STEP – Science, Technology, and Education in Pakistan

What benefit does research being done in Pakistani universities bring to the man on the street?

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.