The concept of research and teaching under one roof was envisioned by the Philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, who founded the University of Berlin in 1810 (1). It gave the students direct access to the leading researchers and thinkers of the time. The scientists, in return, would benefit from the critical inquiries of their students. Humboldt’s idea proved to be very successful that the University of Berlin changed its name to Humboldt University in 1949 to honor its founder. The university quickly became a renowned institution, which attracted many internationally influential thinkers and scientists.
Hence, the relationship between research productivity and teaching effectiveness has led to the development of research universities. And studies from this development have shown that (a) the two are positively correlated — teaching effectiveness benefits from research productivity, (b) research and teaching are complementary activities is central to the idea of the modern university, and (c) these two activities are so mutually reinforcing that they must coexist in the same institutions.
Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, president emeritus of The Rockefeller University, says that research is no longer an ancillary function of the university; and that it is the principal criterion of recruitment to our major universities (2). It is also the most objective and reliable criterion for faculty promotion. Assistant professors are hired without teaching experience.
In our hiring practice, however, teaching remains the principal criterion, when there is hardly an established measure of teaching performance. We often consider length of teaching experience more important than research tract record, without really knowing that one may have been a bad teacher. Applicants are asked to give a seminar where candidates are often rated on the basis of the panel members’ subjective evaluation or a set of criteria. Either way, a common outcome would be based on a range of reasons — from “I know a good teacher when I see one,” to mastery of the required body of facts, to clear explanation of things.
But would such teacher qualification meet the requirements of proper science education? Will it give students a deeper understanding of the world around them? Will it enable them to make sound decisions on critical matters of public policy? Will it make the students more creative and effective in their future work?
According to Carl Wieman, a Nobel laureate in physics, “Science education research clearly shows that a true understanding of science, as demonstrated by how it is practiced, is not merely about learning information. Rather, it is about developing a way of thinking about a discipline that reflects a particular perception of how ‘knowledge’ is established, its extent and limitations, how it describes nature and how it can be usefully applied in a variety of contexts” (3)
Wieman continues, that developing such a way of thinking is a profoundly different experience from learning a set of facts — as what students learn from our current way of teaching science — and requires very different teaching skills. This is the reason why research and teaching, which are so mutually reinforcing, must coexist in the same institutions
The lack of emphasis on research is the reason why we don’t make it in academic ranking of world universities if indicators for research performance are used. In a respected university rankings being done by a leading Chinese university since 2003, for example, using publications in journals covered in the major ISI indexes — Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index — none from the Philippines has yet made the top 100 in the Asia Pacific or in the world’s top 500 (4).
Another common practice at our universities is to choose the needed field of specialization over research track record. We prefer the major field of the applicant based on graduate thesis over his or her research experience and published work. Overlooked is the scientist’s creativity and ability to teach a related undergraduate course, as long as this is within the same major field (e.g., biology). Some famous scientists changed fields to maintain their creativity.
Darwin, for example, worked on unrelated disciplines — including psychology, geology, genetics, taxonomy, and ecology — to continue being productive (5). He wrote books on origin of coral atolls, geology of South Africa, pollination of orchids, ecology of earthworms, evolution, human emotions, taxonomy of barnacles, and movement in plants. Although Darwin considered himself a geologist, the world remembers him as a biologist.
The following paragraph from Craig Loehle makes the point (5):
“The current system seeks to fill all the square holes with square pegs. The biology department wants one geneticist, one physiologist, and one ecologist, but they don’t want three generalists who would work in all three areas. In what department would one put Darwin: genetics, geology, taxonomy, or ecology? Should Goethe be in the literature, biology, physics, or philosophy department? He actually was most proud of his work on optics, though that work was largely flawed. Would Newton and Fisher find comfortable academic niches today? The current rigid departmental system is confining to the truly creative person and discourages the vitally important cross-fertilization of models, data, techniques and concepts between disciplines.”
Now that UP is rewarding those who publish in peer-reviewed international journals, making research the chief criterion of hiring will be consistent with this development. Hiring a PhD without primary publications in peer-reviewed international journals should therefore be avoided.
