I AM writing this piece at a time when the University of Guyana (UG) is expressing dissent. I welcome the dissent, as it provides useful opportunities to innovate, rather than be mired in the status quo and stagnation. All institutions are dynamic, but some are more dynamic than others. And those that show greater dynamism has greater receptivity toward innovation. And people from all walks of life and those dear to UG can ask whether or not UG has been innovative.
To measure the strength of UG’s innovativeness would involve reviewing the University’s operational management aspects. That is, how does UG address matters of significance to its immediate stakeholders, the students, and others on a day-to-day basis? Consider some matters of significance as voiced by the dissenters. There is talk about the following concerns: poor faculty and staff remuneration, poor quality faculty, poor science laboratories, poor maintenance of the physical facilities, poor quality education, etc. Well, how does UG transform all these negatives into positives?
Undoubtedly, more funding is required. Nonetheless, first, there is need to strategically streamline the problems, meaning that problem resolution has to be identified on the basis of short term, intermediate term, and long-term. Even so, I am sure some will agree that with the existing funding, the administration can immediately alleviate some concerns such as flooded classrooms and leaking roofs, as these may relate to short-term problem resolution. I agree there are those other concerns pertaining to the intermediate and long-term problem resolution, that require additional funding, and where that extra funding is possible, UG should strive to attain it.
And there may be some agreement, too, that a paucity of financial resources demands innovativeness on the part of any administration. Seek the extra funding, but do not sit twiddling thumbs, wondering if the financing will ever become a reality. A streak of innovativeness is critical in situations of resource scarcity. How do other universities meander through desperate financial woes? And there are many higher education institutions in both the developed and the developing world currently experiencing austerity measures.
Governments in several countries have already made significant cutbacks in higher education budgets. Apparently, reduced budgets are the norm in higher education in many parts of the world. And now, the public demands increasing efficiencies, greater accountability measures, and added sensitivity to stakeholder demands. Like it or not, there is a change in higher education. Higher education has become susceptible to the market dynamics of a consumer-driven economy. Like other higher education students elsewhere, students as well as the public in Guyana want value for money at their beloved UG.
Whether it is UG or some other tertiary institution, no entity can survive in periods of financial stringency, unless it is receptive and develops the capacity to change. In such scenarios, reorganisation is a necessity, not a luxury. Reorganising has to be the name of the game for any university operating with limited funding. A number one strategic financial goal of any such institution has to be attaining efficiency and to emerge from the fiscal challenge academically more robust. But this approach requires application of an innovative capacity.
I now provide just a few examples of innovativeness in higher education amid financial austerity. Idaho State University administration merged the College of Pharmacy and the College of Health Professions to create the Division of Health Sciences, and also combined science departments of the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Engineering to create a College of Science and Engineering. In 2009, Northeastern University dismantled its college system into smaller colleges.; staring at a $17 million reduced State funding in 2009, Florida Atlantic University eliminated 170 faculty and staff positions; in 2010, University of Northern Iowa reduced its administrative divisions from four to three, removed a senior position, and combined the College of Natural Sciences with the College of Humanities and Fine Arts. Not long ago, Eastern Washington University reduced its colleges from six to four, and reconfigured some academic departments.
Reorganisation inclusive of departmental reconfiguration also can create or drive a paradigm shift in curricular reformation to produce an interdisciplinary approach, where possibly social and behavioural scientists would have grounding in the natural sciences context, and natural scientists would have a parallel foundation in the social and human sciences context. Indeed, such paradigm shift has all the hallmarks of an exciting and challenging innovation.
And is there a place for industrial funding and industrial participation in higher education? Look around locally as well as internationally to see how UG can assimilate the modus operandi to institute active collaboration. Vice Chancellor Dr. R. Patnaik believes that such collaboration will enhance the research base, with mutual benefits for both the university and industry; as both may produce solutions to practical problems that could advantage the entire society.
Previously, on December 25, 2011 in my piece on ‘Universities & Colleges will not be the same under globalisation & competition’, I noted that: “Clearly, in the coming years, universities and colleges will not be the same as the patterns of globalisation change periodically. The new mantra has to be the provision of cost-efficient education, monitoring and evaluation of academic performance, and producing graduates with marketable skills. In fact, efficiency and accountability have become the standards for assessing and evaluating university performance in the face of globalization and competition.”
How does a university change? At least, it is necessary to have some leverage some knowledge about the situation targeted for change. UG has no dearth of ideas for change. Here are a few: 1986 a 5-year Development Plan; an IDB loan funding  a program between 1986 and 1991 to produce Human Resource Training and Development; In 1991, UG Academic Plan 1990 – 1995; in 1995, the Distance Education Department of the Institute of Adult and Continuing Education’s 5-year Development Plan; in 1996, former President of Guyana Dr. Cheddi Jagan’s The Presidential Commission of Inquiry into the University of Guyana with 40 recommendations; in 1996, Trevor Hamilton and Associates Ltd. – the Conceptual Programme for Improving the University of Guyana’s (UG’s) Cost-effectiveness and Enhancement of its Relevance. UG needs to leverage this knowledge, and where necessary, focus on knowledge translation. It may be futile to reinvent the wheel amid such existing knowledge base.
I guess what I am saying is that many higher education institutions today experience problems of resource, infrastructure, quality, and innovative capacity, and good governance may resolve a good chunk of these problems. Nevertheless, in whatever way UG evolves, UG must never deny a student access because of that person’s economic background.