The spirit of
law can prevail only to the extent the spirit of justice prevails
in the society. The spirit of justice can prevail only to the extent the
spirit of truth prevails in the society. The spirit of truth can prevail
only to the extent the spirit of reality prevails in the society. The spirit
of reality can prevail only to the extent the spirit of objectivity
prevails in the society.
The challenge
to keep the truth bound to a society is actually the challenge of making objective
validations a natural preference when processing thoughts in the mind or when
making choices by an individual or by a group (during discourse).
Even though
objective and subjective processes co-exist in societies. Scientific evidences indicate
tilt towards subjectivity in decision making by individuals. Individuals are
more possessive about subjectivity in comparison to objectivity. This can also
be observed in literature. Some related citations from available literature are
- People value outcomes
subjectively rather than objectively (Daniel Bernoulli; Exposition of a New
Theory on the Measurement of Risk; 1738). People evaluate gains and losses
asymmetrically, leading to subjective risk preferences (Daniel Kahneman &
Amos Tversky; Prospect Theory; 1979). Group dynamics can distort objective decision-making (Irving
L. Janis; Groupthink; 1982). People update beliefs less than rational models predict (Ward Edwards;
Conservatism in Human Information Processing; 1967). Moral judgments are
primarily intuitive rather than reasoned (Jonathan Haidt; The Emotional Dog and
Its Rational Tail; 2003).
It seems to
be obvious that emotions, beliefs and imaginations are held dearly by individuals.
Therefore, the natural thought process of an individual is by design a subjective
affair. This subjectivity may not necessarily improve (and become more
objective) when a group of individuals deliberate collectively. Literature
review suggests that collective
thinking can become highly subjective if dissent is discouraged (Irving Janis;
Groupthink; 1972). Also, collective thinking can become more subjective under
social pressure (Solomon
Asch; Conformity Experiments; 1951).
Human
thinking in psychology is the mental manipulation of information to form
concepts, solve problems, make decisions, and imagine. It relies on a
combination of innate mental processes, learned experiences, and the brain's
continuous interaction with its environment to transform sensory data into
conscious experience (AI Generated using Google Gemini with prompt “Human
Thinking in Psychology”). An idea is a structured, concrete concept or plan
that comes from those thoughts (AI Generated using Google Gemini with prompt “difference
between idea and thought”).
Popper argued
that knowledge advances through competition among ideas (Karl Popper; The Logic
of Scientific Discovery; 1934). Kuhn
argued that entire frameworks of thought ("paradigms") compete (Thomas
S. Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions; 1962). Dawkins argued thoughts compete
similarly to genes. He suggested that a
thought can spread because it is memorable or emotionally resonant, not
necessarily because it is true (Richard Dawkins; The
Selfish Gene; 1976).
Thus, in a
society various schools of thoughts and numerous lines of thinking consistently
keep on competing to become a generally accepted norm (across the spectrum of a
society). The general acceptance of one of the competing thoughts (to get established
as a dominant thought) is attributable to the greater relevance (as perceived) attached
to it in the minds of significantly larger number of people in the society (or a
group of people forming a dominant force (say - critical mass) for acceptance
of the thought as the preferred one with respect to those in competition).
It is worth
to take a moment and try to understand the reason for greater attachment of relevance
to the preferred thought in the society in comparison to other competing
thoughts. Work by Hodgson suggests that a comprehensive set of ideological thoughts
oriented towards holistic evolution of society comes to play in making space,
adjusting and accommodating newer thoughts. His work integrates economics,
sociology, and evolutionary theory to explain how habits, routines, and
institutions evolve through processes of variation, selection, and retention (Geoffrey
Hodgson; The Evolution of Institutional
Economics; 2004). A thought becomes durable when embedded in: laws, education,
organizations, incentives and routines. Institutions reinforce certain ideas over time (Douglass
North; Institutions,
Institutional Change and Economic Performance; 1990). This can be
considered as institutionalization of a thought; it takes place by binding the
thought to the core framework of thoughts prevailing (let’s call the framework
a societal realm) within a society at the given point of time.
In view of
the above, it can be understood that the criteria for acceptance of a thought in
the society are attributable to the fitment, to the flexibility and to the compatibility
(of this thought) in reference to the societal realm (core framework of
thoughts) of the society.
Societal
realm could be considered as a model representing how thoughts generate,
process and propagate (in a society) and what is the mechanism that allows thoughts
to compete for acceptance following a cultural-traditional interactions amongst
individuals and groups. Societal realm and all the associated mechanisms
operate under prevailing social values, so to say that the societal realm
confers with a converged set of social values. Usually, this convergence loosely
follows a pattern or a paradigm (patterns of values subscribing to a structure functioning
as skeleton to shape the societal realm) in matured societies. However, it may
be noted that within societal realm other set of social values are also present
outside the paradigm and these values consistently attempt to form an alternate
paradigm in their own interest. With these considerations, it may be understood
that social values are at the root of societal realm.
Let’s dig little deeper into the social values through
the literary works of researchers. People acquire values by observing others (Albert
Bandura; Social Learning Theory; 1977). Values evolve as cognitive abilities
mature (from childhood to adolescence to adulthood), moving from obedience
toward principled ethical reasoning (Lawrence Kohlberg; The Psychology of Moral
Development; 1984). Families and education reproduce social values across
generations. Incoherence and inequalities persist because values are
transmitted across generations. (Pierre Bourdieu; Distinction: A Social
Critique of the Judgement of Taste; 1979). Poor societies prioritize – survival,
authority and stability and affluent societies increasingly value – freedom,
participation, environmental protection and self-expression (Ronald Inglehart; Culture
Shift in Advanced Industrial Society; 1979). Social values originate from
collective life rather than individual preferences. Collective consciousness, shared
rituals and moral authority are amongst the important aspects of collective
life, which influence social values (Émile Durkheim; The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life; 1912).
Considering
these literary works, it could be assumed that values of a society get shaped by
numerous factors relating to human existence – including - individual and
collective experiences of life over a longer period of time, economic
compulsions, religious beliefs, general agreement on self-discipline (for
personal reasons or in order to co-exist as a group), etc. In my opinion, on which
matters and to what extent the societal realm supports objective thoughts to
succeed could be one of the critical factors in assessment of maturity of the
society and the civilization (to which the society is subscribed to). Here, it
may be noted that (probably) full objectivity may neither be possible nor be
desirable. Nevertheless, to realize the idea of a ‘just and fair’ society, it
is expected that the most of the critical issues related to general governance
of society are expected to be largely objective.
These social
values are not static, they are dynamic. Therefore, let’s briefly touch upon this
important aspect of social values that is the dynamic characteristic (of social
values), which eventually keeps social realm evolving and reorienting with time
in response to changes in situations or circumstances (in the world around).
Let’s take a
moment and try to understand the societal realm in terms of underlying paradigm
of social values. Humans evolve through both genetic and cultural inheritance. Values
spread through cultural transmission mechanisms such as imitation, teaching, conformity, prestige bias and
innovation. Culture can evolve much faster than biology (Peter J. Richerson and
Robert Boyd; Not by Genes Alone; 2005). Dominant ways of thinking can persist
for long periods before being replaced by new frameworks when existing ones can
no longer explain emerging realities (Thomas S. Kuhn; The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions; 1962). While underlying moral intuitions are relatively
stable, cultures and political movements change which moral foundations they
emphasize, helping explain why value priorities shift across societies and over
time (Jonathan Haidt; The
Righteous Mind; 2012).
Going through
the above findings by prominent researchers, it may be assumed that societal
realm keeps on consistently evolving with time trying to fit into the changing
situations in the world around. This can be understood as shifting of paradigm.
Paradigm of societal realm in a progressive society consistently tries to re-oriented
itself following the intent to collectively drive the society towards a future having
a promise of much more fulfilling life for dominant forces in the society (or -say
– in any just and fair society – for a great majority of people of the society).
Here, it is
worth to note that generally accepted notion of fulfilling life depends on the perception
of ‘meaning of life’ (to which people within the society generally subscribe to).
Thus, the ‘perception’ about ‘meaning of life’ remains at the core of the societal
realm, forms the basis of decisions society collectively takes, structures
paradigm and directs the shifts in paradigm of societal realm as things evolve
in the world around.
It turns out
that the ‘meaning of life’ itself is a matter of perception. Perception can never
remain a fully objective entity. Therefore, inducing sustainable objectivity to
the societal realm has to deal with a risk described as follows - as objective
thoughts align in a pattern subscribing to a structure of values (paradigm)
confirming to a subjective entity (‘meaning of life’). Therefore, as soon as
the notion of meaning of life changes, the structure carries risk of falling
apart (usually systematically but at times quite suddenly due to events in the
world around) giving way to formation of new paradigm.
Now, it is
time to come back to the initial question of establishing tradition of objective
validations as a normative in the social discourse. The intent is to promote a larger
attention to objectivity in the society, which may surely help society in being
much more committed to the truth and individuals to be more realistic in
thinking. In an attempt to further understand this issue, let’s go through the
following related entities: -
Society
Governed by Institutions - A modern society encodes objectivity
by building ecosystem of formal institutions supposed to be governed by rules confirming
to objective rationality and run by committed professionals. This arrangement is
generally acceptable to individuals in the society as every one cannot check
every fact individually, it is considered better option to rely on institutions
to verify and record what is real, true and trustworthy. Literature also
supports this arrangement of institutions in shaping of society - Institutions emerge from collective
social life (Émile Durkheim; The Division of Labor in Society; 1893). Institutions maintain social
order (Talcott Parsons; The Social System; 1951). Institutions can be
classified as formal and informal. Formal and informal institutions jointly
determine governance (Douglass North; Institutions, Institutional Change and
Economic Performance; 1990).
Formal institutions are state institutions. They are
governed by the state and are considered powerful because the state has the legitimate
power to use force for non-compliance of rules enforced by institutions.
Informal institutions are socially shared rules,
usually unwritten, that are created, communicated, and enforced outside
officially sanctioned channels. Informal institutions could be classified as
follows depending upon how they interact with formal institutions – Complementary,
Accommodating, Competing and Substitutive (Gretchen Helmke & Steven
Levitsky; Informal
Institutions and Democracy; 2006). Informal social organizations frequently
govern alongside or instead of the state (Joel Migdal; Strong Societies and
Weak States; 1988).
Institutions
Governed by The State - The ecosystem of formal institutions
is supposed to be centrally synchronized by a legitimate agency through exercise
of power (usually political power) under an administrative framework. Generally
accepted "state-centred"
approach preferred by the political scientists to study political power in the
modern world (largely shaped by nation-states), this agency happens to be the (formal)
state usually run by a constitution.
The state and
state-institutions possess their own interests, capacities, and constraints,
enabling them to shape societal outcomes independently (Theda Skocpol; States
and Social Revolutions; 1979). However, mostly states function in accordance
with the ethos and sentiments of society. States fail when they ignore informal
institutions and local knowledge (James C. Scott; Seeing Like a State; 1998).
The Academia –
A Special Institution – Within the ecosystem of formal institutions,
the academia consists of the global community of students, educators, and
researchers engaged in higher education. It encompasses the network of
universities, colleges, and research institutions dedicated to advancing
knowledge, publishing scholarly work, and training the next generation of
professionals.
In relation
to the role of academia in establishing objective validations as normative in societies,
Max Weber argued that modern societies cannot function without organized
scientific institutions (Max Weber; Science as a Vocation - a classic lecture
by Max Weber; 1917). Academia is a distinct social field with: its own
authority, incentives, prestige, power structures and internal governance (Pierre
Bourdieu; Homo Academicus; 1984).
It may be
noted that scientific objectivity in academia and in research is the principle
of conducting and presenting studies impartially, free from personal biases,
value judgments, or preconceived notions. However, science progresses by
conjectures and refutations. Truth is never finally proven (Karl Popper; The
Logic of Scientific Discovery; 1934). Thus, academia is society's institutional
mechanism for eliminating error, rather than certifying absolute truth.
But nobody
may deny that academia has a special positioning in the ecosystem of
institutions. Academia is (collectively) passionate to establish scientific
objectivity (that is to work for credible authentication of factual reality for
the society at large). It is entrusted to remain objective, propagate
objectivity and eventually become the de-facto backbone for knowledge driven
deliberations for general acceptance of thoughts in society.
The Challenge
of Institutionalization - Considering the above points, the
major actors to enable the establishment of tradition of giving due regards to objectivity
in the social discourse are – the society (represented by it’s the formal and
informal institutions), the state (controller of formal institutions) and the
academia (proponent of objective thought process). Many parts of the world often
face the challenge of Institutionalization of objectivity in the society
despite having functioning society (through formal and informal institutions), functioning
state and functioning academia.
I believe
that society with its informal institutions remains at the heart of the system.
Informal institutions are closest to the society (in terms of social psyche and
social behavior). State institutions are farther to the society and academia are
farthest to the society.
The critical
role of informal institutions in governance of a society has been explored in
literature. Communities can govern effectively through informal rules without
relying solely on the state (Elinor Ostrom; Governing the Commons; 1990). Many governance failures arise
because states simplify complex social realities and overlook informal
institutions and local practical knowledge (James C.
Scott; Seeing Like a State; 1998). Fukuyama argued that trust functions as an
informal institution that lowers transaction costs, facilitates cooperation,
and supports effective governance (Francis Fukuyama; Trust: The Social Virtues
and the Creation of Prosperity; 1995). Effective states require capable bureaucracies that are
simultaneously connected to societal networks (Peter Evans; Embedded Autonomy:
States and Industrial Transformation; 1995). Max Weber showed in Economy and
Society (1922) that authority depends on legitimacy, which is often rooted in
shared beliefs and customs. Regions with stronger civic traditions and social
trust had more effective governments despite sharing the same formal legal
framework (Robert D. Putnam; Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy; 1993).
Individuals
make a society. The
self and society are co-created through interaction (George Herbert Mead; Mind,
Self, and Society; 1934). This co-creation is critical to connectedness.
It carries the feelings of an individual to give inputs to understanding of the
society and vice-e-versa (the group understanding of the society to individual
to rethink from perspective of larger context of the group). The process of interactive
co-creation and re-creation of human thoughts in constant interaction with
society through trusted channels (family, friends, leader, news from trusted
sources, credible institutions) taking place to make sense of the events or of changes
in the world around is the essence of human thought formation. The strongest
civil power is vested in interactive process and trusted channel of
individuals. Informal institutions are strongly bound to any society due to
their participation as closest ally facilitating interactions (through first hand
interactive process) of an individual and due to their credibility as being both
trusted partner and trusted council in matters of individual feelings (and
expression of individual feelings – many of these are deepest emotional
experiences involving intricacies social relationships).
Academia may
need to reshape itself to realize the articulation that academia is a promoter
of credibility of objective thought, the society is an accepter of objective
thought (with the intent to give objective thinking its due in deliberations and
decision making), and the state is a facilitator in propagation of objective
thought within the societies under its territory.
Once the
academia is able to break into informal institution and become a trusted
partner to an individual, dominance of academia (and objective thoughts
promoted by it) will get stablished into the fabric of society. In such a
situation, academia may start resembling elderly preachers of yester
generations, who used to share experiences or (say) mythological stories or for
that matter exchange opinions on the socio-cultural-political situations being
faced in the contemporary times around the locality. Then, it may not be
possible for the state and other formal institutions to influence academia in
any way; instead, there will be likelihood that academia will become a social tool
to assert bottom-up force on the governing state and formal institutions to
keep them accountable to the society.
The Challenges
of Making Academia Relevant to Society
Having understood
that academia should put efforts to engage with the society as seamlessly as
informal societies do, academia has to drop elitism (accessibility to a few) and
get to the ground to participate with commoners in an easy way. It has to earn
credibility for its academic work in the
minds of people even without basic education. This will take literary works of
academic excellence into the day-to-day discourse of commoners in the society. Academia
has to take a resolve there is nothing in the world that can not be explained
to a commoner in the society. It has to learn to develop dialectics in simple
language and reach out to every individual in the society as per her interests and
domain of relevance. It has to position itself so that it can encourage, groom
and accommodate inputs from the bottom of the intellectual pyramid not merely
as subjects but as active participants and prospective contributors to academic
work.
In order to
take this line of transformation there could be many challenges. A couple of
the possible challenges are discussed as under: -
1.
Objectivity is not Absolute
2.
Autonomy of Academia
Let us try to
develop an understanding on these challenges one by one.
1.
Objectivity is not absolute
Objectivity
is expressed through mathematics and mathematical logics. Thus, this challenge turns
out to be a challenge of completely representing any entity in terms of pure
mathematics so that mathematical computations can be applied to understand the
underlying rules (governing the entity). Such a representation helps in
applying mathematical models of logical reasoning to build universally accepted
arguments.
On
many occasions, arriving at such an absolute mathematical representation is not
possible and, on many occasions, absolute consistency in mathematical
computation is not possible. Such limitations may arise due to limitation in
mathematics to completely represent all the aspects of natural world, academia is
interested in. Some of the instances on which, this limitation is experienced
are briefed as under with illustrative examples: -
a.
Mathematical representation of
abstract entities – All entities academia wants to study may not necessarily be
discreet and measurable so as to get reliably expressed mathematically for arriving
at universally accepted results. Many entities in nature are continuous in nature
having limited representational prospects to get expressed in terms of discreet
entities. In the study of physics, when scientists study light, to express some
behaviors (properties) of light, they consider light to be consisting of
discreet particles (bundles of massless energy called ‘photons’). Particle view
of light explains how light interacts with matter like – say photoelectric
effect. Contrary to this, some other properties of light – like (say)
reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference – are explained by
considering light as a wave.
b.
Dynamic characteristic of entities –
Many entities keep on changing with time (and at times with place) following random
patterns. Therefore, any study done on such entities remain relative to a
particular time and place. Such entities are common in healthcare studies,
where pathogen (germs that cause disease) change their shape and behavior to
survive. Such a difference in characteristic behavior of pathogen can be
observed with respect to place (locations across the globe) and time (over the
period of time at a particular location). In many cases, with changing
characteristics of pathogens, all related entities also change. This includes, altered
life-cycle of pathogens, symptoms of associated diseases, response of pathogens
to the medication or (say) binding capacity of pathogens with other pathogens and
eventually to aggravate the health-related complication in the patient.
Limitations
as illustrated above can be observed in almost all the other fields of studies
like (say) – sociology, psychology and fine arts.
Neither
objectivity nor authority is absolute; they co-evolve through institutional
practices and public scrutiny. Scientific authority belongs primarily to
legal-rational authority. Modern scientific objectivity becomes a source of
legitimate authority (Max Weber; Economy and Society; 1922). But, scientific
authority itself depends upon shared paradigms. Communities decide what counts
as acceptable evidence, legitimate methods and objective knowledge. Authority
therefore has a social dimension (Thomas S. Kuhn; The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions; 1962). Scientific objectivity depends on institutional norms
(CUDOS – Communalism, Universalism, Disinterestedness, Organized Skepticism).
It is expected that legislation should protect these norms rather than dictate
scientific conclusions (Robert K. Merton; The Sociology of Science; 1973).
Contrary
to popular understanding that objectivity or objective reality is definite and
will hold in all the circumstances. It has to be understood that the realm of
objectivity keeps on expanding and updating with new findings in the on-going
researches and / or with acceptance of newer standards or norms by the academia
(after scientific deliberations). It may so happen that at times, newer
findings validate a long-held beliefs by the society. Alternately, at times,
newer finding rejects a long-held belief by the society. Even, a change in
scientifically proven objective reality takes place with newer additions to the
body of knowledge usually through landmark researches. The society at all
levels have to be made aware about the limitation. But, at the same time, it
has to be understood that every thought process including subjective schools of
thoughts do share similar limitations. And, in the end, having considered all
the options of available thoughts, it is up the maturity of every individual to
align with any preference. So far as possible, every individual should be given
the free-will to make choices on all matters that comes up in the life.
Irrespective of the fact the individual freely chooses an objective explanation
or a subjective explanation.
In
an attempt to overcome this challenge, a class of consultants (‘academic
preachers’ resembling preachers of yester generations) with expertise in
implementational science be promoted to bridge the gap between objective
research and real-world results. Services of such consultants should be available,
accessible, effective and localized to the specific needs of individuals pertaining
to any socio-cultural background across the globe. The consultants engaged for
this purpose must be passionate to promote objectivity in though process of
societies they serve but at the same time should not influence decisions made
by people (exercising their free-will). Thus, the consultants are expected to
practice core democratic values (like – (say) liberty, equality, justice,
common good and diversity). Academia may be entrusted to groom these
consultants, keep them connected to core-academia and with the societies and ensure
the quality of delivery of consultancy.
Such
an experiment with consultants can at the best only be a capacity building
exercise for societies to become aware and to become awakened to give objectivity
due space in thought process. In long run the ethos for objectivity has to be
internalized at the core of societies. Once this internalization happens, there
is a likelihood that participation and contribution of the society to academia
may show upward trend. This could also pave the way for bottom-up process of
knowledge flow in to the academia. Many people believe academia is dominated by
an elite group having proven intellectual abilities through recorded
performance at higher centers of studies (imparting formal education) and
probably therefore, it is usually believed that academic knowledge flow largely
takes place top to bottom.
The
risks with such an experiment are - keeping the consultants disciplined and
focused and, making them maintain cordial relation at a distance with some vested
local political-cultural forces (which may have a tendency to minimize the
impact of effort) despite diverging views. Suitable mitigation of such risks could
be worked out with the support of some other socio-cultural groups interested
in elevating the intellectual pursuit and intellectual capabilities of the
society. To avoid any dispute in monetary terms, the advisory by consultants
may only be on demand and vocational (without any associated fee) in nature and,
may exclude direct suggestions on investment decisions, direct legal advice or direct
advice related to fund raising and to direct business decision making. Further,
it should be assured that being promoters of objectivity should not mean not
having regards for subjective preference of individuals based on their
personally held beliefs or collectively held faith or (say) culturally held
traditions. I believe that keeping an individual informed with facts, figures
and possibilities is fine but encroaching into the arena of individual dignity,
personal freedom or into the arena of exercise of free-will by the individual
be strictly discouraged in all civilized societies.
2.
Autonomy of Academia
Institutions are controlled by following two instruments:
-
1.
Administrative power – control
through authority, rules, appointments, bureaucracy, procedures, regulation,
licensing, accreditation, and oversight.
2.
Financial power – control through
budgets, funding, taxation, grants, procurement, salaries, incentives, and
resource allocation.
Scientific
institutions exercise administrative control through: peer review, editorial
decisions, tenure and promotion and professional norms. And, the financial
control operates through: research grants, laboratory funding, scholarships and
institutional budgets. The integrity of science depends on preventing these
controls from overriding scientific norms such as universalism and organized
skepticism. (Robert K. Merton; The Sociology of Science; 1973)
Institutional power naturally
concentrates over time (Robert Michels; Political Parties; 1911). So,
both the above-mentioned powers (controls) get converged (mostly) tilting
towards financial power. It is therefore argued amongst intellectual community
how should the academia be funded?
In
brief, the debate is about the classification of education (academia) as a
public good or a private good (a commodity). Public goods are understood the
best case for public funding (by state) and private goods make best case for
private funding (usually through market economy). When it comes to education,
it can be interpreted as being a public good or being a private good based on
subjective meanings and on different contexts. (for more details may refer
section – 4 of the following blogpost - Sane Blogger: The Education System: A
Social Construction of Economic Significance)
Academic
freedom of research highlights concerns that heavy dependence on public funding
may create pressure—whether direct or indirect—to conform to prevailing
political priorities (Robert M. O'Neil; Academic Freedom in the Wired World;
2008). Public funding systems can unintentionally reinforce cumulative
advantage to certain preferences (Robert K. Merton; Matthew Effect - The Sociology of
Science; 1973).
The Treason of the Intellectuals
(French: La Trahison des Clercs) by Julien Benda (1927) is one of the most
influential works of twentieth-century political and intellectual history. It
is widely regarded as the foundational critique of the politicization of
intellectual life and remains a key reference in debates about academic
independence, public intellectuals, and the role of truth in society.
Universities increasingly behave like
market actors by competing for: corporate funding, patents, consulting income
and tuition revenue (Sheila Slaughter & Larry L. Leslie; Academic
Capitalism; 1997). Education is viewed as an investment that increases:
productivity, earnings and economic growth (Gary Becker; Human Capital; 1964)
Geiger showed that both public and
private funding influence: disciplinary development, research priorities and
institutional specialization. (Roger L. Geiger; Research and Relevant Knowledge;
1993)
Thus, it is observed that public and
private funding of academia have their own set of problems. However, in most
places across the globe the academia is funded by both public and private
entities in different proportions.
Open Education explores models in
which educational resources are financed through combinations of donations,
philanthropy, institutional support, and volunteer contributions.
Crowd funding is another possibility
gaining popularity these days. Even though this method of funding has not been
tested so far at a scale for such a critical purpose like academia / education;
this method could be tried at a limited scale as an experiment. It may be
interesting to see whether this mechanism sustains and succeeds as a viable
option to traditional ways of fundings. If it succeeds, it may be further
interesting to assess whether academia gets better in terms of autonomy. Literature
suggests that crowdfunding often succeeds when researchers: communicate
clearly, engage the public, demonstrate social relevance and build trust.
Success depends as much on communication as on scientific quality (Julie Hui
& Elizabeth Gerber; "Crowdfunding Science"; 2015).
With the above discussions, I believe
that following possibilities could be helpful for allowing much more autonomy
of academia: -
1. Crowd funding of education may be
explored in such a way that funder’s identity remains anonymous.
2. Global fraternity of academia interconnected
as a chain of hierarchical organizations functioning as centre of excellence can
be envisaged. Presently also, such an arrangement seems to exist in an informal
way, which can be formalized. The mission of the fraternity may be to function
as a body of knowledge for the world and to function as an agency dedicated to revolutionize
societies to give due consideration to objectivity in thoughts. The apex body
running such a fraternity may have representations from all the countries
across the globe.
Let us end
the blogpost in the same fashion as we started:
The spirit of
freedom can prevail only to the extent the spirit of dignity
prevails in the society. The spirit of dignity can prevail only to the
extent the spirit of sensibility prevails in the society. The spirit of sensibility
can prevail only to the extent the spirit of truth prevails in the
society.
Blogpost
Disclaimer – All the literature review in this blogpost has been done using AI
(ChatGPT).
