I have been interacting with many students who wish to pursue doctoral research and lead a career in academics.  These interactions have been in formal setup as well as informal exchanges across the length and breadth of India.  The universities have different practices for admitting the students, though this difference has reduced over time and there is some uniformity.

The degree of competition especially when one is looking for doing the course from reputed universities or institutions like IITs or IIMs, is huge.  And in many of the universities it is still dominated by the eligible research supervisors.

Few days back I was astonished to see a meme where it was mentioned that – Best thing I learnt from PhD that you should choose your supervisor more carefully than your life partner.

This triggered me and for a moment I thought that is the other way as well – a supervisor should choose the scholar wisely.  Later I got into some thinking and started reflecting on my interactions with past, present, and prospective scholars who have been working with me or have interacted with me.  It gave me some insight which I am sharing hereunder.

The process of research needs focus, commitment, and coordination. Sometimes research leads to a formal degree and sometimes it leads to a product that can help provide some solution to an existing or probable problem. Some carry out research to contribute to the pool of knowledge, some do it because it is enforced by agencies that are involved in regulating higher education ecosystem, as a requirement for career growth.  On the trends of Ph Ds and their quality, in 2017 I had written a small piece after attending a conference [5th Int Conference on Issues and Challenges in Doctoral Research to mark 5th anniversary of World Doctorates Day on 25th August 2017 at JNU, New Delhi].

In most cases research is viewed as a joint effort of a team or/and culmination of group effort. The efforts are put forth to devise, design, and develop a solution to a problem concerning human living.

Though India has been known for its strong ancient knowledge system yet on the measures established by the west, our research system and output has not been up to mark or up to their standards.

In independent India we inherited British system of education guided by Macaulay and company at all levels that led us to focus more on rote learning and transactional approach; that wired us to serve the master and fulfil his wishes. However, there were great thinkers who had original thinking and vision for educated and prosperous Bharat. Their philosophical contributions made them win laurels.

And whoever had better research aptitude in science and technology, was driven to move away from the country for the want of facilities, infrastructure, and environment. Or these brainy individuals were identified by the so called patrons of good quality research and so called protectors of individual talent. It resulted in brain drain and costed us heavily.

When it comes to the university system and research done by teachers teaching in the universities in India, it used to be more student-centric. The student scholar was supposed to identify a research problem and choose appropriate research supervisor depending on his/her network and convenience. Teachers’ job was to supervise such scholars and primarily provide administrative support and reviewing of the progress. The onus of selecting the topic and the supervisor was on the student and the supervisor was not having much choices.

Since it was more scholar driven it helped in cases where the scholar had enough time for identifying the area of work. Time here means when after doing masters the student spent few years’ time in teaching and developing a researchable proposal. In that spirit the scholar showed determination and conviction to carry out research and with the support of the supervisor it became better. However, as time passed the rules and regulations governing universities and formal research programs changed.  The students who wished to pursue research did not terminate their education at masters and began to look for research topics, institutions, and supervisors.

As mentioned earlier we followed British approach that was scholar-driven/centric.  However, as we grew and got exposure to the universities in the US, we also started practising their system wherever possible. The US system is more supervisor-driven/centric where the teachers identify the problem and pursue research. They take up projects and encourage scholars to join them. They also keep looking for good scholars who they think have aptitude, competence, and ability to carry out research by being part of the larger team.

The research supervisors already have their focus and they keep looking for good students.  This way there is continuity in research and it culminates into creation of authentic and scientific knowledge as well as a perspective that keep guiding policies, suggesting improvements in existing structure, analysing the problems in implementing the policies, and several such propositions.

There is huge difference across disciplines on the process of conducting the research.  Social sciences and humanities are different and both of them are different from sciences.  The approaches in pure science and life sciences are as different as between humanities and social sciences. Broadly when I look at the researches in sciences in general, I find their research being much more organized as compared to social science or humanities.

It is interesting to observe that we are following a hybrid system and, in that way, it is neither fully student-centric nor it is fully supervisor-centric.  Expecting that after doing masters one would have clarity on the research domain and one would be mature enough to identify research problem is too much. On the other side many research supervisors lack focus of their work which makes them routine supervisor leading to a transactional degree at the end of the work.

The higher education system in India is facing a challenge to revisit, regulate, and revise the existing standards and requirements for teachers ensuring good quality research through mandating it for all teachers involved in the process of designing and delivering courses at different levels starting with graduation to the postdoctoral level.  Education is not an event but an experience.  In the mechanical process of teaching we have PPTised education where the students hardly believe that a teacher can really teach without a Power Point Presentation.

The social media platforms that dominate young generation put the research supervisor in a bad taste which requires a counter.  There is no doubt that better relationship between supervisor and the scholar shall provide better learning experience for both.  The UGC chairman, Prof Jagadish Kumar has a very interesting story about choosing his supervisor.

Whether the supervisor chooses the scholar or the scholar chooses the supervisor, what matters more is their loyalty, honesty, and commitment to pursue good quality research without using or abusing the other.