“Heinz [College at the CMU campus in] Australia began to notice a growing population of Pakistani students in its Master’s programs and that they were some of the best and brightest of their overall class.  This was supported by anecdotal evidence both in Pittsburgh and Doha and we decided to, as we say in the states, ‘check this out’,” said Bryan Tamburro, Senior Director for Strategic Initiatives at CMU, who visited Pakistan last month with Prof. Chuck Thorpe, the outgoing Dean of CMU Qatar. “I believe this growing population of top talent from Pakistan is a direct result of HEC’s efforts to increase Pakistan’s capacity to deliver world class quality higher education to its college age population (17-25).”

Bryan and Chuck visited the campuses of NUST, COMSATS, GIKI, NDU and met with the rector of IBA Karachi in Islamabad. They were impressed by the state of affairs of higher education in Pakistan, particularly in contrast to other countries in South Asia. During the trip, Bryan and Chuck also met Dr. Ata-ur-Rehman, former Chairman of the HEC, Dr. Khurram Afridi, Project Director of the LUMS SSE, and with Dr. Sohail Naqvi, the Executive Director of the HEC.

Bryan said that, given his experiences throughout South Asia over the past twelve years, he had tempered expectations for what they would experience in Pakistan. But, he was pleasantly surprised by what they found after their visit. “I was wrong! I believe that the HEC, through nationalizing the accreditation process of Higher Education for Pakistan, has made significant progress in addressing the nation’s capacity issue, while strengthening facilities and with an incredible focus on faculty development, is succeeding where many other ‘developing nations’ are failing.”

He went on to say, “[s]imply put, you can erect a building on campus but the building doesn’t educate the student the faculty member does and that, for some reason, is the one thing strangely missing in many nations efforts to build quality higher education. This is the significant accomplishment of the HEC that helps separate Pakistan from other nations.”

Currently, administrators at CMU are considering avenues of sustainable collaboration with various Pakistani Institutions. Carnegie Mellon currently has presence in a number of countries, including Qatar, Portugal, Japan, Australia, and Cyprus, offering graduate and undergraduate courses.

Editor’s note: We previously reported that the visitors met with Prime Minister Gillani. While they were scheduled to meet, the meeting was canceled due to the Prime Minister’s scheduling conflicts.

“We argue instead that educational attainment and higher income increase political dissatisfaction, such as dissatisfaction with one’s government or foreign policy, when holding all other factors constant. We also argue that politically dissatisfied men and women are more sympathetic to suicide bombings.”

Their study is based on data from the Pew Global Attitudes Project. The following question from the survey was used:

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets [in our country] are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies. Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

Slightly over half of the Pakistani (50.4%) respondents to the survey never consider suicide bombings of civilians justified, and, somewhat surprisingly, 60.4% think that  suicide bombings of Westerners in Iraq are never justified. When broken down according to educational attainment, the percentage of Pakistanis who believe suicide bombings are never justified against civilians are: 43.7% of Pakistanis with below primary education, 54.4% of Pakistanis with primary education, 56.6% of Pakistanis with secondary education, and 63.4% of Pakistanis with higher education. A similar negative correlation is seen between wealth and support of suicide bombing.

With respect to Pakistan, the authors conclude:

“The basic and extended models … offer no statistical evidence that educational attainment matters. The extended model provides some evidence that compared to the poorest respondents, upper-middle income respondents in Pakistan are less likely to support suicide bombing against Westerns in Iraq.”

and that,

“Respondents in Pakistan with primary education are more likely to be politically dissatisfied than those without primary education.”

Despite the lack of consistent indicators that span the Muslim public, the study concludes with two broad policy recommendations.

1. The first recommendation is to continue the expansion of ‘peace’ education. They note: “The purpose of such education would not be to reduce political grievances that can be very real but to suggest other ways to bring about change that cause less suffering and damage to society… This, however, may be too much to ask from some of the more oppressive regimes and the narrow elites that lead them.”
2. The second recommendation is somewhat less well defined: “The present dissatisfaction … can be reduced if governments of Muslim countries, U.S., and other Western states adopt policies that respect the dignity, welfare, interests, and lives of Muslims everywhere”. They recommend taking steps to reduce political dissatisfaction, such as supporting trade, economic integration, and cooperative international security.

I am still struggling to differentiate between patriotism and free labor. I believe that we all are patriots, as long as we are doing what we are supposed to do, or until we do something unpatriotic. I am loyal to my country, but I have family responsibilities as well. I cannot do research, or work for the betterment of the society, if I am not able to feed my family, or provide them with basic necessities of life.

Unfortunately, we have developed a tradition of slapping everyone who wants to bring the change in the status quo with the charge of insufficient patriotism. Personally, I like to show my patriotism through my work and not by my words. I don’t like to come up with the creative ways to prove how much I love my country, as Parveen Shakir once said:

What’s more, working for free has a negative effect as well: It doesn’t matter how good you are or what you are capable of, if you are doing something for free, no one takes it seriously. At least this has been my experience so far.

So, if we are to pay researchers for their work on public projects, the question arises where should this money come from? To answer this question, consider this. If I were to make an analogy for Pakistani research community and industry/government agencies, I would equate them with the example of two cows: One is frail, sick and cannot even stand on her own feet, while the other is healthy, productive, and full of milk. The wise approach would be to milk the healthy cow, sell the milk, and take care of the sick cow from the money received from selling the milk. By feeding the weak cow from the cash received, we can expect that she will soon be healthy and productive. Research community in Pakistan, in general, is the weaker cow. It cannot and should not be expected to produce ready-to-use products. The stronger cow (government agencies and industry) has to feed her first with the start-up grants, consulting assignments, confidence, recognition, and respect. And then, we can expect some real output from the research community.

To build this relationship between industry, academia and government, we should focus mainly on the needs of young researchers. It will take far less effort, and resources to get young researchers on board, than what we are already spending on foreign consultants. I believe that they have the skills, up-to-date knowledge and expertise to get the job done. Besides, all the other necessary ingredients that we ask for upfront — patriotism, love for the country, etc. — are inherent properties of these young minds.

I admit that universities are also at fault for this broken relationship. We, the academics, have not been able to prove our capabilities or build the trust that is required in such contracts. We have to mutually grow this relationship, so as to create an environment that is conducive to research. To promote academic-industry-government partnership, HEC, Pakistan Science Foundation, ICT R&D Fund, Punjab IT Board and other organizations can play a role. They can bridge the gap by providing a platform that can take project/consulting requirements from the government/industry and assign it to young researchers, while facilitating and maintaining the research funds. This platform can also help build one-to-one relationship between a university researcher and a government official for future projects.

There are around 600 scholars, 400 or so who are currently studying on HEC scholarships and another 200 or so on Fulbright, who are expecting to return to Pakistan in 2010-2011. These scholars have been trained and educated on Pakistani tax payers’ money. We have to start trusting our own people and their expertise. And, I believe, they have the potential to exceed our expectations. By investing in them, not only will we be saving thousands of dollars that we spend on foreign consultants, but we will also build local capabilities. If we fail to build a system that makes use of the expertise of these returning scholars, I am afraid that most of the money spent on foreign scholarships will be wasted, either by scholars leaving the country for better opportunities or by not utilizing their full potential.

Not a single week passes that I don’t find someone shouting at me to go back to where I came from. But, I am not going to leave. I will stay here to make the naysayers obsolete. If we keep moving abroad out of frustration, we are, in fact, handing over our own motherland to these people. We will not, and we should not allow this to happen. The people who are opposing change are really old and they will retire in a few years. I have to stay here to wait for that vacant position and whenever there is an opportunity, I will opt for it to bring about the change my country deserves. And, in the meanwhile, I will create a generation of young minds to help me build a prosperous Pakistan. This is my country, I am here to stay, and I dare to stay!

Dr. Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani is an assistant professor in the faculty of Computer Science at the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Science and Technology. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of STEP.

As soon as I realized that I was going to graduate in Fall 2009, I started sending out my resume to prospective employers in Pakistan. I started telling the world, ‘Look, I am young, energetic, full of ideas, and I have a PhD. I would like to improve (almost) everything. Hire me!’ So, with a beard on my face and “all the single ladies” tone on my blackberry, I returned to my homeland with the hope that I would get my dream job in few days, and will live happily ever after. Little did I know that what would follow was a time to make tough decisions and to re-explore the definitions of “higher education” in Pakistan.

I traveled to 13 cities, appeared in 35 interviews, and received 26 job offers. Academia, private companies, government organization, and NGOs — I explored every opportunity that I could. The majority of my interviews were at universities, and this is what I would like to share here.

For me, a university needs three things to survive and progress: teaching, institution-building, and research. I believe that everyone in Pakistan is doing a decent job in teaching. Of course, some are better than others and there is always a room for improvement but thanks to HEC’s syllabus recommendations, at least we know what we are supposed to teach.

There is a gap in institution building. Most universities in Pakistan are dependent on one person; if that person was removed, the whole institute may collapse. For example, what comes to your mind when we say Dr. Javed Leghari, Dr. Arshad Ali, Dr. Wahab, and Dr. Naveed Malik? SZABIST, NUST SEECS, MAJU, and Virtual University. We need to produce clones of these fine individuals – a lot of them – so that the institutions can survive for the next 100 years, and more. But, I don’t find myself educated or experienced enough to play that role as yet. I was just a student a few weeks ago and now, all of a sudden, I am an “expert” on everything? I totally disagree.

For now, I want to do research, and write proposals for funding. Very few people in Pakistan are correctly doing that, and I want to add value in that area. I also wanted to join an institution that gave me ample time to work on my projects. That means having a reasonable teaching load and limited administrative responsibilities.

There are several other interesting problems that one has to face after coming back to Pakistan. For example, during my interview process, the registrar of a well-known university told me that I would have more value if I had graduated from Karachi instead of Khairpur, and if I was born in Karachi instead of Sukkur. In another instance, my interviewer told me that I can only publish in HEC-recognized journals in ‘W’ category (I have no clue what that is), and everything else is useless. I tried my best to explain to him that we have quite a few reputable conferences in computer science, with the acceptance rate as low as 5%, but he wasn’t ready to listen. He told me that if I don’t have an Impact Factor of at least 5 (again, based on HEC recognized journals’ list) I won’t qualify for “HEC-approved PhD Supervisor” and he won’t hire me.

Government organizations have a totally different hiring style. You have to get an application form from a particular officer, fill-it-out with black ink, make 7 copies, attach 9 photographs and 8 CNIC copies duly signed and attested by a first class magistrate in the city court, and submit it via postal service with the demand draft of Rs 200! Well, I do not have patience to do all that, so I gave up after applying to a few places. Another issue with the government organizations is the salary package and the only perk they usually offer is the “permanent” position.

Private universities offer high salaries and good incentives packages; smaller universities pay the highest amount. For example, a fresh PhD can get an excellent salary package and directly become an associate professor (skipping the assistant professor position) or even the Head of Department somewhere in rural Punjab or interior Sind. The salary is between Rs 40, 000 and Rs. 80, 000 for Masters, and Rs. 80, 000 and Rs. 200, 000 for PhDs. Universities with good working and research environment usually pay far less from what you can get at a relatively new setups.

The problem I had with small private institutes is twofold: first of all, they have totally unrealistic expectations. They think that after returning from the U.S, you have a magic stick that can use to turn their institutes into LUMS in no time, and you alone can do all the work. The second problem is one’s personal and professional growth. There is very little hope of doing original research after being bombarded by unprofessional and entirely commercial interests of the management. In one instance, my employer told me, that he is not hiring me to teach, or “do some research that [he] cannot understand” because he had several “low-salary individuals who can do that.”

The teaching load in most of the universities is another issue. In one instance, I was requested to teach 12 credit hours per semester (4 courses), be an advisor to a batch of 113 students, be the convocation manager, and I was expected to spend 40% of my time on administrative work.

After going through this prolonged exercise, I came to the conclusion that there are very few places where I can work while surviving the reverse cultural-shock; places that offer a good working environment, have professional ethics, and understand the needs of a young researcher. GIK Institute turned out to be a good choice for me. GIKI makes landing very smooth for returning scholars. Pay is good, and teaching load is very reasonable (two courses every semester and summer teaching is optional). Perks include a free 5-room luxury apartment, schooling for kids, medical center, including the cost of diagnostic tests and medicines, internet, campus-wide telephone, and house maintenance (you will know how big a blessing it is when you have to find a plumber in Karachi). The location has its own charm; pollution-free environment and a quiet and secure campus. Furthermore, there is a lot of space for your own research lab. GIKI also gave me a seed funding to start my research center. So, for me, GIKI turned out to be the best choice. For others, especially those who might have their homes in major metropolitan cities and don’t have to pay a hefty monthly rent, other universities may be a good option as well.

While I am learning the ropes of my new job, I would like to leave the readers outside Pakistan with one request: In the end, this is our country, it deserves to be better, it can be better, and we will make it better. Please return to your homeland. We need a lot of you to synergize our efforts for a prosperous Pakistan. Amen!

Dr. Zeeshan-ul-hassan Usmani is an assistant professor in the faculty of Computer Science at the Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Science and Technology. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of STEP.

STEP: Informed, perhaps, by your experiences as a student at MIT during the Vietnam War, you have spoken in favor of re-establishing student unions in Pakistani Universities. Could you briefly make the case for re-instituting student unions in Pakistan?

PH: Meaningful discussions on social, cultural, and political issues must be brought back to campuses. Young people are idealists; in fact, there is no other way for them unless they are brain dead. They naturally dream of what a good society is; a society that is way better than what they have inherited from their elders. So, it is perfectly healthy for students to have a self-image of being agents for positive change. Once aware, they soon realize that individuals count for little — only organized actions do. But organized actions require a culture of civilized debate. In my 36 years of teaching at Quaid-e-Azam University, I have never felt that rational, civilized debate with or between students is impossible. Of course, there have been exceptional situations, such as after the 1998 nuclear tests, but students will generally listen to the other side in a civilized way.

We must have faith in the young, educated people of our society. This is why I strongly feel that student unions must be restored, and student representatives be elected by popular vote. How else can Pakistan generate its next generation of political leaders? Are we forever doomed to being ruled by military usurpers and dynastic rulers? No, we must believe in ourselves.

I’m not asking for something far out, something that has never existed. Even under the British Raj, there were student unions. So, why not now? In the early 1970’s, which is when I had just begun teaching, all Pakistani universities had student unions. On the one hand there was the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba and other far right-wing organizations. They were pitted against an assorted range of left and liberal organizations: the National Students Federation, Democratic Students Federation, Peoples Students Federation, etc. Sure, there were occasional physical clashes, but it was still healthy in the sense that battles were fought primarily in the realm of ideas. This kind of fighting was infinitely better than fighting the senseless ethnic and religious wars of today.

I know that some people feel that our students are fundamentally incapable of responsible behavior. In my opinion, this amounts to a condemnation of Pakistan itself. If students in India can successfully study and become world-renowned professionals, as well as unionize and fully engage in national and international political issues, then surely Pakistani students can do this just as well. Else, let’s be prepared to declare Pakistan a grand failure, a bad idea to begin with, and our people stupid and irrational. I do not accept this terrible conclusion.

STEP: What realistic measures could be taken to prevent student unions from devolving once again into quasi-militant organizations responsible for violence and intimidation instead of political debate and activism?

PH: I would begin cautiously lest the whole idea of restoration flops. Although all unions remain banned, religious extremists still rule many Pakistani campuses. They will surely try to take advantage of the new opportunities offered if the ban is lifted, and will want to impose their extreme views upon the rest of the student body. Also, let’s not forget that political parties like the PPP were less than responsible in the 1970’s. They also violated laws and ethical responsibilities to gain power just as much as the Islamists. So, there must be a clear code of ethics that specifically abjures physical violence, and specifies immediate penalties, including immediate expulsion of students if these are violated by whoever is responsible, irrespective of political orientation. I know it is difficult, but the reinstatement of unions, subject to their elected leaders making a solemn pledge to uphold specified rules is the only way forward towards creating a culture of debate and tolerance on campus. Ultimately, the voices of reason will become loud enough to be heard. Before a full restoration, the government should allow and encourage limited activities such as disaster relief activities, community work, science popularization by students, etc. But this first step must not be the last one, and we must move as rapidly as circumstances allow.

STEP: As a result, perhaps, of stifling university campuses, creativity and innovation are not valued personal traits in Pakistani society, even in urban centers. Do you believe there is a case for creating an ‘HEC for the Arts’, that cultivates and funds literature and the arts in Pakistan? What measures can be taken to change attitudes towards creative individuals and their ideas?

PH: Literature, art, music, and sculpture are forms of creative expression. If you want them then you must first fight the battle for political, cultural, and personal freedom. Without this freedom, all the money in the world and the finest building for a “HEC for the Arts”, will achieve exactly nothing. The starting point is to acknowledge that we actually want the Arts.

Presently, it is not clear that anything beyond narrowly technical education is desirable or socially sanctioned. Unlike during the earlier years of Pakistan, today we see that film, drama, dance, and music are frowned upon within the campuses of most public universities. Joyous or artistic expressions are sometimes attacked by student vigilantes who say these violate religious norms. At Punjab University, the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba staged violent protests against the establishment of a department of musicology. Even when something low-key was finally established, it had to be located away from the main campus.

Burqa and hijab are ubiquitous, cafeterias are segregated, males and females are not allowed to walk together, and Islamic morality squads enforce these restrictions with due fervor. I cannot see the faces of most of my female students today.

There is no strong Jamiat in my university, but the Saudiized culture is not too different from Punjab University. Indeed, I would contend that we are witnessing a broad social phenomenon that is no longer linked to specific political initiatives as they were in the past. An example: in the physics department of Quaid-e-Azam University we started a film club some time ago. The first movie was A Beautiful Mind, a PG-13 rated story of Princeton mathematician John Nash. It’s a marvelous story of this psychologically disturbed genius. But half-way through, some fanatical students disrupted it and turned off the electricity. The following day there were posters up across the university accusing me, as the physics department chairman, of screening pornographic movies and importing western culture! It was ordinary middle-class students doing it without the Jamiat behind them.

In a landscape that is generally pretty dank and dark, there are a few bright spots. The times that I have been to the National College of Arts in Lahore, and the Indus Valley School of Arts and Architecture in Karachi, I was impressed by the vitality of students and the open atmosphere. Their work looked rather good to my untutored eye. The ambiance there reminded me of my visit to Indian universities a few years ago. Perhaps openness is the key to their success. More generally, ambiance really does matter in determining the quality of a college or university, even if it does not specifically relate to the liberal arts because learning has to be taken in a broader sense than mere book-learning. Personal freedom is crucial to creating a well-rounded individual. It is particularly important to learn to deal with colleagues of the opposite sex in a mature way. This is a necessary part of the maturation process for homosapiens.

STEP: In the past, you have written about the tension between Islam and Science, particularly the lack of scientific maturity among university students. As a university professor, you are guaranteed a captive audience of young impressionable people, mature enough to understand the implications of the scientific method. Rather than blame ideologues for succeeding to capture an intellectual vacuum, would you concede instead that the scientific intelligentsia, including university academics, are simply failing to articulate the “idea-system” of science to university students?

PH: Yes, university academics in Pakistan have failed to create a scientific culture and mindset. They, like most school and college teachers, are indeed guilty. Except for the honorable few, most consider scientific thinking an alien, imported, western concept. Sadly, those who are paid to teach science know next to nothing about the scientific method, the premises which underlie science, or its history. This also holds for the majority of teachers who hold PhDs from our universities. In fact many — whether actively or implicitly — work against the idea system of science.

In my opinion, the scientific mind is nothing but the questioning mind. It starts to develop naturally when students encounter questions that engage the brain’s reasoning and logical capabilities rather than memory capacity. To nurture it, teachers need to raise such questions as: How do we know? What is important to measure? How do we check the correctness of measurements? What is the evidence? How do you make sense out of your results? Is there a counter explanation, or perhaps a simpler one? The aim should be to get students into the habit of posing such questions and framing answers.

The barrenness of academia is painfully apparent. Anyone who has studied or taught in the Pakistani system (O-A levels and elite private universities excluded) knows that our teachers are guaranteed a captive audience of students who hang on to every scribble made upon the blackboard, or every sentence read out from the teacher’s notes. Students who ask questions are frowned upon and risk being branded as trouble makers. To get good grades, examinees need only reproduce this undigested, or partially digested, information. No surprise: this is exactly the way the teachers were educated themselves and what formed their worldview.

The impact of rigid obedience on science education is fatal. I have often seen science being taught in schools as though it was Islamiat – as something that exists in its final, complete, and ultimate form. Rote memorization dominates even in my university, which is supposed to be Pakistan’s best public university. Science teaching is reduced to an absurdity and is nothing but a waste of time because the essence is lost.

A sorry anecdote: as departmental chairman, I decided to monitor the teaching practices of an assistant professor in my department about whom students had frequently complained to me in private. So I sat in one of his classes and found that he jumped from formula to formula with no connection between them. Later, I summoned him to my office and demanded an explanation for the intermediate steps. His answer: this formula and that formula are in the prescribed M.Sc-level plasma physics textbook on page so-and-so.  He could not even understand why I was horrified. I tried to tell him that physics depends on a chain of logical connections, not the authority of the textbook. Step 1 leads to step 2, and so forth. Sadly, I did not see my horror reflected in my colleagues. So my efforts to remove this teacher have failed thus far. He has been receiving a full salary for the last two and a half years although I do not allow him to teach a course in my department.

Why is the system increasingly totally rote-oriented and anti-questioning? There may be deeper reasons, but one obvious reason is lack of subject competence: teachers can only dare to invite questions from students if they know all the answers, or at least most of them. This requires having a solid understanding of the material you are teaching. If you have insufficient mastery over a subject, then obviously you don’t want your ignorance exposed. So, even if teachers agree in principle that students should ask questions, the mixture of intellectual laziness and incompetence is usually too heavy to cast off. Nevertheless, while the competence deficit is a difficult problem to fix, it is solvable. Better books, examinations, and evaluation criteria can produce more competent teachers who would then emphasize internalization of knowledge over rote learning. For this there has to be a strong will.

STEP: Rote memorization is a ubiquitous feature in the education systems of most developing countries, like China, North Korea, India, and Singapore; none of these are Muslim-majority countries. Why do you feel the problem of rote learning is more closely correlated with religion than economic development in Pakistan?

PH: Traditional, culturally-driven, societies rely upon inherited knowledge and think of it as a fixed corpus of facts. Teachers are supposed to transmit the “truth” as determined by some unapproachable authority. To that extent, science and traditional learning do not get along well. Joseph Needham’s marvelous treatise on Chinese science exposes this point in great detail. But the countries you named – with North Korea probably excluded – have been undergoing a massive cultural and social transformation over the decades. They are rapidly modernizing their values and ways of behavior. Not all the changes are good, of course, but the fact is that they are moving towards a way of thinking that is eminently suited for good, science-based education. Hence their excellent technical universities and high educational standards.

It’s a different matter in strongly religiously-driven societies such as ours. Fixity and rigidity are much more ingrained, the resistance to modernity much fiercer. This directly impacts pedagogy. The teaching of religion is necessarily authoritarian because religious knowledge is final, total, and unalterable — it all comes from God up above. If this attitude remained confined to Islamiat, it wouldn’t be a problem. But one inevitable by-product is that the reverential concept of knowledge filters all the way down into science subjects and their teaching. The notion of “up above” becomes fluid and extends into textbooks and teachers, which lie almost beyond challenge.

I think that obedience to “the hand above” is paralyzing because science simply does not accept anything that lies outside of logic, mathematics, and observation. In fact, intellectual timidity critically underlies the failure of science in Islam for the last 700-800 years. This young man in my department who I referred to above is just one of the millions from General Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamized generation. They are steeped in the notion of textual authority — the Book is always right even if it is a textbook!

The scientific mindset and orthodox belief (as we have it today in Pakistan) are mutually exclusive. Take your pick, you just can’t have both. Please note that I am not extending this to science and faith in general; compromises have been worked out in different places at different times. Muslims and science got along famously for a good 400-500 years. But I am fairly certain that with present attitudes to life and knowledge, all the world’s laboratory equipment, computers, fast internet connections, and books won’t move us an inch towards genuine science. Like the Saudis, we are doomed to be mere consumers of knowledge and its myriad products. I don’t see this changing any time soon.

STEP: With the extreme scarcity of “scientifically-literate” teachers, the hiring of sub-standard faculty, like the one you mention, seems necessary and inevitable. In the present climate, how can the hiring processes at universities be reformed to prevent incompetent faculty from joining?

PH: Before hiring faculty in any university, a test to check subject basics is absolutely essential even if the applicant has a PhD. It should be a national policy that applicants at the lecturer and assistant professor level should obtain more than a prescribed number of marks in a centrally set and administered subject test of high reliability. This test should be used only in a pass/fail mode — the final selection should take into account the usual criteria (publications, performance in a trial public lecture, etc). But subject literacy should absolutely be the first criterion, not publication quantity. At the associate or full professorship, a public lecture must be made compulsory.

I am aware that implementing this is not easy. First, very few science departments have faculty who can make good tests and grade them. This means that one should rely on GRE exams, which lie beyond petty corruption but have some known disadvantages as well. Second, there will be stiff resistance from applicants to pass any kind of test. They will argue that a PhD is more than enough to qualify. They frequently invoke the “ghairat” argument, and accuse proponents of testing as “foreign agents”. However their ignorance rapidly emerges once they are challenged to answer any question outside some very narrow domain.

STEP: In the final mix, is it better to have poor faculty or no faculty at all?

PH: That’s a really tough question! A miniscule proportion of the eligible population has access to higher education, about 4%. One wants greater enrollment but clearly somewhere one has to put a lower bound on quality. So, for example, there’s no point in having a department of English if the head of department can’t speak or write a straight sentence of English. In some colleges that’s actually the case. Ditto for literacy in the sciences.

Maybe it would be helpful to have different grades of universities and colleges. So grade-I would do both teaching and research, grade-II would do only teaching. Finer differentiation could also be done. But at some point one has to simply say: no, this is worthless! Let’s not pretend that we’re offering “higher education”.

STEP: Finally, are there any trends you see in Pakistan today that offer the promise of a better tomorrow for science and education?

PH: If one looks hard, it is possible to point to some good things that are happening. First, there is increasing realization that local testing and examination standards have collapsed to the point that they have lost meaning. This is forcing us to confront reality – which is absolutely vital for reform.

An example: the HEC has made GRE subject tests mandatory for the award of a PhD degree from every public university. Of course, the passing mark is ludicrously low (40 percentile) and most students can’t make even the low grade. But their performance is steadily improving. About 15 students from my department have cleared this hurdle, and the best has scored 80 percentile. Much more importantly, our students are being confronted head-on with a hard fact: science is about problem solving and they will have to shape up if they want to play ball. The fact that they can’t cheat or cram is doing a huge amount of good.

Another positive development: there are universities that are seriously developing science faculties of high quality. The LUMS School of Science and Engineering has already taken off. Given how much effort it has put into faculty recruitment, this must be considered a flagship effort. If it succeeds — and the odds are that it will — we shall actually have a model for other efforts.

But let’s not fool ourselves. Pakistani higher education will turn around when Pakistan turns around. This can’t happen while our cities, towns, army, and police are attacked by maniacal terrorists day after day. Expatriate Pakistanis, as well as others of high academic accomplishment, are vital to the uplift of our universities and colleges. In these circumstances they do not feel safe enough to work in Pakistan.  Without winning peace, the country will just continue to stagger along.

Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy is head of the Physics Department at Quaid-e-Azam University and a prominent social activist in Pakistan.

My contention is regarding the purpose of promoting university research in Pakistan. Surely, it cannot be only to solve pressing current socio-economic problems of Pakistan. If that were so, a much better approach, in purely economic terms, would be to setup a few research centers (like the National Labs of United States or centers like KRL, NESCOM, etc.) that hire highly-qualified people to lead a few groups in identified focus areas. These groups can hire local graduate and under-graduate students for thematic research. Moreover, many of the most pressing technological issues facing Pakistan do not need cutting-edge or new research. Many of the problems with our power-, gas- and water-infrastructure have well-known solutions. Even many of the most basic military requirements can be solved locally if proper governmental policies (local business subsidies, tax-breaks, transparency) are implemented, allowing existing technologies to be developed by indigenous companies. Indeed, Pakistan already has companies with the engineering capabilities needed to solve many of our problems. As two examples, Emerging Energy System and Integrated Dynamics can provide solutions in energy and military sectors, respectively. The barriers to such solutions are political, economic, and social, and thus outside the purview of this forum. But, it would be naïve to say that academia can overcome these barriers and deliver solutions to the common-man.  

So, what then is, or should be, the purpose of fostering academic research in Pakistan? On top of building a knowledge-based economy where entrepreneurship springs from academic efforts, there are three other, equally important, reasons to foster academic research.  First, developing and retaining a pool of intellectuals and academics that can enrich any debate and social discourse within the country, and also stop or reverse brain drain. Surely, you cannot have a robust higher education system without retaining and attracting the best.  Secondly, there are pedagogical benefits to inculcating research within universities. A research-active faculty remains up-to-date in their field, benefiting the students while also developing their research skills. Even more so, qualified academics tend to have greater exposure, and a different world view, which can be refreshing for the students, enriching them both personally and socially. Finally, by doing research at the cutting edge, academia can not only identify potential future problems, but also offer solutions when the need arises. As two examples, academic research seeded the development of Atomic bomb by the US in WWII and Britain’s cipher-breaking at Bletchley Park.  

Each of these purposes of fostering research in universities has a long-term and intrinsically unquantifiable benefit. Building a robust research ecosystem should be viewed in a manner similar to a country’s defense; neither has an immediate benefit to the man on the street, yet both are essential for prosperity and progress. 

Turning now to the core ingredient necessary to build and maintain an eco-system for research in universities: recent PhDs. A higher education system is like an automobile, with the policies, universities, and funding agencies the body and engine of the car, but the human resources (academics and students) are the essential fuel that runs the automobile. The more refined the fuel, the more smooth the running. I focus on the needs of young graduates for an important reason: fresh graduates that decide to return to Pakistan align their career prospective with that of their host university and, on a larger scale, with the academic profile of the country.  

However, it appears that the policies of universities and governments are not adequately addressing the need to attract the best and brightest young graduates. HEC has one program for placement of fresh PhDs, whereby eligible PhD’s are guaranteed placement in Pakistani universities for a PKR 80,000 salary. However, this program might paradoxically promote mediocrity, as the brightest returns would anyway be guaranteed placement in the top 5-6 universities in Pakistan.

I contend that while a good salary is a must, we cannot use salary as an incentive to lure and retain our best minds. The fresh graduates wanting to return to Pakistan do so of other-than-monetary motives (patriotism, youthful idealism, family, religion, etc.). In my discussion with recently graduated friends regarding their decision to return, having teaching and research freedom are their top two concerns. The first of these is largely affected by the openness of the universities while the second is related to the policies and constraints set by funding agencies.  

Academic freedom would mean the ability to innovate within their universities in terms of course content. Allowing new experimental courses not only introduces new areas to students but also piques their interest in those areas, potentially helping the faculty in research.  Research freedom means the ability to choose a research area of their choosing, perhaps close to their PhD area of expertise, allowing the use of their skill set developed during graduate research. 

Such research freedom can only be provided if these fresh PhDs are provided with initial, no-strings-attached, funding by either their universities of employment or funding agencies. One possible option would be to offer competitive awards, similar to the NSF CAREER awards, that provide seed-funding to new and aspiring faculty without requiring local or socially relevant research. These can be offered for 3-5 years, with renewal every year after the first two based on performance. Thereafter the research agenda is set by the agencies to shepherd research, in a manner similar to that suggested in Sohaib’s article. Another approach, quite forcefully argued in a DAWN article, would be to develop endowment funds at universities that allow them to support and attract the brightest fresh PhD’s.  

Forcing young PhDs to immediately focus on locally relevant research will in fact be counter-productive. As Sohaib’s article points out quite correctly, young faculty members need confidence and experience to do publishable research that also solves local problems. Another important aspect to consider for these fresh graduates is their remoteness from Pakistan during the 5-7 years of their higher education. Their grasp of local problems will only develop over time. Time is also needed to develop rapport with local researchers to do cross-disciplinary research, typical of a socially-relevant work, that needs collaboration. In fact, any good researcher will, over a period of time, attempt to address local problems even if it requires them to step out of their comfort zones.  

To summarize, while socially-relevant research should be one of the main goals for developing research infrastructure in universities it should be developed for other, equally important, purposes: attracting and retaining the best academics, providing up-to-date course contents, and preparing for unforeseen problems. Furthermore, for the research ecosystem to flourish it requires attracting and keeping the most brilliant minds within Pakistan. For this purpose the aspirations of these academics, and especially the recently graduated and returning PhDs, needs to be taken into account. Thus, a balance needs to be maintained through seeding constraint-free research by junior research faculty, mentoring them towards research benefiting the man-on-the street as their research experience matures.

 Affan Syed is a post doctoral research associate at the Information Sciences Institute (ISI) of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. His research focus is on systems research in terrestrial and underwater sensor networks.  He received his B.S. in Electrical Engineering from National University of Science and Technology, Pakistan in 2000, and his M.S. in Electrical Engineering and PhD in Computer Science from University of Southern California in 2004, and 2009 respectively. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of STEP.

As the new breed of HEC-Funded PhD Scholars joins Pakistani universities, this is a pertinent question to ask. Producing PhDs, whether within Pakistan or abroad, is a significant investment, the cost of which is ultimately borne by the society. Can we assume that, in return, we will see tangible socio-economic benefits from their research, or should the society view the universities as ivory towers with little link to the real problems of Pakistan? After all, with 76% of population living at under $2 per day and 65% of women illiterate, can research spending on network routing protocols or multi-camera tracking algorithms be justified?

There is no doubt that research investments have brought long terms benefits for developed countries. Even research in purely theoretical sciences, such as particle physics, has brought substantial derivative benefits for nations. For the purposes of this article, however, I wish to limit the scope to applied sciences, such as engineering or computer science, disciplines which are supposed to have direct socio-economic benefits rather than just indirect ones.

Young assistant professors are primarily driven by the desire to establish their credentials. Recognition, promotion and awards depend (or should depend) primarily on the quality of their research publications. Hence, the pressure to ‘publish or perish’ can be immense at a good university. Whether these publications will tackle problems of national interest is but a minor concern for a young professor. In the absence of any proactive mechanism of encouraging ‘relevant’ research, professors will publish in areas that are most easy for them to publish in. Often, this is an extension of their PhD problems, regardless of whether those problems have any relevance to our socio-economic context or not.

In fact, one can argue that substantial engagement with Pakistan’s pressing problems may actually be discouraged in practice, perhaps unintentionally so. Molding a practical problem into something publishable at the frontiers of knowledge is not an easy task, and requires considerable skill. Most of our research-active faculty is young, and does not have access to senior research mentors; it is perhaps too much to expect from a fresh PhD to extract ‘hot’ research problems that are rooted in our socio-economic context and are publishable in the top international conferences and journals. This balance can only be learnt from experience. Young professors therefore face a dichotomy: either work on something of relevance but little publishable value, or continue to publish in the area of their PhD research at the cost of socio-economic relevance. The latter option is often the easier path with higher returns in terms of recognition.

Interestingly, professors in developed countries are not challenged by this dichotomy. For one, the mechanisms of mentorship from senior researchers are well developed. However, more importantly, their research eco-system has matured at a national level. Research agendas in applied sciences are primarily driven by funding agencies. Since winning grants is critical for getting tenure, professors are forced to align their research interests with those of the funding agencies. These agencies craft their ‘Requests for Proposals’ (RFPs) very carefully, deriving them from national priorities in the case of public-sector agencies, and commercial interests in the case of private sector donors.

In the US, in addition to funding agencies, the National Academies play an important role in aligning research agendas with national priorities. Being elected as their member is the highest professional achievement and a goal that the best researchers strive for. The National Academies advise the nation on matters of science and technology, harnessing the best minds for this purpose. Policy makers, congressmen and governmental agencies frequently solicit advice from the National Research Council, a division of the National Academies, on matters of technology and its impact on the society. Thus, the best minds in the country directly contribute to setting national priorities and technological agendas through this mechanism.

This maturity of the research eco-system ensures that young researchers are contributing towards the nation’s socio-economic development while working towards their personal career goals. Hence, in the US, if a graduate student is working on network protocols or multi-camera tracking, one can trace a direct link of that research with either the commercial interest of a company funding that research or the priority of a public sector funding agency such as DARPA or NSF. However, when this student graduates and returns to Pakistan, the same research agenda may turn out to be out-of-place in our socio-economic context.

Why then does the researcher not shift agendas to suit our context better? There are many reasons. A clear mechanism of aligning national priorities with research goals is missing due to the immaturity of the research eco-system. Availability of research grants programs, such as the NRPU or National ICT R&D Fund, is a relatively new phenomenon, and it seems that there is more money than capable researchers. Hence, restricting funding to certain areas does not make sense right now. Moreover, the pressure to publish restricts us to our comfort zones. Jumping into an unfamiliar area is difficult even for seasoned researchers. There has to be a strong incentive to do so, perhaps in terms of research funding or recognition.

Yet, any person of conscience cannot turn a blind eye the pressing problems that our nation faces. All Pakistanis, more so those who have had the privilege of studying to the highest level, must play their role in bringing the country out of its current quagmire. If the best researchers get together to study the issue of, say, non-availability of clean drinking water, I am sure that some solid output will emerge. It would not matter whether the researcher is a computer scientist or an economist or a chemical engineer – all have a role to play in solving such mega problems.

So should a researcher give up the urge to publish in top international journals in the desire to contribute to national agendas? This is a tricky question. Good quality publications are the primary credentials by which a researcher is known, similar to valor medals that a soldier so proudly displays. They sift the fluff from the serious players. A researcher will lose credibility if he or she does not have an excellent publication record. Therefore, a researcher cannot, and indeed should not, use the ‘relevance’ argument as an excuse for poor quality of publications.

Yet in my experience, once a person delves deep into a problem, be that any problem, he or she soon reaches the frontier of knowledge, where fundamental contributions are publishable. The key skill required by the researcher is to dig out the fundamental (and unsolved) problems from a practical application. The motivation may come from the practical area, say, the traffic congestion problem or the non-availability of clean water. However, the publications will come from those fundamental unsolved sub-problems which require extending the scientific frontier. Hence, with a little bit of skill and substantial mentorship, the dichotomy that I mentioned earlier may be avoided – one can have the best of both worlds. However, it is critical to have the perspective of the overarching socio-economic context of one’s research; so that we are not just creating new projects and publications, but rather developing real solutions.

One argument often put forth by university researchers is that the public sector is not mature enough to absorb or appreciate the need for research. My personal experience, on the contrary, has been quite opposite to this conventional wisdom. I have found a wide spectrum of government organizations to be extraordinarily open about discussing national problems, and appreciating the need for well-thought-out solutions. However, the key word here is ‘solutions’. Government officials dealing with mega problems on a daily basis have little patience for ‘ivory tower’ research discourse or intellectual discussions. They need real solutions, and appreciate them more than what we, the professors, normally expect from them. Once while working on a project for a defense sector organization, I asked a manager why his organization had never funded a research project in a university before. The reason is two-fold, he said. Firstly there was never a need earlier, because the public sector itself used to be an attractive employer and always managed to hire the best talent; but more so, because, in his opinion, the universities had never demonstrated any substantial skill that would enable him to develop better solutions.

I would like to conclude with some practical recommendations for policy makers to encourage relevant research:

• Funding Agencies: It is critical for funding agencies to be cognizant of the needs of country, and to mold their RFPs and review processes to be aligned with our national priorities. They should involve major national stakeholders, including senior researchers and policy makers, into developing the RFPs. It is not uncommon to find senior researchers employed at NSF and DARPA as consultants: It is largely their vision that shapes the RFPs and hence guides the researchers in that area.
• Mentorship: Vice-chancellors, Deans and senior faculty members should appreciate the importance of mentoring younger faculty towards projects that fit well in Pakistan’s socio-economic context.
• Proactive Outreach: Universities must develop the capacity to interface with the field-players: government departments, NGOs, citizen groups and policy makers, so that their research gets channeled in appropriate directions. One example of such a policy is encouraging faculty to use their sabbatical leaves to work in Pakistan’s public or private sector, to develop strong linkages. (Universities which do not have a sabbatical leave policy should institute one for research active faculty).
• Encouraging Multi-disciplinary Research Teams: Complex real-world problems are inherently multidimensional, and real solutions rarely require just a single type of expertise. Multi-disciplinary research teams that bridge the gap between engineers and social scientists, computing professionals and economists must be encouraged by universities.
• Recognition: A system of rewards, based on the impact of research, should be instituted by universities as well as by professional bodies such as the IEEE Chapters or the Higher Education Commission. The practical impact of research should be taken into account during promotion decisions.

So when will the man on the street start to benefit from research in computer science or engineering? Researchers of applied sciences should view this question as a challenge – and start thinking about creating solutions for the tough problems that our country faces.  The ball is in our court, so to say. Rather than the mindset of creating newer projects and better publications around our field of specialization, we should start thinking about creating solutions that work in our socio-economic context. After all, PhD can be viewed as training to tackle tough problems, not only the ones that fit just right in our comfort zones, but even those that challenge and stretch us in unexpected directions.

STEP: Till now, mostly you were funding projects in the academia. Would you be looking at funding projects that are directly initiated by the industry?

QS: We are supposed to fund projects submitted by the industry. Our proposal can be initiated by even an individual. But, being an entity that funds public money, the longevity of the institution to which we are giving money is very important to us. An individual can take the money (from us), work for a little while, and then disappear. What do we do then? Universities don’t disappear. They can provide longevity and credibility to the project. And, it is not (just) longevity for the length of that project but even after that.

We don’t fund projects just for the sake of those projects. We fund projects to create an eco-system as well. You don’t plant a seed on a land that may be abandoned or may  be sold for building a commercial building and the tree will be cut down even before it has a chance to get 5 feet high.  So, when industry comes to us, we say, it may be better for you if you come through a university channel.

That’s not a (strict) condition, however. We have also funded industry proposals directly. Actually, we very clearly say that we are a pre-angel fund. We fund creation of technology. But, we are finding out that the challenge of monitoring them can at times become difficult. A lot of these companies start to take this funding as work-for-contract. They say, ‘oh, you asked us to do these things and we’ve done these things, end of story and we’re done’. When you are trying to create an eco-system, and you’re not even asking for any money back, you want the sort of vision where the entity that gets the money runs with the ball. It doesn’t matter whether it was a 100m dash or a marathon; if you have gas, just keep going.

STEP: You talked about longevity and stability but, in a sense, innovation is counter to that. Fostering innovation may mean saying, ‘okay, here’s a smart guy, he has a really smart idea, let me give him some money to go build something’.

QS: We do exactly that. We just say, please park in a university so that there is some stability. You know, smart guys can be very fickle too. [Laughter] If the smart guy walks out, we get totally stuck. If we were VCs, and it was private money, we could say, okay, we were going to lose ninety percent of the projects anyway. This is one of the ninety percent. Ten percent will take us forward. But, with the public funding and government level accountability, we can be taken to task for funding such projects.

Whereas, if the money goes to a university, and a professor is involved, then if nothing else the professor becomes the archive. If the smart guy moves on to the next smart idea, some student or another entrepreneur could come and take the idea and developed IP forward.

STEP: So, what’s the motivation for industry then to get professors up to speed?

QS: One of the ways I motivate industry to partner with the academia is that I give them the argument that suppose you get  Rs. 15-20 million from us and suppose the solution that you create is a hit, and suddenly your product is bought by General Electric or Microsoft or some consulting company. Now, the buyer says, we want to take your  company to a 300-people development centre. Where are you going to get 300 people from? The idea is that, if an entrepreneur hosts his project in a university and gets a professor and a few students involved, he may not get 300 students by the time the project is completed but at least you would have sown the seed in the university and you will be two years ahead in creating this pipeline. So, a very big positive effect for the industry here is that the human resource developed by universities is in line with industry’s requirements.

STEP: Shouldn’t we make a technology park or an incubator with every university?

QS: That’s exactly what we’re doing. The only difference is that we believe that building a building is not necessary. In several cases, the incubation center of the university is about 3 miles away in a rented house. If the university has space, we compensate the university with rent. If the university does not have space, then the industry-academia joint project rents an office and we pay for electricity, air-conditioning, etc.

STEP: Do you think that the industry that is generating this revenue, which is the telecom industry, has a right to demand back some return for this money? Or, do you think those are two decoupled things?

QS: I think they gain a lot by wealth generation and improvement of standards in the country. If the improvement is more suitable to their goals, it’s even better.  So, as any entity we have to pay attention to our financier. Some of the thematic areas for research and development, for example, the center of excellence for telecom operations, are of interest to the telecom industry. There is also a significant probability that education through ICT will light up their network as a lot of that activity may have to happen through mobile phones.

STEP: The Fund’s vision states that you want to create a knowledge-based economy. Historically, economies have evolved from agriculture-based to post industrial-revolution industrial economies, and then recently to knowledge-based economies. In a sense, we are still largely an agricultural economy. Does it make sense to jump directly from an agricultural economy to a knowledge-based economy?

QS: I think there’s significant leap-frogging that’s happening today, for example, our land line connections are 4 million, and our mobile connections are 60, 70, 90 million depending upon what interpretation you go after. Like I talked about before, one of the key things that I really want to push for is to come up with scalable and sustainable solutions for delivering high quality education by using ICT technologies. That you can do without having to go through the industrial age.

Actually, I think a significant amount of technology management models have to be re-thought. I am not an expert on it, but when I hear statements from people who say that they are experts on technology management and technology transfer, and they go through traditional models, I tell them that tradition has been thrown out by telecommunications.

STEP: When you fund research, who owns the intellectual property (IP) that is produced?

QS: We own the IP. The Fund owns the IP. But, the grantee has an irrevocable and perpetual license to commercialize, further develop, sell, and productize the intellectual property. The only thing is that this license is non-exclusive; that is, the grantee cannot stop another party from using the developed technology. If somebody else wants this technology, we have to give it. But, realistically, our goal is to generate wealth in Pakistan. So, if you have taken the technology forward and created a significant company leveraging the developed technology, we are not going to — at least as long as I am the CEO — actively look for people who can use this software and bring you down. After all, we helped create your organization.

Future of the Fund

STEP: Do you think that the Fund is under some sort of risk or pressure to spend? And, if yes, where does the pressure come from?

QS: Oh yeah, we are very much under the pressure that we are not funding enough. This pressure comes from very well-meaning political managers, and I really mean well-meaning. A bureaucrat at a certain level stops looking at the process we are following and starts looking at key parameters from his macro view. And one of those parameters is the amount of funding that we are being able to disburse while satisfying the quality constraints. Similarly, from (the viewpoint of) political management a key parameter is the impact that we are creating.

STEP: So, is there a chance that the Fund might lose some of its funding and the money channeled somewhere else?

QS: Could be. But, I don’t think that’ll be a good thing to do because, if we were allowed to build buildings and buy equipment for a university, we could spend a billion rupees in six months. We could spend four billion rupees in 6 months.

STEP: What about some of the other directions that the Fund is taking? I know the Fund also has a scholarship program.

QS: Yes, we are funding 4-year scholarships for deserving students of rural area public schools. At this point, there are over a 1000 students in the program who are going through FAST, NUST, GIKI, COMSATS, IIU, and other universities. The students who entered the system in 2006 are becoming seniors now, and at least at FAST, since the first batch was only at FAST, they are at the top of the class.

STEP: What are some of the success stories of the Fund?

QS: One of the success stories that I am really proud of is the open-source software engineering course developed by Dr. Fakhur Lodhi at FAST-NU Lahore. In this course, the instructors select an open-source software, and the students become part of its support network. They have to either add a feature or fix a bug that the entire open-source community linked to that software has to accept.

The course has been a real success, so much so that this year a team from FAST got accepted at Google’s Summer of Code program (which is very competitive). Next year, their goal is that every kid who goes through this course to be accepted at Google.

Then there’s a project at FAST-NU Islamabad where they are working with lady health workers and they have developed the whole interface for neo-natal care. That has actually led to a briefcase-sized device which has equipment to measure temperature and blood-pressure, etc. This device has become so popular that a company that does work for UN and USAID throughout Africa and Asia wants to buy it.

Then, there’s HL7, Health Level 7. It is a standard for transferring medical data between applications. Its latest generation, which is probably version 3, is being developed at NUST in open source and already a lab in Pakistan has adopted it where they are using it to transfer data between their centers in Lahore, Islamabad, and Karachi.

STEP: Are you hoping to get the Pakistani diaspora involved with the Fund?

Yes, absolutely. But a problem that I have at times with the diaspora is that they say ‘I make $150,000 a year, so if I give you my time will you give me a percentage of my salary?’

I go as far as saying, look we will get you a solution developed, and you build a Google on top of it and become a billionaire. We would not ask for a single penny back. But, for now, if you spend time in Pakistan, may be, we can compensate your time in Pakistan at a Pakistani level (but not beyond that).

STEP: Well, we hope that there’s enough good will for people to contribute voluntarily, be it as program managers or reviewers or mentors. Of course, they cannot be compensated based on their US salaries.  Thank you for your time. We hope that our readers will find this conversation just as interesting as we did.

QS: Thank you, for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts.

STEP Editors: Let’s start with the history of the Fund, if you can tell us a little bit about it. We understand that it was in a dormant state before it was revitalized.

Dr. Qasim Shaikh, CEO, National ICT R&D Fund:

Yes, it was in a dormant state but, as I tell my team, I don’t think that we are the opening batsmen of this team.  Actually, the Fund was created when PTCL was the only telecom operator (in the country). I think, and somebody has to correct me, that the key person who pushed (that) some of the PCTL’s earnings should go into research and development in Pakistan, like Bell Labs at ATT, was Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman. Then the Deregulation Act was passed and in the Deregulation Act it was mandatory that every telecom operator will have to contribute 0.5% of their revenue to the Fund. That included internet service providers as well, not just the large service providers. Since there were more contributors to the Fund than just PTCL, it didn’t make sense for it to stay within PTCL. So, it was taken out of PTCL and created as National ICT R&D Fund.

It’s true that under PTCL it was difficult to provide funding and it was in a dormant state but a lot of credit has to go to the top political and bureaucratic management of Ministry of Science and Technology that created this PTCL R&D Fund. Awais Laghari, who was the minister of MoIT, was very instrumental in pushing this National ICT R&D Fund.  So that’s how I was introduced to the Fund. When I saw the earlier vision proposed for the Fund, it was like few lines of ‘create alternative source of energy, etcetera’. I was very fortunate to get an opportunity to give my thoughts towards the vision and about a year later, I was lucky and very privileged to be appointed at the CEO’s position.  Since then, we’ve been trying to push things and have done a few things right and a lot of things wrong (laughter).

STEP: Our understanding is that no other industry has an equivalent fund.

QS: Actually, I found out that it’s not true; for example, the healthcare industry has a similar fund to which all pharmaceutical companies contribute.

STEP: Is it true that the Fund generates a billion rupees a year?

QS: Yes, about a billion rupees a year.

STEP: Are we able to spend that effectively?

QS: We have about 2.5 to 3 billion rupees in our bank. We try to distribute it with corporate efficiency but at the end of the day, the requirements of transparency and the requirements of accountability that must be there, since we distribute public money, are slowing things down. That’s one factor.  Second factor that’s slowing things down is that it is taking us time to create the capacity for research and development in the country. These two factors are extremely important and they are the key bottlenecks we have right now.

I think that transparency and fairness must be maintained even if takes us a little time to disburse funds made available to us by Telecom operators. As far as the capacity is concerned we are trying to build an ICT eco-system that does innovation-centric R&D. This is really a paradigm shift for our ICT research community. Publishing papers should be a result of solving important problems. Publishing papers regardless of the impact of that research in solving real industrial problems is not the key thing that our Fund supports. We’re happy that papers are published and publishing papers is an indicator of quality of work, but our objective is innovation-centric research and development.

On Vision of the Fund

STEP: But, building an eco-system to do innovation-centric R&D from scratch is a very difficult objective to achieve, isn’t it?

QS: You are very right, we did not really have a research and development eco-system within the country and we have made it even more difficult by saying, do innovation-centric R&D. So, we were behind to start with and we’ve put our goals even further.

(The way we address this problem is that) we force people who submit proposals to us to not just think about the problem that they are trying to solve, but also the value-chain that they are after, the key bottlenecks in the value-chain, and the state of the art in removing the bottlenecks in the value-chain. The value-chain does not have to be 100% within Pakistan. So, for example, if you can create employment opportunities in Pakistan by solving an IT problem of the West or Africa or Australia; that’s significant activity as far as we understand.

STEP: This value-chain, does it have to be in terms of benefit to the industry or to the people of Pakistan?

QS: It has to be of the benefit of the people of Pakistan. Typically, it goes through industry. Typically, you deliver solutions through industry. But, then, you deliver solutions through academia as well. Some of our most successful projects are in removing bottlenecks in our education. For example, we’ve had two significant bottlenecks in our IT education. One is the lack of mentors for the final year projects. LUMS is very fortunate that it has significant faculty and it has a significantly good ratio of faculty versus students. But that’s not true at all universities in Pakistan. Final year projects are a very important component of our education system, and in a large number of universities students literally have to knock from door to door and beg companies for final year projects. And, typically, they’ll get a project to develop a database for the company.

The second bottleneck was teaching software engineering. How do you teach software engineering principles to a student who has never written more than a thousand lines of code and those too not in a project? These were two very significant bottlenecks (in our IT education that we are working to remove).

STEP: This is a very interesting thought but, the vision of your Fund highlights research and development. Would you like to say something about the scope of the Fund because what you have described above sounds very different from the Fund’s vision?

QS: Actually, I think that in the Third World, the term ‘R&D’ should be called D, R&D. The first ‘D’ is also for development. R&D at Stanford, Berkley, Caltec and MIT shines because there are a few hundred thousand engineers around these universities who are involved in development and are implementing the state of the art. It is, therefore, possible for this large number of highly qualified engineers to provide problems to professors who can then do just ‘R’ and extend state of the art. But, in Pakistan’s context, our universities do not have the industry support system that US universities have. Therefore, we really have to do ‘D’ in parallel so that R&D (can be done) in Pakistan.

STEP: Since we are in the process of building a research eco-system right now, do you think it would be easier to have focused solicitations of proposals as opposed to generic solicitations where the need and value of the research is already taken care of by some member of either the industry or the agency which requires that?

QS: I think that’s a very valid question. And, the Fund’s operational manuals and guidelines mandate that. The important thing is that this is such a new organization within the context of Pakistan that we have to first find out the lay of the land. So, basically, in last two years or so, what we have done is that we have funded unsolicited proposals. Through those proposals, we have realized roughly six areas in which we have manpower and some semblance of an eco-system in Pakistan.  My favorite phrase is that we’re not going to play ice-hockey in Pakistan; we’re going to play field hockey in Pakistan. So, we had to first find out what specialized R&D our eco-system can support.  Now we’re in a position to push a few thematic areas.

STEP: What are these thematic areas?

QS: One of the key areas that I want to push is telecom operations. I’m specifically saying telecom operations because I don’t think we should go after telecom equipment at this point; we should go after telecom operations. People get emotional about this issue for various justifiable reasons but just take the example of the airline industry. There’s Boeing and Airbus that design and manufacture large jet planes and a few companies in South Africa, Brazil and Europe that make propeller-based planes, and the rest of the industry is dominated by airlines. Fortunately, Pakistan has an amazing combination of companies for telecom operations in Pakistan. The largest telecom operator in the world, Mobile China, has operations in Pakistan. One of the oldest telecom companies in the world, Telenor has a large network in Pakistan. Other important companies such as Singtel, Eitesalat also have operations in Pakistan.   So, we have a very interesting eco-system and we’re at a stage where these significant Telecom companies are in a position to give direction to state of the art R&D in telecom operations and design of new services.

The second (key area) is developing and scaling sustainable solutions to deliver international quality education by leveraging information communication technologies. This is so important that if we do not go in this direction, we do not have an iota of a chance to solve Pakistan’s problems.

STEP: You are talking about things like MIT’s Open CourseWare?

QS: No, way beyond that. In my mind, if I could wish one thing for Pakistan’s education system it would be that every child who goes to school in Pakistan is given meaningful class work and home work that is properly graded, evaluated, and the student is provided nurturing feedback. This is something that is not happening at Pakistan’s best public and private schools and it is probably not happening in Pakistan’s premier private IT University where I am sitting right now.

The type of load that our faculty has, it is not possible for them to provide feedback to each student in the class. So, one of the things that I want to push for is e-evaluation and e-feedback. In a year or so, we are going to create a Facebook-type application where students create solutions to different problems, there’s a pyramid of experts who check these solutions and, like Wikipedia, (what is incorrect) is thrown out. The question I have not answered yet is: who is going to pay for it?

STEP: The Fund perhaps?

QS: No, no. The scale is so big that the Fund cannot do it alone. It is, literally, a multi-billion dollar investment. But, I’m going to get it done either in this position or as a member of Pakistan’s ICT eco system.

STEP: Any other areas?

QS: We are finding some very interesting traction in health care. So, for example, working with Dr Faisal Sultan of Shaukat Khanam Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, we came up with a very interesting idea where we can create something between a lady health worker and the district hospital. We are thinking of an IT system which has a lady health worker at one end and a physician or a trained biochemistry graduate, who has an expert system at his disposal, at the other end.

The other things that we’re very interested in are inexpensive solutions for medical imaging. If you look at medical imaging, there is an analog front end which does analog to digital conversion. This (frontend) is very expensive and we cannot develop it in Pakistan yet. So, we buy these components. But, once the information is digitized, it’s all yours to process using novel algorithms and software and send it back to user interfaces. So, at least we can do the processing and algorithmic part ourselves. We want to move in that direction.

And finally, network security is also very important for us.

STEP: Would there be a time when you would want a national level debate on what are our IT priorities?

QS: Sure! But, I don’t think this is the right time.

STEP: Because the Fund is at a very nascent stage?

QS: Nascent and because, at this point, we have Rs 1.8 billion worth of proposals in the pipeline. We will still have money left if we blindly funded all of them.

STEP: How much of the choice of these areas is your personal influence and how much of it is driven by input from others?

QS: I really wanted it to be a national-level decision. But, I have also realized that you cannot expect everything to be a national-level decision because then it takes forever to decide and no progress is made. So, I am going to push these three or four areas that I just mentioned. For these areas, very significant Request for Proposals (RFPs) will be developed, they will be advertised, proposals will be solicited, evaluation criteria will be published, and it will be a very transparent process. The only thing that will not be transparent will be selection of these areas. But, once these R&D themes get established, then we are going to select more (thematic areas).  By then, stakeholders will start to realize that the National ICT R&D Fund is creating a significant positive impact .and they will seriously start to submit ideas.

STEP: As a researcher, I have a choice to write a proposal for HEC or for you. How do you see the scope of research that you fund being different from what HEC funds?

QS: I think that the key difference between us and the HEC is that the HEC has a huge mandate. They fund from philosophy to horticulture to IT to nanotechnology. Their mandate for supporting R&D is very broad. It is not fair to expect that HEC will look at any one of these segments in depth and try to create a detailed ecosystem that we try to create. Whereas since we are focused only on ICT we are able to look at it in-depth. There’s a negative side as well to this focused approach. It is very difficult for us to fund multi-disciplinary proposals. We are trying to develop a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the HEC where for example if there is a proposal in biotechnology then biotechnology part is funded by HEC, and we fund the ICT part. We are moving towards that but it is taking us time.

STEP: That brings me to another point that I wanted to ask you. Information Technology (IT) can be defined in a very broad way because it is serves a lot of different industries. What is your definition of IT?

QS: Actually, that’s a very tough challenge for all of us. And, finally, I have come up with a very silly example, which is this: if somebody writes the best paper in philosophy using Microsoft Word, should we fund it? Or, if somebody is designing the most eco-friendly building using AutoCAD, should we fund it? No, we can’t. But, if you want to improve AutoCAD to develop a building, then we can fund it. We can also fund chip design, because chip design is a very significant part of ICT.

On the Proposal Evaluation Process

STEP: Changing directions a bit, can you walk us through the grant approval process?

QS: In the formal process, we first do an internal evaluation. We have employees who are educated in science and technology but we cannot be expected to employ experts of every field in our organization. In my mind an important role of internal evaluation is to make sure that the proposal is at a level where by sending it to the external evaluator, we do not waste external evaluator’s time. In my mind, that’s the idea of internal evaluation.

(Once a proposal is approved by the internal evaluators) then, we send it to external evaluators. The pool of external evaluators, which is approved by the board, has experts from within Pakistan as well as foreign experts.

STEP: Does the pool of evaluators include Pakistani diaspora?

QS: Actually, we are very interested in getting the diaspora involved because the benefits are mutual. They send their ideas as external evaluators and they also get to realize depth, breadth and quality of ecosystem that is being created in Pakistan. When they read the proposal they realize the quality of work being done in Pakistan. So we are using them as well.

STEP: What about the standard (of proposals that are funded)?

QS: I’m very happy that you asked this question. We need your help in that because the number one challenge for us right now is to figure out what is the standard at which you accept a proposal for funding — at semantic level, not at syntactic level. At syntax level our approval process looks beautiful, but we still haven’t answered some fundamental questions: what is the standard at which we say that the proposal is acceptable? Is the high jump bar set at 2 feet, 5, feet, 7 feet, or 9 feet? So, where to set the bar? Who sets this bar? What is the process for setting this bar? Once these standards are set, what is the process for disseminating this information to stakeholders? And, finally, how do we get their feedback?

For sure, our standards at this point cannot be the standards of US, EU, or Japan. And, I’m pretty sure that our standards today are better than standards in Nigeria and Ghana. But where are they? And, where should they be?

STEP: But, in peer review process, isn’t the bar set by the peers? So, as the quality of the peers improves, the bar continues to go up.

QS: Well, that’s happening but, since we are at a very initial stage of creating an ecosystem, we really need a nurturing mental framework. So, actually, I have started developing a document describing what we want to see in a proposal at a very high level. I am going to distribute it to the stake holders, informally. I am not going to make it a formal process otherwise we’ll never get anywhere. I am going to wait for two weeks. The suggestions that come back will be very welcome. If they don’t come back, I’m going to use the CEO’s stick and I’m going to say, this is it.

First I’m going to do it at a very high level, and iteratively refine its granularity until we have a check-list. Then, I am going to give legal teeth to this checklist by first getting it recommended by our proposal appraisal committee and then getting it approved by the board. However, no checklist of this type can be expected to be static. So, I am going to create a mechanism for improving or modifying this checklist and that mechanism will get approved by the board as well. I am not sure 100% what this mechanism would be, but possibly a proposal evaluator can add another parameter and a certain authority within the organization can look at it and decide whether adding this parameter to the existing checklist makes sense. If the parameter is added to the checklist, it will then be advertised on our website.

In part two, we talk with Dr. Qasim Sheikh about the role of industry-academia partnerships in creating a knowledge-based economy and the future of the National ICT R&D Fund.

To seed this discussion, we present commentary from Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy and Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman. Dr. Hoodbhoy presents his opposing point of view, arguing that the measures presented in the article were inadequate, and further that the conclusions drawn from the metrics were flawed. Dr. Atta-ur-Rehman, founding (and former) chairman of the HEC, who led the higher education reform effort during his tenure, responds by pointing to data that, in his view, shows the depth and breadth of the reform’s success.

We invite our readers to contribute their thoughts on what metrics are appropriate for measuring the success of higher education within the context of Pakistan.

NOTE: Both commentators have significantly shaped the landscape of Pakistani education over the last few decades. We request our discussants to avoid personalizing the discussion and to maintain a civil and constructive tone.

SYNOPSIS (We will continue to compile the synopsis of the discussion as it progresses: Last Update 8:02am EDT, September 22nd, 2009.)

The metrics suggested, thus far:

1. QUALITY OF RESEARCH (Editors, Zeeshan Khan): Citation and variants on their measures like the h-index, are standard measures of research quality on an individual, institutional, and national level. Number of patents is another measure, though .
2. QUANTITY OF RESEARCH (Atta-ur-Rahman): This measures gross research activity.
3. QUALITY OF TEACHING (Pervez Hoodbhoy): Metric?
4. QUALITY OF UNIVERSITY GRADUATES (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Fakhruddin Habiby): Surveying employers or assessing performance in international tests.
5. ACADEMIC FREEDOM (Pervez Hoodbhoy): Metric?
6. ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY FACILITIES (Atta-ur-Rahman, Khurram Shafique): Libraries, laboratories, internet connectivity, communication facilities, sports facilities,
7. EVALUATION BY NEUTRAL EXPERTS (Atta-ur-Rahman): Survey of a group of neutral experts, like the World Bank, USAID, etc.
8. UNIVERSITY ENROLLMENT (Atta-ur-Rahman): The increase in university-going adults can be measured by census.
9. UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY LINKAGE (Fakhruddin Habiby, Anwar): The number of industry supported projects which were initiated with University-Industry partnerships and their effectiveness based on industry feedback.
10. LOCAL RELEVANCE OF RESEARCH (Editors): Metric?
11. QUALITY OF CURRENT STUDENTS (Pervez Hoodbhoy, Khurram Shafique):  Performance in standardized tests conducted every year, performance in local and international competitions such as Mathematics Olympiads and Programming Contests.

Notes:

(Pervez Hoodbhoy) Self-citations are a serious problem when using citations as a metric for measuring quality of research reform. [paraphrased]

(Abdullah Sadiq) While strengthening the research effort in the universities is important, the most urgent need is to concentrate on producing quality teachers for the lower tears of education. [paraphrased]

(Khurram Shafique) A pedestrian publication in the field of networking or multimedia is likely to receive more citations than a good publication in a less explored field in mathematics, say, non-standard analysis.

(Fakhruddin Habiby) another ‘tool’ that is used to push the citation number higher is formation of ‘citation-coalition’ within research groups.

(Omar Javed) Categorization of universities into subsets, and adoption of relevant performance criteria for each subset. Three fundamental questions: what is taught (Undergraduate and Graduate Instructional Program classifications), who are the students (Enrollment Profile and Undergraduate Profile), and what is the setting (Size & Setting)”

(Shafiqur Rehman) …the success or falure or HE reforms must only be judged by opinion of the common stake-holders (students, teachers and administration) of the public sector universities.

(Affan): we need to tweak ratings/rankings such that we are able to measure any progress happening in Pakistan, progress small enough that it is not lost by existing metrics.