Last Tuesday, Prof Scott Bellows penned a damning piece on Doctoral level education and certification, dissecting its inability to solve societal problems.
Prof Bellows is a subject matter expert with years of experience but there are several aspects of his submission that were fundamentally flawed. But more important, his article provides impetus and a useful thread to deconstruct this level of education.
It is hoped that technocrats in academia, policy makers and enforcers, enthusiasts and students at large will socialise with the primary article and this rejoinder to trigger a call to action.
According to Jordi Pujol and Jose Marie La Porte, higher education is a ‘beacon for personal, social, and civic transformation relative to the turbulence of modern communities.’
This seems misaligned to the professor’s assertions. Notably, he seems to see the attrition rate at the doctoral level as unacceptable and especially where learners have demonstrated a very high propensity to pay. But is this argument plausible? Then there is a misconception in mixing the Kenyan doctoral format and the administration of it as one and the same, with the descriptive phrases, structure and system used interchangeably.
Ability to pay and graduation must not have a direct correlation in academia. In fact, the complexities and variables at play in Doctorate qualifications is what makes it rigorous and relevant, as it should be. Prof Bellows calls it a ‘burdensome doctoral process.’
Further, equating models of doctoral level training and their duration in America, Europe and Kenya to draw parallels is misleading. The societal problems and academic interventions cannot be generalised as the underlying issues are unique in every jurisdiction.
Indeed, the Kenyan system should be a lot more painful. In his piece, another central question arises. What is Kenya’s philosophy in Bachelors, Master’s and Doctorate level education? What are the expected outcomes at every level and how is the build-up from each level designed to work? Does the course work which he calls ‘unhelpful’ serve any purpose in a scholar’s growth and development?
It really does not matter if the ‘extra hoops are hurting our nation’ and especially if they make us better. The cheating by use of the ‘illicit academic writing industry’ where he cites Rosmary Mbogo and others is another matter altogether.
Universities worldwide have to deal with this phenomenon as it is not specific to Kenya. However, the Kenyan institutions should up their capacity for counter measures. The same applies to Doctorate level supervisors that demand reverence from those they supervise. This behavior demands discipline and not training or skills development as suggested.
Inevitably and quoting renown journalist, ‘PhD holders should stand out, above the mass of title-loving politicos.’ But are the doctoral candidates part of the problem, pursuing salutation in place of genuine learning?
In Kenya, the principles of education have been eroded over time calling for radical surgery. The proponents of the knowledge economy must call for the re-orientation of higher institutions of learning if the downward spiral is to be mitigated.
Imagine teaching management and fiduciary discipline when the same institutions cannot self-sustain and suffocating in debt, irredeemably. The situation is egregious and the complicity must be called out. In conclusion, doctoral level education demands doctoral level thinking, as the zenith for new knowledge generation and dissemination.
If we pursue education for the sole purpose of learning, we will get it right almost all the time-whether as doctoral candidates, as institutions that facilitate the process, or as administrators. The alternative is a lose-lose situation (Stephen Covey).