of discussion soon; as, you have initiated this discussion thread. For the SA context, I believe, we have two challenges: to develop the research culture and the research with social impact culture.
In this process, it is important to develop "public scholarship" while putting an end to "ivory tower" research practices. Public scholarship can include the rethinking of research methodology itself to engage the participants in the research process in understanding the on-the-ground issues and, as a follow-up project, working WITH those research agents to bring real changes. Designing a project, collecting data, and writing and publishing for the sake of jobs, promotions, and fame is never going to have real impacts unless the researcher is committed to a long-term relationship with the people who they are utilizing for their own benefits. This is, of course, very challenging for Nepali scholars, for example, living in North America to have such commitments because of institutional constraints. So, universities should also start re-thinking how public scholarship can be an important part.
Re: the dissemination of the research, the works you're doing can be good examples, like publishing in local/national newspapers (but NOT in English) and conducting programs targeted to the non-academic audience.
There are not easy jobs, though!
Pramod, Thank you for the response -- this is something I care about deeply, and you've raised a number of extremely important issues. Let me mainly highlight what you've already said, sharing what frustrates me and what inspires me.
First the frustration. Because research culture is NOT yet established--meaning it is taking shape--means that the undue focus on "impact factor" is a dangerous development, especially because it is developing in wrongheaded ways. Yes, the challenges are two-fold: to develop a strong research culture, and to direct that culture toward socially situated, purposeful, and valuable research/scholarship. Unfortunately, that is NOT what is taking shape. I just heard that UGC and universities have adopted "international" scores, lists, and other criteria that are dramatically discouraging scholars who have become conscious about the need to do locally/socially productive research but know that doing so is NOT professionally rewarded/recognized.
My hope is that if a good number of us advance what you call public scholarship that pushes against bean-counting culture that is emerging (I would worry far less about "ivory tower" scholarship if it at least contributes to local society in the form of abstract/vague discourse), and especially if that scholarship also challenges scholars to also question methodology as you also mention, we can hope that those who run after whatever the institutions demand will "also" try to meet those demands in "more" socially productive ways. As for scholars of global south living/working in the global north, there is another challenge (which you don't face in Canada at this time) due to xenophobia and ethno/ultranationalism; otherwise, supporting knowledge production beyond borders is a huge plus for all countries/societies involved.
On the issue of medium, which is as important as content/focus of research but few people have started talking about beyond the "medium of instruction," I think we need to foreground it as well as we have with instruction. I am planning to start writing in Nepali (and should also try to dust my Hindi to join more conversations -- I'm also learning Bangla for this). Of course, we can't do a lot, but we can't do nothing either. Because we "can" do something -- well, you are doing a LOT, Pramod -- and because that something could be where little is being done and because that something can inspire a LOT of other scholars, we should continue to do what we can. (apologies for rushed/disorganized writing, but didn't want to let the alert bury in a never-ending pile of emails)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication