Deregulating higher education

Freddy K. Kalidjernih ,  Jakarta   |  Thu, 08/07/2008 10:09 AM  |  Opinion

Deregulation in Indonesian higher education with the establishment of state universities as State-owned legal entities (BHMN), in which funding policy is based on merit and achievements, has impacted significantly on the role of Indonesian scholars.

New teaching and research funding, coupled with regime change and social trends in democratic transition, have turned Indonesian intellectuals, who once believed they were "independent professionals", into "managed professionals" -- leading to new tensions and some alienation.

First, there are a growing number of ideologues who tend to advocate preservation of state power. These prescriptive scholars tend to defend Indonesian governmental decisions at all costs, often making statements that stir up public opinion. Heated debates on the pros and cons of the recent rise in fuel prices are a case in point.

Under the new regulatory framework, in which academics are expected to be more entrepreneurial, many whose sources of funding are largely from government or institutions backed by political elites tend not to criticize their "masters" because this may mean risks to the continuation of grant funding.

Others are forced to moonlight as consultants, hence they will tend to follow market-oriented policies. The aims, topics and designs of policy studies, for example, are often determined by funding agencies. This tends to reduce the academic independence of scholars. Government funding encourages academics to be conformist, rather than critical of government policy.

With the possibility of moonlighting in political parties and research institutes that back certain political figures, scholars who once could focus research on any topic of their interest and expertise, now have less opportunity to obtain research grants on the subject of their choice. They are not as free as in the past to determine their research topics.

This creates a generation of scholars who are dominated by a paradigm that legitimates the policies of government and institutions involved in the policy-making process, rather than preserving a tradition of academic independence. These activities tend to undermine the professionalism of scholars. The emphasis on certain aspects of political, historical, economic and social knowledge has outweighed the importance and significance of their intellectual contribution.

Second, deregulation has opened up opportunities for people without sufficient formal training and qualifications to assume the functions traditionally associated with university intellectuals in the mediation of culture and politics.

They moonlight as academics in a narrow sense, often writing about subjects beyond their expertise. They operate on the basis of their own notions and get a perverse satisfaction from speaking, writing on and repackaging ideas on certain issues. In many respects they do not share the conventional wisdom or values of traditional intellectuals.

Third, the new modus operandi confirms an already sharp differentiation between interests and social class or rank. The diverse typology of universities (state-private, big-small, international-local), for instance, spurs a "politics of envy". Such behavior tends to bring tensions to collegial relations among academic professionals and universities. The increased competition for research funds and prestige tends to undermine formal professional associations and informal networks.

Fourth, many scholars who are supposed to teach at universities now devote much of their time outside university life (e.g. to research and consultancy). Their universities thus have to employ less experienced lecturers to replace them because they are cheaper and more flexible.

Since these substitute staff are less protected in the university's collective bargaining systems, they are often poorly integrated into university programs. As a workforce component their quality may be put in question.

The foregoing negative effects of deregulation in higher education demonstrate how the Indonesian government's hopes to boost academic staff to become better lecturers and researchers seem to have led to the alienation of many scholars.

This has happened because there is lack of participative discourse in university management style, that might otherwise have helped change the collegial model that now dominates Indonesian academic life.

The writer is a member of teaching staff at the postgraduate program, Department of Communication, school of political and social sciences, University of Indonesia. He can be reached at kalidjernih@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.