proceedings of 1st hec international social science conference

PrefaceOn behalf of the Higher Education Commissions Committee for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan (CDSSHP), several representatives from civil society, senior staff of HEC Islamabad and University of Gujrat, I am pleased to share with you detailed report of the 1st HEC International Conference on Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities: Prospects and Challenges, held in Islamabad from 16-18 April 2012. The Conference was attended by about 150 participants from all major public and private sector Pakistani universities, besides one dozen foreign delegates some of whom were already based in the country. The participants represented not only all the geographical regions and provinces of the country, but also all major disciplines of the social sciences: economy, sociology, political science, psychology, international relations and media. More important, the level of the participants varied from that of vice chancellors to young faculty members and PhD scholars in the social sciences. This imparted a unique flavour to the Conference, which was much needed in terms of its agenda and goal: identifying interdisciplinary social science research priorities for Pakistan through a fine balance of time-tested and fresh perspectives. The proceedings of the Conference shared through this report amply reflect multiple views on a number of challenges facing Pakistan. An open discussion on the most controversial issues was what we had strived for and that is exactly what we were able to achieve. This discussion led to some very concrete and workable recommendations put forth by the five parallel working groups and endorsed by the plenary. The research priorities identified by the Conference are in no way the final word. They are, at best, the beginning of a long discussion. The Conference has rightly recommended that professional associations should hold annual conferences in social science disciplines to refine and take forward this agenda, This report attempts at comprehensively capturing the discussion and recommendations of the Conference. We believe that this is an agenda for the future and anyone wishing to take it forward needs to have a complete picture. All the presentations made during the seven plenary sessions have been included, as are the remarks by the chair, discussions, questions and answers. The discussion held in the working groups and their recommendations have also been included. Moreover, all the presentations made during the working groups and academic papers shared with their members have been included in the appendices for the benefit of the discerning readers. Taking this opportunity, I want to thank all those whose input made it possible to successfully organize this Conference. I will start with HEC Chairman, Dr. Javaid R. Laghari and Executive Director Dr. Sohail H. Naqvi, who were gracious enough to support not only this Conference but also the idea of making it an annual feature. Members of the CDSSHP deserve a special mention for their continued support and cooperation.

The organization of the Conference was made possible due to the financial support extended by the HEC, UNFPA, CCE, NUST and NTS. Besides these, nine public and private sector universities Agricultural University Peshawar, Peshawar, Beaconhouse National University, Lahore, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat, National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Sukkur Institute of Business Adminstration, Sukkur, University of Swat, Saidu Sharif, University of Gujrat, Gujrat, University of Karachi, Karachi contributed Rs. 100,000 each to the Conference. I take this opportunity to thank all of these. I also thank the consultants, Dr. James C. Witte, Director, Center for Social Science Research, George Mason University, USA, Dr. Grace C. Clark, Professor, Department of Sociology, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Dr. Anita M. Weiss, Head, Department of International Studies, University of Oregon, USA and fellow members Dr. Nasser Ali Khan, Director, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Dr. Rasul Bux Rais, Professor, School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Dr. Mehtab S. Karim, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Affiliated Professor, School of Public Health, George Mason University, USA, Dr. Syed Jaffar Ahmed, Director, Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi, Karachi, Dr. Yasmin N. Farooqi, Professor, Department of Applied Psychology, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Mr. Fida Hussain, Director General (Quality Assurance Cell), Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Mr. Muhammad Anees Sadozai, Director General (Services), Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Syed Wasim S. Hashmi, Project Director, FFHP-UESTP-Faculty Development Program, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Mr. Sulaiman Ahmad, Deputy Director (Academics), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Pakistan, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Mr. Muhammad Murtaza Noor, Project Manager, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Pakistan, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad of the Conference Organizing Committee. It would indeed be unjust not to mention CDSSHP Chairperson Dr. Nasser Ali Khan. To me, the successful organization of the Conference owes to his self-belief more than anything else. Let me also thank the Conference Secretariat staff Dr. Fauzia Maqsood, Associate Director, Faculty of Social Sciences, Mr. Javed Sajjad Ahmad, Senior Consultant, Sheikh Abdul Rashid, Additional Registrar, Press, Media and Publications, Ms. Tanzila Qamar Gill, Deputy Registrar, Ms. Sidra Maqsood, Lecturer, Department of Sociology, Mr. Faisal Iqbal, Personal Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor, Mr. Muhamad Faisal, Accounts Officer, Mr. Hassan Raza Awan, Research Associate, Centre for Population, Urban and Environment Studies, for its hard work and dedication. In particular, the Coordinator of the Conference, Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad, who is also the editor of this report.

Prof. Mohammad Nizamuddin, Ph D

Chairperson, Conference Organizing Committee, Committee for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan (CDSSHP), Vice Chancellor, University of Gujrat, Gujrat.

Introduction to the Conference

Introduction to the ConferenceThe social sciences encompass diverse areas and concerns of society. They include a broad spectrum of interests drawn from disciplines such as anthropology, economics, education, history, international relations, media, political science, psychology, public administration, social work, sociology, etc. The significance of social sciences in the education system should be reinstated by not only highlighting their increasing relevance in todays context, but also pointing to their indispensability in laying the foundations of an analytical and creative mindset. It should be recognized that the social sciences lend themselves to scientific inquiry just as much as the basic sciences do. This requires articulation of a pre-programmed methodology and its practical implementation in those areas where the social sciences are distinct from the basic sciences. The boundaries of social science disciplines need to be opened up and a plurality of approaches applied to facilitate a free and open transfer of knowledge. This can be achieved by facilitating interdisciplinary thinking, with priority given to themes where different disciplinary approaches could facilitate an in-depth understanding of human societies.

Pakistans Context

The social science research output from Pakistani universities leaves a lot to be desired. Even in post-graduate courses, where writing a research monograph is a requirement, the same can be substituted with alternate options avoiding rigorous empirical methods and techniques. The reasons for adopting such an approach are often legitimate. Financial and socio-cultural constraints, mobility problems and the facultys own handicaps hold back students from undertaking even small research projects. A general lack of interest in the social sciences in Pakistan, as evident from the publication of dismally low number of research papers in internationally reputed journals, prevents academics from pursuing even those research projects that could bring funding to their universities. The people of Pakistan have paid dearly for the neglect of social science research, with its cumulative impact being felt in terms of the declining quality of the state apparatus. Without a vibrant, rational tradition in social science research, the theoretical perspectives and empirical research on which sound policymaking ought to rest remain woefully inadequate.

1

Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities

Another explanation given for the dismal state of social science research in Pakistan is the lack of a culture that promotes open and free-flowing discussion and debate. The intolerance prevailing in society coupled with absence of exchange of ideas, freedom of expression and indigenous research hampers progress in this direction. Factors such as the lack of incentives for social scientists and the low value attached to social science research have contributed largely to the decline of academic institutions in Pakistan. This trend has been further accentuated by the absence of a thriving intellectual community in the country. Even worse, research priorities for Pakistan are usually determined by donors and, more often than not, lack relevance to the local context. Similarly, social scientists continue to apply borrowed theoretical constructs and conceptual frameworks to Pakistani conditions without questioning, debating or defining their validity and relevance to the country. To address these and many other related issues, the Higher Education Commission [HEC], Government of Pakistan, formed the Committee for Development of Social Sciences and Humanities in Pakistan [CDSSHP] in 2003. The dismal state of social science research in Pakistan was also discussed during several Inter-University Vice Chancellors meetings. Subsequently, a high-powered Committee was formed under the chairpersonship of Dr. Mohammad Nizamuddin (Vice Chancellor, University of Gujrat) to give recommendations and suggestions for the promotion of social science research and teaching in Pakistani universities. The Committees foremost recommendation was to organize an annual international social science conference for regular and meaningful discourse among leading social scientists and academics from home and abroad, with a view to identifying interdisciplinary social science research priorities for Pakistan.

Organizing Committee and Secretariat

Against this backdrop, members of the CDSSHP under the chairpersonship of Dr. Nasser Ali Khan (Director, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar) unanimously agreed to organize the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference in April 2011 in Islamabad. Subsequently, a Conference Organizing Committee was formed and Dr. Nizamuddin was appointed as its chairperson. Besides him, the Committee comprised of leading social scientists from home and abroad, as well as senior HEC officials, as members and consultants. The two biggest challenges before the Conference Organizing Committee were shortage of time and funds. To meet the first challenge, a Conference Secretariat was established with representation from both the University of Gujrat and the HEC, and Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad (Director, Press and Publications, University of Gujrat) was appointed as its Coordinator. To meet the second challenge, the Organizing Committee requested vice chancellors/directors/rectors of all private and public sector universities and degree-awarding institutions in Pakistan to contribute at least Rs.100,000 to the Conference. HEC Execu-

2

Introduction to the Conference

tive Director Dr. Sohail H. Naqvi was also requested for financial and administrative support, as were some leading government and United Nations agencies, NGOs, and other civil society organizations. The Organizing Committee decided to hold the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference on the Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities: Prospects and Challenges, in Islamabad from 18 to 20 April 2011, with equal representation from all the geographic regions of Pakistan, and participation of PhD scholars along with seasoned academics. The Conference was dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Inayatullah, founder of the Council of Social Sciences and founder chairperson of the Department of International Relations, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. In addition, the Conference Organizing Committee invited nominations from all members of the CDSSHP for the 1st HEC Lifetime Achievement Award in Social Sciences to be conferred during the Inaugural Session of the Conference. The Conference Organizing Committee also resolved to make the HEC International Social Science Conference an annual event, with focus shifting from identification of research priorities to sharing of research findings in subsequent years.

Thematic Focus

The 1st HEC International Social Science Conference covered all major social science disciplines; however, considering Pakistans current priorities, the focus was on: 1. Sustainable Human Development, Poverty and Inequality. 2. Costs and Opportunities of Pakistans Rapidly Changing Age Structure: Demographic Dividend, Population Ageing and Urbanization. 3. The Pakistan State: Internal and External Challenges. 4. The Role of Media and Civil Society in Ensuring Human Rights and Cultural Diversity. 5. Problems of Conducting Dissertation Research in Pakistani Universities.

Objectives

The main objectives of the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference on the Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities: Prospects and Challenges were to: 1. Develop and promote an interdisciplinary approach to study the Pakistani ociety. 2. Identify common research priorities to meet the contemporary social, economic, political, cultural and environmental challenges faced by the akistani society. 3. Examine latest methodological tools, conceptual paradigms and techniques to address the challenging research issues facing Pakistan. 4. Build the capacity of young faculty members and PhD/ MPhil students to conduct qualitative and quantitative social science research. 5. Encourage and facilitate replication of social science research

3


conducted in the United States and other developed countries. 6. Provide a forum to the academics and researchers from different disciplines within the social sciences to come together and learn from each others experiences. 7. Establish an inter-university consortium to enhance the role of social science research in Pakistans public policymaking. The 1st HEC International Social Science Conference shared improvements in pedagogical strategies, as well as application of innovative techniques and technologies, in social science disciplines. Moreover, it provided an opportunity to Pakistani universities to share their accomplishments, failures and future strategies. The Conference also examined the HECs efforts to promote social science research in Pakistani universities under the umbrella of the CDSSHP.

4

Inaugural Session

Inaugural SessionThe Inaugural Session of the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference on the Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities: Prospects and Challenges, was held at a time when the news of HECs dissolution was in the air in the wake of the 18th Constitutional Amendment. This called for inviting maximum number of stakeholders to the Inaugural Session, so as to use the occasion for sharing the HECs point of view on the issue and its achievements over the years with them. Besides the Conference participants, the Inaugural Session was attended by a large number of guests, including vice chancellors/rectors/directors of public and private sector universities and degree-awarding institutions; representatives of diplomatic missions and international organizations; staff of research institutes, NGOs and civil society organizations; senior government officials; and media persons. Conference Coordinator Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad (Director, Press and Publications, University of Gujrat) fulfilled the responsibilities as the Master-of-Ceremonies in the Inaugural Session, which started with recitation from the Holy Quran. Mr. Ahmad introduced the Chair, speakers and keynote speaker Prof. Rehman Sobhan. He termed the organization of the Conference in less than three months nothing less than a miracle, and credited Dr. Nizamuddin and Dr. Nasser with this achievement.

Opening Remarks

[Dr. Mohammad Nizamuddin]

After giving a brief overview of the Conference, the Conference Coordinator invited Dr. Mohammad Nizamuddin (Chairperson, Conference Organizing Committee; Vice Chancellor, University of Gujrat) to deliver the opening remarks. Dr. Nizamuddin started by thanking foreign participants and those distinguished guests who had travelled long distances within the country to attend the Conference. He acknowledged that the organization of the Conference had been made possible due to the financial and administrative support extended by the HEC, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Centre for Civic Education (CCE) and the National Testing Service (NTS). Besides these, he informed that nine public and private sector universities had contributed Rs. 100,000 each to the Conference. Dr. Nizamuddin thanked members and consultants of the Organizing Committee for their valuable contribution. He also thanked staff of the Conference Secretariat, particularly Conference Coordinator Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad (Director, Press and Publications, University of Gujrat), for their utmost dedication and hard work. The Chairperson of the Organizing Committee said that the organization of the Conference was necessitated by many important concerns, but none more important than the current state of social, political and economic affairs in Pakistan. The absence of a culture of research- and evidence-based policy formulation has resulted in policies and programs that are mostly in utter disregard of peoples needs, desires and aspirations. Hence disillusionment, expressed in violent and extremist behaviour, seems to have become our national character, he said.

7


Dr. Nizamuddin underlined that, throughout the developed world, social science research is a domain of the universities, not bureaucracies or civil society organizations. The universities can also help in meeting the challenges posed by the state and society in Pakistan. This Conference is, in fact, an expression of the realization that Pakistani universities should identify interdisciplinary social science research priorities. He raised five questions that begged to be answered if Pakistan were to become a developed, prosperous and peaceful nation: 1. Why does the gap between the rich and the poor increase with high economic growth in Pakistan? 2. What strategies have we devised to ensure that our youth population becomes an asset, not a liability? 3. Is increasing intolerance and extremism in Pakistan an outcome of mistakes made by us in the past in the arenas of foreign policymaking and development planning? 4. Is there a direct link between human rights/cultural diversity and development? 5. What can be done to create conducive environment for social science research in Pakistani universities? Dr. Nizamuddin informed the guests and participants that the thematic underpinnings of the Conference were these and many similar equally important questions. Through plenary sessions, keynote addresses and working groups, we will try to collectively answer these questions; or rather we will learn how to frame our questions in such a manner that they may be answered. I have come to believe that research, especially in the social sciences, enables us to not only answer questions, but also ask better questions, he said. During the next three days, we will also try to explore the linkages between the problems we are facing, with a view to identifying interdisciplinary social science research priorities for Pakistan. To round off, we will try to identify the institutional and financial mechanisms required for implementing the priorities highlighted by the five working groups, he added. The Chairperson of the Organizing Committee shared with the audiences that the HEC had agreed to make the International Social Science Conference an annual event. In coming years, the focus will shift from problem-identification and agenda-setting to concrete research endeavours. Another important consideration will be to provide young social scientists with an opportunity to share their research findings. Dr. Nizamuddin reiterated that the capacity of social science departments/faculties of the public sector universities in Pakistan needed to be strengthened through generous funding by the government and the private sector, particularly the latter. The private sector should generously support social science research since most of the graduates from public sector universities end up working in the private sector, said Dr. Nizamuddin, Pakistan needs to produce quality research, for which quality research institutions and programs, as well as sustainable funding mechanisms, are a must.

8

Inaugural Session

The policymakers in Pakistan are not dying to listen to the academia and civil society, but they are not averse to their recommendations either. The main reason why social science research has not yet been able to become an essential feature of the policymaking process in Pakistan is its mediocre quality, he said. Once social science research becomes an integral part of the policymaking process, through the implementation of right institutional and financial mechanisms, things will improve. Dr. Nizamuddin also shard details of the conference document provided to the participants as resource material. The document includes a summary of the three-day program along with about 50 abstracts contributed by keynote speakers, panelists, participants and PhD scholars. Next, he read a message sent by Dr. Grace C. Clark (Professor, Department of Sociology, Forman Christian College University, Lahore), who is also one of the consultants to the Conference Organizing Committee: The scope of the Conference is wonderful and the range of social scientists you have gathered together is breathtaking. After reading the abstracts, I do not feel that the social sciences are in dire straits at all; not with such wonderful people. What we do need to do is to get organized and work together to produce more results. He fully agreed with Dr. Clark that Pakistan had no dearth of social scientists. In the end, Dr. Nizamuddin thanked the guests and participants and on behalf of the CDSSHP, and hoped they would come up with a workable agenda for promoting social science research in Pakistan. We cannot promote social science research by organizing such conferences alone; we also need to strengthen institutions and funding mechanisms for that, he concluded.

Keynote Address

[Prof. Rehman Sobhan]

After Dr. Mohammad Nizamuddins remarks, Conference Coordinator Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad invited Prof. Rehman Sobhan (Chairperson, Centre for Policy Dialogue, Bangladesh) to deliver the keynote address. Prof. Sobhans paper titled, The Crisis in Social Science Research Across South Asia: Coping with Market Failure and Structural Constraints, is being reproduced verbatim with minor editing: I am indeed honoured to be invited to address the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference on the Promotion of Social Science Research in Pakistani Universities: Prospects and Challenges and more so to do this in the presence of such a distinguished audience of academic personalities. The central message I seek to present before these audiences, which transcend your borders, draws on my limited knowledge of social science research across South Asia: effective demand for academic research in the social sciences remains both weak and, in particular cases, undiscovered. My argument is that this market failure in articulating a need for quality research is compounded by the structural constraints that distort the market for such research, and generate disincentives for researchers to be both more socially relevant and professionally recognized in the nature of their research.

9


In preparing my address, I drew inspiration from an excellent paper written by Dr. Akbar S. Zaidi on the dismal state of the social sciences in Pakistan. What struck me as disturbing and evocative in Dr. Zaidis paper was the haunting similarity between the state of social science research in Pakistan and my country Bangladesh, as well as the neighbouring countries of Nepal and Sri Lanka. India, of course, does not escape untouched by the crisis in the social sciences that I discuss in my paper, but the state of research there remains at an altogether different level from other South Asian countries. The main burden of my argument will, therefore, rest on the experience of Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, where the social sciences have been driven by broadly similar dynamics, yielding largely parallel outcomes compromising the quality and effectiveness of research. In the context of the social sciences, the market demand for research originates from four major sources: 1. The need by policymakers for research inputs to assist them in the design of policy. 2. The need for quality research to serve as a route for professional advancement. 3. The need of the commercial market that is willing to pay for research. 4. The need from within society for an articulation of its concerns so that they are satisfactorily addressed. In South Asian countries, the need for and effective use of social science research remains shallow. The policymaking process, except with brief moments of aberration, remained largely within the domain of bureaucracy, aided and abetted by our external patrons, the so-called development partners. The extent of influence exercised by these partners depended partially on the professional competence of our bureaucracies and partially on their political clout. But the binding constraint remained the degree of aid dependence of our governments that determined the extent of leverage exercised by donors over our policies. One of the many consequences of such structural constraints within our polities on the quest for policy advice was the marginalization of research outcomes generated by the academic community within our universities and research institutions. Even in the glory days of the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) in the 1960s, when expatriate economists of some distinction as well as eminent indigenous economists were working with it, and the Pakistan Development Review was a globally recognized peer reviewed journal, PIDEs research output exercised only peripheral influence on the design of development policy. In those days, Pakistans policy was heavily influenced by the World Bank and the Harvard Advisory Group, working in intimate collaboration with local bureaucrats, as well as some Pakistani economists of considerable competence and eventual eminence. That many of those economists ended up working for the World Bank was perhaps not entirely a coincidence! For those of us who had the misfortune to dwell in the remote jungles of university campuses, our work was considered of no consequence; and, when recognized, viewed as seditious. When some of us, through the processes of history, could briefly emerge from our

10

Inaugural Session

jungle habitat on the campus and find ourselves located at the heart of public policymaking in the newly independent country of Bangladesh, the same contradiction between the professional community and bureaucrats, reinforced by their traditional partners, external development community, asserted itself. However, soon business as usual prevailed and policymaking was restored to its rightful place within the donor-bureaucratic alliance. This structural feature of policymaking was much in evidence in Sri Lanka, Nepal, and even in India. In the case of India though, the quality and traditional influence of the bureaucracy inherited from the British raj, as well as the strong weight of the countrys democratic traditions and its lesser need for aid, ensured that the external influences over policymaking were weaker than in Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Still, even in India, despite a much stronger academic community, the influence of the university campus was less effective until policy-oriented academics were willing to join the government or serve on the many Commissions formed by the government to tender policy advice. In India, the contribution of some of these Commissions on policy reform has been quite significant, especially in relation to other South Asian countries. In such an environment, the policy market for research from the academic community remained severely limited in South Asian countries except India. Even there, if an academic aspired to influence policy, he or she had to enter the hallowed domain of the government (and perhaps also spend time in the World Bank or the IMF). Periodically, academics and researchers were invited to provide background papers for the preparation of the Five-Year Plan. Our plans, however, have traditionally been the weightiest manifestations of the market failure, because very few, if any, people in the policymaking establishment bother to read these voluminous documents, let alone use them in the design of public policy. The domain of external influence, and the consequent use of foreign expertise through consultancy services in the design of policy, has had lamentable consequences for the quality and outcomes of our development policies. It took many years, with much damage to our economies and the quality of life of our citizens, for our external partners to discover that unless development policies enjoyed domestic ownership, they could not be effective. Unfortunately, the donor version of ownership usually meant that domestically designed or owned policies were a facsimile of policies already designed by the external partners. The consequences of such a regime of externally-driven research have been devastating for much of the social science research community in South Asia outside of India. With little, if any, effective demand for their research from the policymaking establishment, the better qualified members of the academic community opted for servicing the commercial market for policy research. The demand rarely originated from a genuine market where profit-seeking business houses were willing to pay large sums of money for research that would enable them to improve their bottom line. For those researchers who were not in a position to secure regular employment abroad in such agencies that guaranteed lifetime security and first-world living standards, the ever expanding domestic consultancy market became the poor mans window into the globalized world. The social scientists working in the less-marketable disciplines, such as political science, anthropology or sociology, were usually consigned to the outer

11


darkness of unfunded research. In the 1970s and 1980s, this consultancy bonanza was largely feasted on by external consultancy firms and academic communities, who either benefited from tied aid or their close links with the multilateral funding agencies. Native consultants from South Asia, in those days, were permitted to feast on the crumbs dropped from the expatriates table, either as door-openers for the external consultants or as data collectors for the foreign researchers. This market has, fortunately, undergone a sea change over the past two decades, so that a much larger volume of external funds is available under the head of technical assistance for indigenous researchers to prepare reports and papers, as well as underwrite research in the social sciences that can be used by our external patrons. This later development has inspired the emergence of a growing number of local consultancy firms, in addition to non-governmental think-tanks with some research capacity. Many researchers with some marketable skill have, thus, moved out of the universities and government-sponsored research institutes and set up or moved into such non-governmental institutions. Those who remain within public service institutions spend a great deal of their working hours moonlighting as consultants for the development agencies or NGOs set up by their former colleagues. The consequences for the nature and quality of social science research in such a structurally constrained market have been severe. Let me summarize some of these outcomes: 1. The lack of effective demand for research from within the policymaking establishments of our countries has had a strong de-motivating influence on the social science research community. The best of the researchers, frustrated at the preference by their governments for externally-sourced ideas over domestic research, have tended to migrate abroad either to academic institutions or to the very development institutions whose policy access usurped their own influence at home. Many such researchers have ended up propagating the same policy ideas that they challenged at home on behalf of their international agencies. 2. With many of the qualified researchers moving abroad, most of those who stay behind make peace with the realities of policy influence. In such an asymmetrical intellectual universe, the research agendas in the social sciences have been effectively re-colonized. The external development agencies now largely determine the terms of reference of such research, the methodologies to be used and quite often the outcomes to be attained. In particular, in the realm of development studies, these agencies validate only those policy conclusions that they seek to impose on our countries. The donors are then happy to demonstrate to our governments that their own researchers have produced such policy advice or, at least, collaborated in its generation. 3. Much of the donor-driven consultancy research work is treated as the private property of the funding agency, thus it rarely sees the light of day in any publication. Much of such research serves as an intermediate input to consultancy reports prepared by an expatriate firm or academic institution, in which the work of the domestic researchers may, if they are fortunate, be cited as a footnote. This consultancy-based research ensures little, if any, visibility for the researcher through published papers or books. This eventually effaces the professional image of the researcher who retreats into a twilight zone, where the wider domestic society rarely gets to know the views of the research

12

Inaugural Session

community on some of the most important issues of the day. 4. This cloak of invisibility, however, also serves to protect researchers from professional scrutiny. This lack of exposure to critical evaluation by peer groups, who can assess such consultancy-driven research for purposes of publication or evaluation for purposes of professional advancement, serves as a disincentive for quality work. In such an opaque professional universe, a form of Greshams law prevails; good researchers, who are always in heavy demand by donors, churn out instant research that is well below their professional capabilities and standards, knowing that it will never be exposed to public scrutiny. 5. More seriously for our future, a younger generation of researchers who had no exposure to a pre-consultancy world, where professional work had to be recognized for advancement, are now barely after their graduation being swallowed up in the constrained donor-driven consultancy market. 6. Some of the well-known research institutions in the South Asian region such as the Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS), the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) in Sri Lanka and PIDE have accumulated enough of critical mass to ensure that they produce a regular volume of research output, enabling them to set standards for peer review of their work, for purposes of academic advancement. These institutions, however, largely depend on government funding and salaries; hence they also need to compete for external funding and, in the process, may lose some control over their research agendas. 7. Compared with these research institutions, social science departments/faculties of South Asian universities, as well as specialized research institutions within these universities that traditionally remain starved of research funding, have witnessed a steady decline in professional excellence. Their researchers are neither exposed to peer review nor do they expect to be judged for academic advancement on the basis of their published work. The research output from these universities, which may still retain academics of some merit, has thus dwindled in volume, quality and policy influence. For those who choose to remain in the public universities, the heavy claims of consultancy work often result in defaults in their teaching obligations, meaning that the ultimate casualty of our constrained research market are the innocent students whose aspirations to higher learning remain unfulfilled. 8. In South Asian countries other than India, the new growth industry remains the non-governmental think-tanks, such as the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) in Dhaka, the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) in Islamabad and the Institute for Integrated Development Studies (IIDS) in Kathmandu. These institutions were founded largely as organizations committed to policy advocacy; and they sought to bridge the marshy terrain between the exclusively research-driven institutions such as PIDE, BIDS and the IPS and the government and civil society. Though these facilities have generated some quality research, they still remain dependent on external funding since they are non-governmental. So we also need to look into this important area. 9. The dependence of our governments on external funding for social science research has resulted in research dedicated almost exclusively to policy-related issues.

13


Though understandable given the nature of the market, as a result little space has been left for more academic research, particularly on theoretical issues that can provide the basis for conceptual thinking, which can then inspire more innovative policy ideas. Compared with the experience of other South Asian countries, the Indian Social Science Research Council (ISSRC) provides a significant volume of unconstrained funding to researchers that could support both institution-building and theoretical research of some relevance to the policymaking process. Their research is now manifested in exceptionally high-quality publications like the Economic and Political Weekly that provide a prestigious outlet for not only academically renowned scholars but also young researchers who are willing to work with limited budgets, to compete for academic recognition and advancement. In none of the other South Asian countries do we have a comparable critical mass of researchers, either young or old, who are driven so strongly by the compulsions of academic excellence as in India. The propositions offered above are in the form of stylized facts that are intended to dramatize the crisis afflicting social science research in our region. We should, thus, bear in mind that in each South Asian country distinguished exceptions, located even within the universities, continue to conduct quality research unsupported by any sponsorship and manage to produce work of considerable scholastic merit. Even when research is conducted for a consultancy project, some of the academics and researchers try to ensure that the work may culminate in a publication of academic excellence. That is why many of these academics and researchers produce work to be consumed mainly in the market, since it gets published commercially and does not depend on any support. The climate for social science research has been evolving with the changing times. Today the international development community is much more open to heterodox thinking than it used to be. The global discourse on development policy has not remained immune to the crisis within the globalization process. The increasingly severe manifestations of this crisis have compromised the legitimacy of the ideologically-driven policy agendas imposed on aid-dependent countries. The agendas that once dominated the policy thinking in South Asia have, in most countries, failed to deliver sustained growth or significant alleviation of poverty, while social disparities have widened. New agendas, prioritizing poverty reduction, environmental sustainability, human development and good governance through policy ownership, have now been introduced into the policy domain. Once marginalized domestic researchers are now being rediscovered. More resources are being channelled from without to both governments for inviting inputs from their domestic research establishments as part of the agenda to promote policy ownership and non-governmental think-tanks and advocacy groups. Those within the institutionalized research community, who are equipped to participate in this expanding market for their services from the policy establishment, have to bear in mind the Faustian nature of their contractual bargains. Entry into such markets is rarely the outcome of a competitive process, but often depends on whom you know and thus may not be sustainable since such patronage processes tend to serve a moveable feast.

14

Inaugural Session

Therefore, those researchers who are seriously seeking to influence policy are advised to seek the ear of political leaders during their moments of adversity that, in our political culture, are likely to be many; and influence their thinking when they have more time and less patronage at their disposal. Such leaders may rediscover you and your ideas at an appropriate historic moment when the wheel of politics throws up new social forces more receptive to innovative thinking. But this possibility remains in the realm of the imagined market. South Asias undiscovered market for policy research lies within the subaltern constituencies of our societies. We may term these communities the excluded or the resource-less the aam aadmi in India, the awam in Pakistan and the janagan in Bangladesh. What is common to these communities is that their voices remain unheard and their concerns unaddressed, within not only our policymaking establishments but also mainstream social science research. Since these communities cannot afford to pay for policy advice, they cannot register an effective demand, in the conventional sense, for relevant and quality research from competent social scientists. But their needs remain no less essential as well as urgent. They need quality schools and health care, regular jobs, access to ownership of productive assets, care in old age, social security, and freedom from corruption and oppression. Above all, they seek justice and dignity from their society and its institutions of governance. In an era of widening income inequalities and social disparities, both our market players and governments fail to respond to these demands at their peril. In our societies, whenever these constituents are given the right to freely exercise their effective demand for change, they respond by voting incumbent governments, who failed to respond to their needs, out of office. Strangely, more often than not, the successor government, which is being elected to office based on its promises to respond to this need for a better quality of life, also fails to honour its commitments to the electorate. If the voting process remains free, which is not always the case in South Asia, the incumbent government too may be voted out of office in next elections. I term this a form of political market failure, where political leaders and their parties know what their constituents want but fail to respond to their demands. This political market failure is exposing our societies to increasing tensions, which are in turn weakening the credibility and sustainability of our fragile democratic institutions. Where political markets fail the awam in ostensibly democratic societies, to whose demands should social scientists be responsive? The burden of my concluding argument before this august conclave is that, in a world of failed and constrained markets for our research, we should rediscover the market of the people in seeking inspiration for our academic and intellectual endeavours. A wide range of issues are central to the concerns of the awam in our region. They demand conceptual definition, diagnosis and policy prescription; and can engage researchers for at least a generation. The 10 most important issues specific to South Asia that have formed the basis for my research over the years include: 1. How inclusive is the growth process? Who actually contributes to growth and who benefits from it? The whole GDP-centric fallacy that 6-7% growth rate is some of

15


panacea to which we should aspire is meaningless for the awam. They want to know how they are going to participate in that growth. 2. What are the structural sources of poverty? Identifying poverty and suggesting that we need more human development or better social safety nets is just not enough. We need from social scientists and researchers to explore the nature of society and its injustices, such as people not having social safety nets and equitable access to opportunities. 3. Why is there unequal distribution of assets? What is its underlying political economy? Why does society deny the marginalized groups the opportunities to participate in the growth process? 4. What are the asymmetries created because of the disequalizing role of education? Why do narrow segments of society get a chance to be educated at the best schools, while the great majority goes to substandard public or religiously-denominated schools? 5. Why is there inequitable participation of the poor in the marketplace? What are its consequences? Will some people only be able to operate in the primary tier selling their produce at the doorstep, while a narrow segment will continue to add value to this produce and control the upper tiers where value is added? 6. Who will address the issue of non-transparent budgeting? Though our governments claim that 40% of budgetary allocations are made for poverty reduction, very little actually reaches the poor. 7. What is the scope of collective action by the poor in the competition for resources? How can we bring them together, so that they can collectively compete for resources and participate in the development process? 8. Why do people who can spend vast sums of money end up getting elected to parliament in our countries? 9. Why do unjust institutions of governance exist in democratic systems? 10. What sort of political economy is needed to introduce genuine agendas for inclusive change? All such concerns originate, in my conceptualization of poverty, from the unjust and unfair nature of societies across South Asia. I have tried to capture this trend in my recently published book titled Challenging the Injustice of Poverty: Agendas for Inclusive Development in South Asia. I am sure many of you have shared similar concerns, and even been engaged in research on these and similar issues. My aspiration is to see a much broader community of researchers across South Asia engaging in a much wider range of issues within their respective social science disciplines, with a view to addressing the sources of poverty and the nature of injustice in our societies, as well as exploring policy agendas for their redress. In understanding such a range of subaltern concerns, we need to be more actively engaged with these communities, so that we can better understand their needs,

16

Inaugural Session

their definitions of their predicament and their ideas on what can be done about this. This task is particularly challenging for those academics who prefer to do their research behind closed doors. Advocacy organizations also conduct research to sustain their work. Because some of these organizations remain closely engaged with their subaltern clients, their research insights may also be calibrated to the latters needs. These organizations, however, still need to establish track records of quality in their public policy research. Thus, what we need, in the context of this Conference is to reconnect the social science research community with these communities of the excluded, so that a stream of research originating out of our universities and specialized research institutions remains focused on those issues that can project the voice of these constituencies before not only the wider academic community but also the policymakers, as well the influential sections of the national and global community. Such work will need to be inspired by substantive and quality research, rather than journalistic advocacy. Research on and for the people will also need to be delivered to them in a language that they can easily understand. A scholarly research paper that makes a powerful case, for example, for agrarian reform will need to be distilled into a simple set of ideas and a language that can be delivered to the doorstep of haris or kissans (peasants or small farmers), who may expect to be benefited by the research and may also be willing to politically raise their voice for a doable agenda of reform. The critical question is that if the South Asian research community were to rise to the challenge of meeting the unmet needs for such people-centred research, who would foot the bill? The willingness of governments and mainstream development agencies to fund research that promotes structural change may not be tremendously enthusiastic and, when offered, sustainable. In such circumstances, where do we stand? In an ideal world, governments elected by the awam and to stay in office through their vote would want to draw on quality research that provides them with both creative and credible policy options to bring about substantive change in the life of their citizens. To meet this end, they would need to channel adequate budgetary resources to the research community without any political strings attached to it. The trade off is: research of quality and relevance would have to be delivered, so that it also forms the basis for repeat funding. The South Asia Network of Economic Research Institute (SANEI) provides a possible regional model for such a facility. However, ensuring that all such initiatives, including SANEI, remain ideologically unconstrained, and professionally and transparently administered, is important, as is that they do not degenerate into instruments of patronage. Such a facility would provide the South Asian academic community with autonomy from donor and governmental hegemony over research, and promote indigenous talents. Since all such research would be presented before a competitive and an open market, the issue of quality control would be looked after.

17


The governments across South Asia must give a clear signal to the research community that they have a felt need for quality research in the design of policy, and that they will surely prioritize indigenous research based on its merit and relevance. They need not shut themselves off to external ideas, which would of course help in widening our intellectual horizons, but these ideas must compete on merit with those of our researchers and must not be given preference just because donors feel that they have a monopoly over our policy agendas. I firmly believe that if quality research, which inspires genuine agendas for inclusive change, can be put on the table with full backing of a democratically-elected government, the international community will be persuaded to respect and recognize these influences as legitimate sources of policy change. Most importantly, the international community has recently stressed the need for such ownership over our research agendas, particularly if they respond to the universally accepted and recognized goal of ending the injustice of poverty. The important operative issues before the participants of this Conference and those beyond are: whether our governments genuinely want to bring about such a change that redefines the position of the awam in the structures of power and economic opportunity or they have doubts or ambiguities regarding such a change? How do researchers project research for change before audiences who can benefit from it? Where do we find people who would commit resources to undertake such projects? These may be some of the issues we need to address in this Conference.

Address by the Chair[Dr. Javaid R. Laghari]After Prof. Rehman Sobhans keynote address, the Conference Coordinator invited Dr. Javaid R. Laghari (Chairman, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad) to deliver his address as the Chair of the Inaugural Session. Dr. Laghari warmly welcomed the distinguished guests and participants to the Conference, and hoped that it would be productive for them. He said Pakistan was an evolving state, as evident from that the 1st International Social Science Conference was being organized 64 years after the countrys independence. The CDSSHP, the host to this Conference, was established in 2003. In fact, this was one of the first steps taken by the HEC after its inception in 2002. This shows that the social sciences have started to receive the attention they deserve, said Dr. Laghari, adding that the Committee was now working for more than seven years and has so far had three chairpersons, including Dr. Najma Najam, Dr. Ishrat Hussain and Dr. Nasser Ali Khan, who took charge just six months ago. The HEC Chairman said that the Committee was facing many serious challenges: The first challenge is the promotion of research and development in the social sciences, which is also one of the main reasons for organizing this Conference. This includes faculty and curriculum development, quality assurance, and institutional and infrastructural development. The second challenge is defining the scope of the social sciences, since they include areas as diverse as business studies, fine arts, economics, media, film, cul-

18

Inaugural Session

ture, history, etc. The experts in different fields should help the CDSSHP in dealing with these challenges. Dr. Laghari said that the HECs Curriculum Committees, comprising senior faculty and administration of the universities, had updated curricula for all major social science disciplines, but we need to go further ahead and understand the latest trends in these disciplines. He viewed that setting standards for social science research posed an even serious challenge to the HEC. Historically, academically and internationally, only a refereed research journal paper is counted as research, but this criteria cannot be applied to all social science disciplines, such as fine arts, business studies, history, literature, media, film, music, etc. Dr. Laghari said that the HEC had left such deliberations to its various committees. Following a consensus-based approach, these committees deliberate on and define the way ahead through an infrastructure that accommodates the latest trends in any particular field. In engineering, a question keeps cropping up: if a patent comes under the same category as a refereed research journal paper. The same question keeps cropping up before the HEC regarding social science research and its position is similar to that of most universities around the world: research journal papers form a minimum baseline. Above and beyond this baseline, a department or faculty can add any number of requirements necessary for the advancement of the programs it offers, he elaborated. The HEC Chairman said that another major issue that keeps cropping up is the categorization of social science research journals. The vast majority of social science journals published from Pakistan is substandard, very far from meeting even the minimum requirements of a world class journal. In the absence of good researchers, the quality of research suffers and results in the type of substandard journals published from Pakistan. Dr. Laghari viewed that certain social science disciplines like business education had seen improvements since the HECs inception in 2002. In the first 55 years after the independence, Pakistan had only 11 PhDs in business education, while 58 PhDs were completed in this discipline in only the past eight years. During the same period, however, the number of PhDs in social sciences disciplines excluding business education, arts and the humanities dropped from 900 to 700. The HEC Chairman added that a large number of scholars were pursuing their PhDs in social science disciplines, either from universities abroad or within the country. In addition, when the HEC advertised the Fulbright scholarships last year, in 2010, it ensured that all major social science disciplines were accommodated, instead of focusing on only science and technology as had been the practice previously. Dr. Laghari lamented that the situation of PhDs in the arts and humanities was even worse. More than 600 PhDs were completed in the arts and humanities in the first 55 years after Pakistans independence, but the number has dropped to 377 in the past eight years since the HECs inception. He further said that a major challenge for the participants of this Conference was to find ways of focusing on these social science disciplines. We still have a long way to go in Pakistan. The first generation even in developed western countries comprises carpenters and electricians. As the society evolves,

19


the second generation is of engineers and doctors. As the society develops further, the third generation of artistes and intellectuals comes to the fore. Though Pakistan is still far from achieving this level of development, we are trying our level best to encourage and promote this trend, the HEC Chairman said. Dr. Laghari elaborated that the three major challenges before the HEC were that of access to higher education, quality assurance and relevant research. The third challenge is where the social sciences come into the picture. We want social scientists to focus on building communities in Pakistan, because only then we could truly say that the universities are building Pakistan. Therefore, I would like to declare the theme of the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference as Universities Building Communities. The universities have a major role in terms of building communities, especially in the areas of health, education, environment, population planning, disaster management, governance and so on, he said. The HEC Chairman deplored that the social fabric of the Pakistani society had deteriorated over the years because of the step-motherly treatment meted out to the social sciences. Because of the deterioration of this social fabric, democratic institutions are not flourishing in Pakistan. For example, the judiciary is independent, but it cannot implement its decisions. Higher education is flourishing, but politicians and governments still fail to see its relevance. Thus, social scientists would have to play their due role in making these institutions strong, he said. Dr. Laghari said that we needed to improve the quality of social science research in the universities; develop the capacities of social scientists by sending them abroad for pursuing higher education and attending research conferences; support research endeavours such as publication of peer-reviewed journals and organization of international conferences; and create think-tanks in the universities that would invite politicians and intellectuals to discuss important national issues with the students. He concluded that the universities needed to be involved in polls and surveys. We need to understand what people really want in terms of their daily needs. We have a base of 132 public and private sector universities, with about 750,000 students. These universities should be conducting polls and surveys on important national issues and then publishing their results in a timely manner; for example, on whether the HEC should be a federal or provincial subject, or whether both the federation and the provinces could play their roles simultaneously. We need to address such issues on an urgent basis and social scientists come into the picture here, Dr. Laghari said.

Vote of Thanks

[Dr. Nasser Ali Khan]

After Dr. Javaid R. Lagharis address, Conference Coordinator Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad invited CDSSHP Chairperson Dr. Nasser Ali Khan (Director, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar) to deliver the vote of thanks. Dr. Nasser started with a quote: We may have granted the people of Pakistan political citizenship, but we have not granted them economic citizenship. We may prosper materially, but if we have to grow socially, culturally and spiritually, focus on the humankind is imperative. He viewed that the social sciences were facing an inherent bias in

20

Inaugural Session

Pakistan. Whether this bias is by default or by design? I leave it your imagination in the light of the keynote address by Prof. Rehman Sobhan. What we see in our society today is confusion, fear and insecurity, and we have always heard and we believe that social scientists are visionaries. Where are those visionaries? he said. Dr. Nasser said the idea of organizing the 1st HEC International Social Science Conference was conceived last year. We used to criticize the Committee as too small a space for us. We wanted to bring social scientists from all over Pakistan and abroad on one platform to look at the way forward. This Conference is a step in that direction. The CDSSHP Chairperson informed the audience that HEC Chairperson and Executive Director had already agreed to make this Conference an annual feature. Provinces and regions can also hold their own conferences to promote the social sciences within their respective boundaries. Dr. Nasser thanked HEC Chairman Dr. Javaid R. Laghari, HEC Executive Director Dr. Sohail H. Naqvi, UNFPA Country Representative in Pakistan Mr. Rabbi Royan, CCE Executive Director Mr. Zafarullah Khan, Conference Organizing Committee Chairperson Dr. Mohammad Nizamuddin (Vice Chancellor, University of Gujrat) and the NTS for their support. When we were planning this Conference, members of the Committee thought that holding an international event in only three months was impossible and Dr. Nizamuddin was the only person we could agree on as the Chairperson of the Conference Organizing Committee. All credit for holding this Conference goes to him and his wonderful team at the University of Gujarat and the HEC. He said. He also thanked vice chancellors/directors/rectors of the Agriculture University Peshawar, Peshawar; Beaconhouse National University, Lahore; Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar; Kohat University of Science & Technology, Kohat; National University of Sciences & Technology, Islamabad; Sukkur Institute of Business Administration, Sukkur; University of Gujarat, Gujrat; University of Karachi, Karachi; and University of Swat, Saidu Sharif for contributing Rs. 100,000 each towards realizing the objectives of this major Conference. Dr. Nasser also thanked the Conference Coordinator Mr. Mustafa Nazir Ahmad (Director, Press and Publications, University of Gujrat) and other members of the Conference Secretariat Dr. Fauzia Maqsood, Mr. Javed Sajjad Ahmed, Ms. Tanzila Qamar Gill, Ms. Sidra Maqsood and Mr. Faisal Iqbal from the University of Gujrat; and Mr. Muhammad Murtaza Noor and Mr. Sulaiman Ahmad from the HEC for successful organization of the Conference.

1st HEC Lifetime Achievement Award in Social Sciences

The Inaugural Session of the Conference concluded with Chair Dr. Javaid R. Laghari conferring posthumously the 1st HEC Lifetime Achievement Award in Social Sciences on the late Dr. Inayatullah, in recognition of his meritorious services for the promotion of social science research and teaching in Pakistan. Mrs. Inayatullah received the commemorative plaque from the HEC Chairman on behalf of her late husband.

21


The recipient of this prestigious award was decided by the CDSSHP members, who were asked to nominate one social scientist of Pakistani origin. Through the Lifetime Achievement Award, the HEC wanted to honour an academic who had made significant contribution to the social sciences in Pakistan. This contribution could be in research, leadership or mentorship. A decision was also made that the Lifetime Achievement Award in Social Sciences would be conferred every year during the HEC International Social Science Conference. In view of his long association with the late Dr. Inayatullah, Dr. Syed Jaffar Ahmed (Director, Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi) was requested to read the citation, which is being reproduced verbatim with minor editing: Dr. Inayatullah, founder and president of the Council of Social Sciences (COSS), rendered great services for mobilizing social scientists of Pakistan. He was not only an academician and a writer par excellence, but also a visionary social scientist, with groundbreaking studies like Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile to his credit. Dr. Inayatullah, after establishing COSS, not only launched an aggressive membership campaign in Pakistan and abroad, but also brought out a bulletin and a number of other publications. Some of the publications by COSS under the dynamic leadership of Dr. Inayatullah include Professional Associations of Social Scientists: An Analytical Study; Social Sciences in Pakistan: A Profile; Social Sciences in Pakistan in the 1990s; Towards Understanding the State of Science in Pakistan; and The State of Social Sciences in Pakistan. An important dimension of the late Dr. Inayatullahs dedication and determination to promote the social sciences in Pakistan was his passion for quality research journals. Moreover, he was also extremely committed to train a new generation of Pakistani social scientists, for whom he was always a guiding and motivating force.

22

Session II

Session II The Role of Social Science Research in Public Policymaking Thematic NoteDeveloped societies make important and strategic policy decisions based on evidence and facts. When critical decisions concern social and economic matters, social science research can provide the much-needed evidence. Social science research not only furnishes necessary data for policy decisions, but also helps in determining the outcomes of policy decisions. Evaluative research can identify factors responsible for the successes or failures of costly projects, and provide guidance for changing directions in mid course or for future planning. Evidence does not suggest that the policymakers in Pakistan rely on carefully gathered and analyzed data for making important decisions. While this can be a cultural deficit, it also reflects relative scarcity of relevant and reliable data. The policymakers are constantly facing tough choices, often under political pressure, regarding the allocation of resources for projects and programs. Politically-influenced decisions may please the constituents, but may not be the advisable option. A critical indicator of research is the publication of research papers in scientific and professional journals. According to data compiled by the HEC, the number of universities with publications reached 97 in 2010, from 42 in 2007. In other words, faculty members of 97 Pakistani universities published research papers in internationally-recognized scientific and professional journals in 2010. Data also tell us that 24 of these universities had 50 or more publications, while nearly half had only 17 or fewer publications. Since most of the published papers are likely to be in the basic sciences, the situation of social science research in Pakistan is even worst.

Keynote Address[Dr. Jochen Hippler]Session II on The Role of Social Science Research in Public Policymaking started with Chair Dr. Ishrat Hussain (Director, Institute of Business Administration, Karachi) inviting Dr. Jochen Hippler (Political Scientist/Lecturer, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany) to deliver the keynote address, which is being reproduced verbatim with minor editing: I want to take the participants of this Conference along three stages: 1) Social sciences and development; 2) Social sciences and power; and 3) Social sciences and role conflict. Let me start with the first stage! The social sciences have a key role to play in the development of all countries, whether rich or poor. I will give you two examples to demonstrate the importance of the way the state and society are organized, in the context of realizing development potential. The first example pertains to Germany. After World War II, Germany was divided

23


into two countries that were organized very differently. The people were similar and the economic conditions were comparable. Still, because of the different ways the state and the society were organized in the two countries, their economic, political and cultural development was very different. This example shows the role of governance in realizing development potential. The second example pertains to Pakistan and South Korea. In the 1950s, the two countries were very similar in most regards, particularly in their level of economic development. GNP of the two countries, for example, was quite comparable at that time. But today, South Koreas GNP is six times more than that of Pakistan. Consider this from the perspective of a starting point that was very similar. The quality of the Pakistani or the Korean people, however, has not been responsible for this, rather the different ways the state and the society have been organized in the two Asian countries. If the way the state and society are organized is so crucial to development, social scientists should and can play a very important role in researching and suggesting ways to remove the hurdles that may affect a countrys ability to develop. From a political scientists perspective, the key problem seems to be that of governance the ways of organizing rules, mechanisms and instruments to solve societys problems by state and, sometimes even by, non-state actors. Some of these problems actually emanate from de-link between state structures and society. What will be helpful for a society in realizing its development potential that will allow both state structures and society to develop? By focusing on this and similar type of questions, social science research has made important progress in the past decade or so. Let me give you an example on the more practical side. If you look at religious extremism in different parts of the world, very often the impression you would get from the research being conducted is that extremism is only because of political vacuum of governance and weakness or incompetence of state structures that allow certain actors to use this vacuum for extremism. But as the recent situation in Egypt, Tunisia and some other African countries has demonstrated this vacuum is not necessarily filled by extremists; pro-democracy forces can also fill it. The interface between the state and the society is crucial to not only political stability, but also economic development opportunities. Social scientists can play an extremely important role in this regard, by analyzing and coming up with suggestions to help their societies in dealing with this interface. This takes us to the second stage: social sciences and power. Most politicians and decision-makers are not keen on getting the advice from social scientists and academics, thus the latter are increasingly complaining of being ignored or of not being taken seriously by the former, who listen to them only if they support their policies. For instance, if a politician wants to introduce a specific policy, then the advice of only those social scientists or academics would be sought who are known to be in favour of that policy. In short, the advice by social scientists is not influencing the decisions of politicians or decision-makers. I have worked with the Global Parliament as an advisor for several years; and

24

Session II

have experienced first-hand that if the advice by social scientists is unsupportive of the current policy, the tendency is to ignore it. The quality of research was not responsible for this, but self-interest and power. If a social scientists advice to politicians/decisionmakers coincides with what they wanted to do anyway, they would probably hold a press conference to tell the public that a social scientist has supported their policy because it can help them politically. Let me give you another example of the relationship between the social sciences and power. The US Army published a manual titled Counterinsurgency in December 2006. The interesting thing, the reason why I bring it up here, is that social scientists were also included in writing the text. In this case, social scientists were not ignored; rather, they were transformed into instruments of power against the weaker forces. Neither is it the job of social scientists to tell imperialist forces how to tackle insurgencies nor can such work be called academic. Another important aspect regarding the social sciences and power is that many social scientists are now behaving like mercenaries and, in a sense, renting their services for money. The keynote speaker in the Inaugural Session talked about the consultancy business. As a consultant myself, I often run into people who would provide exactly the same advice as is being sought by the people footing the bill. Again, such work is not academic, but more of a business enterprise. Social scientists should try to focus on the benefits that their profession can bring to their society. They will have to find ways to deal with the problem of being either ignored or used, since they cannot afford to be irrelevant. I am sure you will have an interesting discussion on how to deal with this problem during the next three days. This takes us to the third stage: social sciences and role conflict. Not everything social scientists do is academic work. For example, the advice by social scientists to governments may be based on their earlier academic work, but it cannot be termed academic work. Social scientists should not be giving advice to governments only for money; their advice should be based on years of academic work. Drawing conclusions from research and academic work, and injecting them into the political discourse, is different from doing academic work. I fully agree that giving advice to the government is part of social scientists job, but they should be aware that they are changing roles here. For social scientists, on the one hand is the role of a researcher, involving impartial and unbiased analysis of the situation; while on the other of an advisor, involving judgments about what should be done and why. Again, I am not criticizing the role of social scientists as advisors; I am only trying to make them realize that not everything they do is academic. Some of the work social scientists do is different from research and they should accept this reality. Social scientists can do very useful work in another area also that is not academic, but is again hopefully based on their earlier academic work. They could become prime advisors to the public and society at large, rather than just the power elite. They should use the media, such as television channels and radio networks, to explain what they have to say to people since they cannot go to everyones house to explain the results of their research. But, once again, this work is not academic; it can, at best, be termed an

25


attempt to give meaning to things. Confusion was mentioned in the Inaugural Session as a characteristic of our societies. Because most of the issues we face are complicated and confusing, people would greatly benefit if someone could help them in making sense of the ongoing processes or explain them in a simple language. If people cannot make sense of their life and society, they will be paralyzed, thus unable to act reasonably. Explaining complicated social and political processes to the public is, once again, neither research nor academic work, nonetheless an area where social scientists can have a very important role and impact. To sum up, I have tried to briefly take you through the three stages that are important: how useful social scientists can be to their societies? What is the dilemma of power for social scientists? What type of role conflicts do social scientists have in non-academic environments and what should be done in such situations? My suggestion is to consider these questions while developing the curricula and academic structures for social scientists. We need not only financial strengthening of institutions, but also mechanisms where social scientists can better reflect on these questions.

Presentations

[Dr. James C. Witte]

After Dr. Jochen Hipplers keynote address, the Session Chair invited first panelist Dr. James C. Witte (Professor, Department of Sociology; Director, Center for Social Science Research, George Mason University, USA) to make his presentation, which is being reproduced verbatim with minor editing: Social scientists the world over are facing many of the same issues about the relevance of the social sciences and about how they assert themselves; and let the policymakers, other scientists and the public realize that they have a contribution to make. That is something they share in common. It applies in Europe, in Pakistan, certainly in the United States and even in Russia, where social scientists are fighting the exact same issues and trying to figure out how they assert their value in important policy discussions. More directly to Dr. Hipplers address, the example of the manual on counterinsurgency was very relevant for me. One of my colleagues at George Mason University, who is president-elect of the Association for Anthropologists Without Borders, has taken a very strong stand against consulting for the military. I have myself been consulting for the Director of the Office of National Intelligence, often referred to as the bad guys, and we have talked quite a bit about what role social science research should play in areas like the military or intelligence community. The first thing that has allowed me to work for the bad guys is I have also done a lot of work for the good guys such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency that takes on discrimination in the United States. In both cases, what I really have to do is to hang on to my professional training and ethics, which are about not only research methods but also their correct application. Similarly, they are about not only understanding my role as a social scientist, but also in other capacities. Therefore, I suggest that ethics should be an integral part of any social science curriculum.

26

Session II

The second thing that has allowed me to work for the bad guys is I refuse security clearance; I am allowed to write about and fully disclose any work I do for the government. If government officials do not want me to disclose it, they better not give me the consultancy. I think social scientists should not do anything either for the government or the private sector that they cannot disclose since the scrutiny of their peers allows them to stay honest. One of the things talked quite a bit about in my discipline, sociology, is what we call public sociology. George Mason University has the first PhD program in public and applied sociology; we do not know what it means though. We are struggling as much as you are in tying to figure out what are the standards we should hold our students and ourselves to, and what should be the focal points of this type of program. The earlier speakers talked about some of the solutions that we have also focused on. The first is collaboration with the public. If social scientists work with the public at all levels and seek its input in all issues, this will not only serve national interests but also enhance the quality of social science research. The second, as also alluded to by both keynote speakers, has to do with communication. Whatever social scientists learn does not have a lot of value if it sits in American Journal of Sociology article that is read or cited by, at best, a few hundred people. Instead, social scientists need to enter the public debate, translate the knowledge they have gained, and make it accessible to the public that has helped them produce it. Finally I come to the role of values in the social sciences! On the one hand are ethical standards; while on the other is willingness of social scientists to articulate their values. Rather than being blinded by them, social scientists should share with the public the values that guide their research. For example, I am doing some work on climate change. Our team is very committed to the idea that we have got a problem, which for some reason is not being discussed openly and objectively, at least in the United States. One of the things we have learnt is that we have to be extra good researchers, not just good researchers. That will be a value for us as well, because our peers know we are advocates for a particular position and they are going to look at every number we produce. An interesting aspect of public sociology is to broaden your peer review, which will become even stronger if you are clear about the values that guide your research.

[Dr. Rashid Amjad]

After Dr. James C. Witte, the Session Chair invited next panelist Dr. Rashid Amjad (Vice Chancellor, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, Islamabad) to make his presentation, which is being reproduced verbatim with minor editing: The topic of this session, the role of social science research in public policymaking, poses a question that is rather difficult to answer. How and at what stage a particular decision is taken, and what are the factors that influence a particular decision by the policymakers, is very difficult to separate from the body of knowledge and research, the political possibilities, and the whole question of the spectrum of possibilities. This makes it very difficult to say that this particular policy came as a result of this particular research.

27


I agree with those who say that we should look at the role of social science research in public policy debates, and at how good research and analytical work has influenced public policy debates in Pakistan; and have three questions in this regard: 1. What role have social scientists played in the realm of public policy debate in the past? 2. What role are social scientists playing today? 3. What lessons can social scientists learn from the present and the past to look at what they should do more effectively in the future? Looking at the past, we must not lose sight of the fact that when Pakistan came into being, the education base was weak and the research base was even weaker. Those who have carried out a review of social science research in Pakistan with great regard for the work of COSS, Dr. Akbar S. Zaidi and others have not done justice to the research conducted at least until 2000 by Pakistani social scientists. A few things must be done before people start writing articles claiming no social science research was done in Pakistan, or whatever was done was useless, or whatever was done was done by the Americans or consultants, since this can be debated. First of all, we need to carefully analyze and document the research done by Pakistani social scientists. One thing the HEC should do through the CDSSHP in this connection is carry out survey articles on different topics related to the social sciences. These articles would document the work done by different scholars at different periods of time and give us an exact idea of their contribution. When I was studying at University of the Punjab in the late 1960s, revolution and change were in the air. The Social Science Research Centre was doing some very basic research, while the Board of Economic Inquiries was carrying out research on economic issues. The impression that nothing was happening is wrong, thus I would repeat that we should first document the research done by Pakistani social scientists in the past. I can give one example from my own institution. As part of PIDEs Economic History Series, we are carrying out survey articles on its contribution to policymaking and policy debate during different decades and in different areas. As Pakistanis, our main problem is that we raise huge questions and then try to find answers to them. Instead, we should look at what we have already done and try to build on it. Here I would like to mention that the Oxford University Press, by publishing a large body of work such as memoirs, has provided social scientists with enormous possibilities to use this material in their research. I now come from the past to the present. One thing most experts agree on is that, at least, economically Pakistan has not done too badly. The countrys population has increased by five or six times since the independence, but its per capita GDP has also increased by three times, though we could have done much better. Just to cite an example, in the 1960s, the exports of not only South Korea, but also all the four Asian tigers were less than those of Pakistan. The problems Pakistan faces are structural; they can be tackled only through indepth analytical research by social scientists. To understand the dynamics of our growth

28

Session II

process, its foundations need to be analyzed by social scientists working not only in their narrow fields of specialization but also collectively. Pakistan has gone through different paths: the great movement for the independence, the great era of capitalism under Ayub, the great period of socialism under Bhutto, the great period of Islamization and capitalism under Zia, etc. The way we have changed and the way we have looked at the issues that we have raised is fundamental. Today, we face what I like to call the perfect storm: stagflation in the economy, global recession, mini-world war on borders, insurgency and regional forces fighting for a part of the economic cake. At this particular movement in time, social scientists will have to play a very important role. They will have to look into their arsenal, the research they have carried out, to be able to tackle the very difficult and challenging problems that we face. In addition, these problems would need not short-term but fairly immediate solutions that are never easy. Let me talk about some of the issues that I feel are very important! The first is corruption and injustice. Today a wind is blowing across the developing world, be it the Middle East or South Asia, against corruption, which has eaten at the very fabric of our societies. The majority of young people in these countries are frustrated because not only they did not get a job, but also they felt injustice was done to them; they were better qualified and still they did not get a job. Our judiciary and media are playing a very important role in fighting corruption at the highest levels, but more needs to be done. The second is devolution. We have devolved, but as always, we have not done our homework; thus devolution has raised a large number of issues. The third issue is womens empowerment. We really need to tap on our greatest unutilized resource: the women of Pakistan. The women are underutilized and overworked, and they have not been given a sufficient role to play in this country. Have we, as social scientists, played any part in decision-making? My answer would be yes. I was a member of the Panel of Economists that was asked to frame the 10th Five-Year Plan. Just as we were about to release the report, the policy agenda changed

proceedings of 1st hec international social science conference

Documents