Dear Editor,
Given that the University of Guyana is the only university in the land of Guyana, it ought to view the creation of ideas and knowledge suitable to the domestic circumstance as its primary objective. If UG is to fulfil its developmental objectives it cannot just be a teaching institution. In that case, we ought to close up shop and run a minimal number of programmes at UG. A-level training and a set of well run technical schools would be good enough for the wider population. I therefore have strong disagreements with Mr Sherwood Lowe on this matter (‘UG should emphasize teaching, not research’ SN, July 7).
Indeed, publications in peer-reviewed journals are the best indication of research output and the generation of new ideas and methods. Publications ought to be the main judge for the social sciences, management studies and education. However, the engineers and natural scientists can demonstrate their new ideas by patents and winning research grants. How many patents does UG hold? I would not be harsh on the engineers and natural scientists, however, as the university does not have the facilities for these folks to do the kind of research that is relevant to the private sector and government.
In addition, researchers become superior teachers when they can impart to students their own new research findings and those of colleagues. Guyana cannot continue to only regurgitate materials from the books written in the advanced economies. The country needs to innovate and imitate if it is to progress. Therefore, you need a core set of researchers, scientists and engineers who can understand and decipher the methods and technologies from the advanced world and apply them to the domestic circumstance. To make UG a teaching college is yet another recipe for underdevelopment and subsistence living.
However, I think Mr Lowe touches on a critical constraint to knowledge production. He implied there is not much demand for research work in Guyana. In addition, there is a serious shortage of facilities at UG that impedes the production of ideas. He is right. However, this can only be corrected by the government which does not seem too keen to correct this problem. Perhaps it could be that the vision of the PPP government is subsistence production and living standards for the masses. In that case, the society will muddle along at just above poverty living standards for the masses, but a semi-oligarchy ruling class of people will enjoy the high life, jet travel, per diems when traveling abroad, SUVs, cocktail parties, mansions and so on.
Given the latter, I can see the usefulness in allowing the masses an irrelevant university education as there is no need to innovate and imitate. But that must not be the objective and I hope the AFC will craft an alternative strategy that will show the masses that subsistence production – euphemistically labelled sustainable development by the LCDS – is a ploy to keep them at just above poverty levels.
Yours faithfully,
Tarron Khemraj