From last week, I thought I would be spending this week to prepare for some research ideas to bring over to Turin. Instead, I spent much of this week, planning and defending our research institute in mathematical sciences. Got myself involved in discussions that are very volatile - once something is agreed upon, such decision will probably change in the next few hours. All of these are related to the fact the whole university is embarking on a huge transformation programme. Why is this happening, I am not particularly clear, though the word that seems to go around is essentially cost-saving and effective use of human resource. However, I am puzzled why measures for cost-saving and effective human resource cannot be done without making huge changes to the academic structure. When people argue that one needs to be adaptable to the changing times, there are usually assumptions underlying them. One should pose questions on what are the things changing and what are the things need to be adapted? Another argument that is always put forward to me in recent times as a justification for change is that people prefer the status quo but again what are the assumptions? I certainly do not want status quo if it means the lackadaisical environment that we had about twenty to thirty years ago - in fact, then I was screaming for change. But what is the situation now, we have in some way, improve researchwise and academically (comparing to the old times) over the years incrementally (of course it is not perfect). Disturbing the (academic) structure in such huge way, will put us in a far-from-equilibrium situation (in physics language) and if uncontrollable, it may end up in an undesirable state. Even if it is under control, it may take time for the system to relax back into a new equilibrium state. Take for instance the Putra Global 200 (PG200) aspiration which is only a year away. With the huge changes under way, this will put PG200 achievement at a great risk. Of course, I'm looking at this externally; maybe there are things that I do not know.
Going back to the institute, I can safely say that the institute has contributed substantially to the research ecosystem of mathematical sciences and I have facts and figures to support this. Somehow this is ignored and we are criticised for other aspects instead. We are ready to address these criticisms given the opportunity. In fact the last week or so, we have been brainstorming on some changes that we could do (and some of these even surprised me). We were then told that we could come up with many new ideas but this comes with uncertainties and risks, perhaps doubting that we could do it. I could have retorted that the huge imminent change brings even greater uncertainties and risks. Let us suppose that we do want to minimise the 'risk' and that the institute needs to change in the specified way that they wished for. Then I would say, whatever criteria and conditions that they use on our institute, should equally apply to others. Unfortunately I don't think it is so. We have been cherry-picked and that there was a campaign against us from the beginning. So it all boils down to politics. I have no wish to be involved in such politics. As far as I am concerned, we have been doing the job as we were asked to do without interfering others. It is very disappointing to see such politics in the academia and I prefer not to be in such environment. I hope those involved will be equally responsible when such political-play goes south as much as they had pushed for the situation.
To my colleagues in the institute, thanks for all the support you have given me and all the best in your future undertakings. For now I prefer to concentrate on the science.
No comments:
Post a Comment