Since many are faced with the dilemma of deciding between the above, and returning to Sri Lanka, I am posting here something I wrote in response to one (rare) person who actually *asked* me for my opinion. I am posting it here almost in its original form without this person's permission (but sufficiently anonymized).
---------------
Let me start by saying that each of us who went away had equivalent though not identical situations which caused us to hesitate about returning soon after our studies. My Prof's simple reasoning was that there "is no provision" for doing this: in other words, after passing the viva/defense, there is no provision to stay on without returning - in my case (as in some others), not even if a post-doctoral position was involved. I for one, honoured his opinion since I knew he was one who was not afraid to bend rules to near break-point, and yet, in this matter was quite clear in articulating his view.
Later on, when I had to face this situation several times, I realized what any other option would entail: (a) no other definite trigger to mark the end of the period (one post-doc can easily be followed by another), (b) kicking in of the n+1 syndrome (http://www.nriol.com/content/experiences/experience2.html), and (c) the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect (where the longer you reside overseas, the more alienated from the local realities you get).
Firstly let me say that your feelings of indebtedness to your wife/kids etc are very commendable - in fact as commendable as their willingness to stand by you during your studies. These were exactly my feelings too, even though my wife herself felt that the period we had overseas in the first place was a blessing we had no automatic right to. As such, even though these feelings are valid and appropriate, in the rest of this message, I would be trying my best to persuade you to return without delay. I am declaring this up front since (a) I don't want to 'beat around the bush' and (b) I know you are one person who will read it with an open mind.
A friend of mine who had a very different way of looking at life once remarked that we, who have gone farthest up the ladder of education, contrary to popular belief, don't 'deserve' the best in life - but owe the most to the society that allowed us to enjoy such benefit. He was quoting a famous saying: to whom much has been given, of him much will be expected. But his interpretation of that saying has stuck with me for a long time, and now I realize how true it is. We who have been afforded 13 years of education (sometimes at no cost to us), followed by 4 years of university (again at little cost to us), and in our case, 4 - 6 years of postgrad study (mostly at no cost to us) - how much more do we owe the society that enabled those opportunities, than say a regular Grade 8, O/L or A/L graduate - some of whom incidentally are the very ones who keep our economy going by 'slaving' in the middle east!
The major difference in this kind of thinking is that it is societal - not individualistic. For all the excellent opportunities we have in the west, the biggest difference between them and us is that we were a people of community. However in Colombo and the suburbs, some of that thinking has disappeared, and we have become increasingly individualistic and think only of our own nuclear family (not even extended family). Several years in the west reinforces our individualism and we begin to see things almost exclusively through the spectacles of individualism and our own nuclear family. It takes quite an effort for us to pinch ourselves awake to realize that we are missing an entire dimension of reality. I must mention here someone who really challenges me even today: a CS faculty member from University of Jaffna, who returned during the height of all the trouble - and even returned back from a sabbatical after even more suffering, owing to the deep sense of calling he felt to be *something* in that dark situation.
So, while it is commendable that you feel obliged to your family, I'd like to ask you to take that sense of obligation further: to the people, society that afforded you and your family the opportunity to spend these years overseas - to enjoy and extend your horizons. A person with the level of education and experience that you have, returning to Sri Lanka would have a thousand fold more effect on Sri Lanka, than would have in any developed country. When I look back at those who left the university during the past 3 - 4 years, it is plain to see that most of them are often mere cogs in an institution which itself is a small cog in the large industrialized country they are part of. Contrastingly, those who have returned have more often than not played significant roles in each of the spheres of the Sri Lankan education and IT industries even with all the frustrations and injustices around.
Having said the above, I must let you know that I have *never* tried to persuade someone to return before this! I always believe strongly, that only those who decide for themselves to return, should return. Once they return, I am committed to tell them where I see the greatest opportunities in Sri Lanka. So I am not sure why I am writing to you trying to persuade you to return: most probably because (a) I feel you are a great asset to the the university and Sri Lanka, and (b) Sri Lanka itself is at a place in its history where the opportunities are ripe for breaking out of our third-world state. Unlike in the past decade or more, we are now in the happy position of great hope and open opportunities staring us in our face. However, Sri Lanka needs all the educated people it can count on to help its people to be redeemed from the politician's that can hold them to ransom - to deprive them of what they can truly experience. I myself feel an increasing call to do everything in my power to help Sri Lanka usher in a new political culture where professionalism and competency will overpower connections and party politics when it comes to issues of governance. In order to do that of course we need all the help we can get from the educated elite - that is us!
Unlike in the past too, now, there are lots of opportunities for not only you, but also your wife/family in Sri Lanka. While the kind of opportunities and avenues open in a developed country are much wider and lucrative than those available here, I would still argue that the overall satisfaction one could get while doing whatever one decides to do back in Sri Lanka will far out weigh the difference in width and scope between the opportunities in the two countries. The most challenging of jobs in a company in a developed country pales into insignificance compared to the effect and significance of any job that you or your wife can do in a developing country like Sri Lanka.
There are many Sri Lankans who've lived overseas considering returning permanently to Sri Lanka now than ever before in our history. If we get the political culture right, there will be many more who would come here to actually improve their opportunities for doing significant things with their life. These days very few actually try to go to the US or UK owing to the global economic situation; some still go to Australia but others to China and other countries in Asia! Sri Lanka is also one of those countries which potentially becomes a place where others would be attracted to in this new (2nd) decade of the 21st century.
I do hope that you and your family get a time to ponder again on the larger picture, and make your own decision (not because of my writing) to return rather than to stay on 'for a little while longer' (x + 1). The bottom line is that I want to spare you and your family from settling down to mediocrity, when you can make such an impact here. There will be no time to return like now... no opportunity as compelling as now! Do write if you have any clarifications to make and if you disagree with what I'm saying.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, December 27, 2010
Monday, November 2, 2009
Doing Research...
It has been well documented that the research group is the very cornerstone of an active research culture in any context. With a long and illustrious research career spanning some of the world’s premier research institutions Xerox’s PARC, Bell Labs, Sun Microsystems and Novell, Eric Schmidt, Google’s Chairman and CEO tried hard to ‘grow a research culture’ in each of the organizations he led. At Google, he achieved success by observing that most of the innovation which stemmed from US universities resulted from small groups of 2-3 students led by a Professor. His organizational structure for Google mimicked this primarily flat tree with literally a hundred little research groups which had short turn-around tasks. As in the case of the US university research, several of the groups failed, but those few which succeeded, became household names.
The lack of funding for all but the smallest of scale research projects in ICT meant that such an approach was impossible for us in Sri Lanka. On the otherhand, the plummeting costs of computing power made it possible to purchase even fairly sophisticated infrastructure locally. In addition, human resources were of high quality and relatively inexpensive. Interacting with the international research community was the main reason identified for lack of progress in ICT research in Sri Lanka. Setting up our own Research Fund for this purpose provided the much needed momentum for boot strapping a research culture in ICT at the UCSC.
These informal research groups received much needed funding commencing in 2004 with several of them attracting funding from international agencies and donors. Currently, 7 internationally funded research groups function within the UCSC with collaborators in the US, Europe, Japan, Canada and countries in the region.
Research must necessarily be situated in context. What was relevant research in warring Britain or in neo-liberal America cannot be automatically appropriate for a developing economy such as Sri Lanka. Herein lies the mistake oft made: we, who learn the research method in these countries, automatically apply it in its entirety – with all the inappropriate assumptions and add-ons. It is true that fundamental research also needs to be also carried out in countries such as Sri Lanka. The distinction between fundamental and applied research however, also is situated within a particular context in which they were coined. In an increasingly more interdisciplinary academic and research context we find ourselves, the terms fundamental and applied make less sense than they probably did in the romantic era of industrialization.
The lack of funding for all but the smallest of scale research projects in ICT meant that such an approach was impossible for us in Sri Lanka. On the otherhand, the plummeting costs of computing power made it possible to purchase even fairly sophisticated infrastructure locally. In addition, human resources were of high quality and relatively inexpensive. Interacting with the international research community was the main reason identified for lack of progress in ICT research in Sri Lanka. Setting up our own Research Fund for this purpose provided the much needed momentum for boot strapping a research culture in ICT at the UCSC.
These informal research groups received much needed funding commencing in 2004 with several of them attracting funding from international agencies and donors. Currently, 7 internationally funded research groups function within the UCSC with collaborators in the US, Europe, Japan, Canada and countries in the region.
Research must necessarily be situated in context. What was relevant research in warring Britain or in neo-liberal America cannot be automatically appropriate for a developing economy such as Sri Lanka. Herein lies the mistake oft made: we, who learn the research method in these countries, automatically apply it in its entirety – with all the inappropriate assumptions and add-ons. It is true that fundamental research also needs to be also carried out in countries such as Sri Lanka. The distinction between fundamental and applied research however, also is situated within a particular context in which they were coined. In an increasingly more interdisciplinary academic and research context we find ourselves, the terms fundamental and applied make less sense than they probably did in the romantic era of industrialization.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Why I'm not (and won't be) a Professor
A cursory glance at the world's dictionaries (or indeed Wikipedia) confirms that the title Professor does not carry a unique definition. In France for instance, my daughter's pre-school teacher was Professeur Gendt. In other countries such as the USA, Japan and several others, it refers to someone who is a member of faculty of a college or university. There are also various other definitions around the world ranging from referring to a person who is on tenure to the head of an academic department.
I must confess that in all of these senses, I am a Professor and am often referred to as such by various communities that meet at International meetings and conferences for the past decade or so (I used to correct them at the beginning but realised its futility as most of them couldn't understand what I was making a fuss about!).
In most commonwealth countries however, the term has a more specific meaning. It is the highest position within the hierarchy of academics in a university or college. The Latin term itself refers to a person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, a teacher of highest rank. This highest of meanings is what characterises the definition in these countries, including Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, much of what constitutes that high ideal is missing in academics who are conferred that title in our university system today. Of course many of them possibly do profess to be experts in some art or science and so would qualify under the Latin definition (though whether they are so, is often unclear since the term expert itself has no unique meaning!). I do not consider myself as someone who has dedicated his life to research and academia to an extent that fits this lofty definition. To be sure, like everyone else, till around 2002, I did march along that road to promotion, collecting points to earn my right to be called a Professor, as could be seen by my online CV (in a frozen state since then). I wrote academic papers, presented them at conferences, supervised research projects, did my bit of administration, spent sabbaticals in prestigious research centres and reformed my teaching. I even totted up my points to see if I had enough to be at least an Associate Professor!
The current Professor promotion scheme in Sri Lanka, is so minutely specified, that it can be targetted by any academic without any interest in research or teaching leave alone the lofty ideal of contributing to the global body of knowledge! Indeed anything in life that is so tightly specified often falls into the pitfall that renders the system quite useless. In case of doubt, consider whether we really are identifying all those who are really gifted learners in our Grade 5 scholarship exam – or is it only those who can retain the most from a particular year in school (Grade 5) that is turning out to be as good a definition of hell for them as we can device!
As someone has said, in most cases, we value what we can measure (read: reading, writing and arithmetic – or for that matter: quantitative, analytical and verbal; and call it IQ) rather than trying to measure what we should value (read: kinesthetic, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal skills also; including measures such as EQ).
All this is not to refute the claim that Sri Lanka has indeed produced some men and women who have dedicated their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and its sharing. Indeed there are even a handful to be found in the universities these days! There are also several who were never bestowed the title since they were either not in university employment or their contributions were not recognized at the time.
I must confess that in all of these senses, I am a Professor and am often referred to as such by various communities that meet at International meetings and conferences for the past decade or so (I used to correct them at the beginning but realised its futility as most of them couldn't understand what I was making a fuss about!).
In most commonwealth countries however, the term has a more specific meaning. It is the highest position within the hierarchy of academics in a university or college. The Latin term itself refers to a person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, a teacher of highest rank. This highest of meanings is what characterises the definition in these countries, including Sri Lanka.
Unfortunately, much of what constitutes that high ideal is missing in academics who are conferred that title in our university system today. Of course many of them possibly do profess to be experts in some art or science and so would qualify under the Latin definition (though whether they are so, is often unclear since the term expert itself has no unique meaning!). I do not consider myself as someone who has dedicated his life to research and academia to an extent that fits this lofty definition. To be sure, like everyone else, till around 2002, I did march along that road to promotion, collecting points to earn my right to be called a Professor, as could be seen by my online CV (in a frozen state since then). I wrote academic papers, presented them at conferences, supervised research projects, did my bit of administration, spent sabbaticals in prestigious research centres and reformed my teaching. I even totted up my points to see if I had enough to be at least an Associate Professor!
The current Professor promotion scheme in Sri Lanka, is so minutely specified, that it can be targetted by any academic without any interest in research or teaching leave alone the lofty ideal of contributing to the global body of knowledge! Indeed anything in life that is so tightly specified often falls into the pitfall that renders the system quite useless. In case of doubt, consider whether we really are identifying all those who are really gifted learners in our Grade 5 scholarship exam – or is it only those who can retain the most from a particular year in school (Grade 5) that is turning out to be as good a definition of hell for them as we can device!
As someone has said, in most cases, we value what we can measure (read: reading, writing and arithmetic – or for that matter: quantitative, analytical and verbal; and call it IQ) rather than trying to measure what we should value (read: kinesthetic, spatial, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal skills also; including measures such as EQ).
All this is not to refute the claim that Sri Lanka has indeed produced some men and women who have dedicated their lives in the pursuit of knowledge and its sharing. Indeed there are even a handful to be found in the universities these days! There are also several who were never bestowed the title since they were either not in university employment or their contributions were not recognized at the time.
This brings me to my top 10 reasons for not being (and not striving to be) a Professor.
10. Some of the best researchers in my field, and many other fields I am aware of, around the world are simply Mr. (and some Dr.)
9. Professor is nothing more (and arguably, nothing less) than a designation in a university – not a qualification to be flaunted in public for all purposes
8. If professors call themselves Prof. why not directors, Dir., managers, Man., executives, Exec. or indeed architects, Arch., philosophers, Phil. or composers, Comp.?
7. Whether one is a Distinguished Senior Professor at Harvard, MIT or Stanford, or an Associate Professor (or Assistant in some cases) at one of the many tens or hundreds of colleges of a little known university in some far flung country, your title would be the same, simply Prof.
6. The fraternity (of Professors) is not one particularly honouring to belong to anymore in Sri Lanka – check out any university Senate here these days!
5. The quest to give yourself in service, and that of collecting points to become a professor are not always aligned – often one is done at the expense of the other
4. The title Prof. is often used as a title of elitism rather than one signifying a dedication to a life spent in the creation and dissemination of knowledge
3. Professorship has made most who posses it become conceited and puffed up rather than making them humble and indebted to the society that nurtured them (as I personally believe it should)
2. The title Professor is aspired to more often than not by those who rely on it as their main source of identity (which I personally am not in need of)
And my top reason for not being (nor wanting to be) a Professor is:
1. I do not consider myself as having spent my life (or spending what's left of it) in the pursuit of knowledge creation and dissemination the way the masters of scientific research did in the past (nor I suspect are many of my colleagues who have joined that fraternity or are frantically striving to!)
The Falacy of the Virtue of Quick Decision Making
Perceptions of what constitutes efficient and effective decision making are probably the most confusing aspect of leading in administration. While textbook notions of quick decision making seem to be desired in a theoretical sense, even considered decisions, if not favourable to personal preferences, are often interpreted as ineffective and weak. Owing to the legacy inherited from the bus driver model of leadership in every sphere of life we encounter however, decision making by those in the ranks is never given any importance. As such, most employees live in the dichotomy of not being able to decide and not happy with the decision making of others.
Supervisors are not immune to this disease. Sporting a false sense of guilt each time a decision negatively affects even a single subordinate, supervisors typically distance themselves from the decision making process and instead walk on the thin line between commradarie and supervision. The result is either insubordination of those under them or being at the receiving end of their wrath over unpopular decisions.
Strategy has become of utmost importance in decision making in the organization. One important strategy which I have come to learn through reflection is the opposite virtue of what is given in the textbook: only respond after 24 hours wherever possible! This single strategy has already borne much fruit especially when confronted with seeming impasse and conflict situations.
Leading - as the Bus Driver or the Orchestra Conductor?
The model of leadership most commonly expected in Sri Lankan society in general appears to be the most extreme form of leading from the front – that embodied in the bus driver model. There could be many reasons for this ranging from it being the natural model in a maternalistic society to the general inertia in public sector organizations[1]. In general, a majority in such organizations expect to be led by the top in an almost dictatorial way so that individual thinking and responsibility is minimal. Using the bus driver analogy, most are happy to be passengers who can assume that the driver will take them to the desired destination.
This was one of the few issues I knew I needed to address from the very outset. Making use of my first address to the entire staff of just over 100 employees at the time, I emphasized the fact that I was a very bad bus driver. I did not have the skills required to take the organization where it should go. However, I was confident that the senior staff in the organization could grow into a very potent force in brining about radical change to the organization which would take it to its next level of operation.
As such, I reiterated that the model of leadership would change to the Orchestra model. The main requirement for this was for individuals to excel in different dimensions of the organization’s business with me simply playing the role of the conductor. I am grateful to several senior academics and administrators who appear to have excelled in this metamorphosis to a participatory leadership structure.
Overall however, especially in the lower ranks of the organization, there appears to be some confusion over the model change with a minority even verbalizing their belief that it signifies a weakening of the organization itself.
[1] It is not uncommon to hear that one of the key reasons for individuals joining the university is its relative ‘laid backness’ and perceived ‘freetime’ to do other things apart from its job security.
To Lead or to Manage
One of the key realizations I had to face was the fact that between the dual roles of leader and manager that one is often called upon to play as a head of a department or an institution in the university system, is that my skill at the latter was at best, below average. While I love to initiate new things and see others initiating new things, continuing such initiatives through after they are proved to work in a systematic way does not come easily to me. For this reason, one of my chief requests in my application for the post of Director of the UCSC was that, if selected, I would need a hard working manager as Deputy Director. While it is unusual for a candidate to a post to make such conditions even before being selected, I am grateful to the Interview Panel and then the Board of Directors for acceding so precisely to this request.
Since being appointed Director of the School in May 2004, I have had to learn fast on the job, the many and diverse lessons of administrative maneuvering in order to get a job of work done. Some of these are quite different from what the typical paternalist Western textbooks posit about them, with most needing to be adapted and tempered to the complex uncertainties of a maternalist Sri Lankan society.
Needless to say, my learning curve ‘on the job’ has still been steeper than it probably ought to have. Administration and management are skills which have as much or more to do with the psychomotor and affective domains than the cognitive domain, so that there can be little substitute to learning ‘on the job’.
Some examples of the disjoint between the textbook and reality which have transpired in my short tenure of just under 2 years as Director of the School include perceptions of the model of leadership, the interpretation of the flat organizational structure, the virtues of instant decision making, and the methods of showing dissent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)