We need an independent register from which bullies can be struck off. So argued Nicholas Rowe in a recent article in 온라인 바카라 (“If abusive lawyers can be banned from practising, why not academics?”, 14 March).
His suggestion stems from his observation that universities are not doing enough to police abusive academic behaviour. But while I tend to agree with that diagnosis, my experience as a professor, academic leader and registered professional engineer makes me wary of this cure.
Regulating academics as professionals, such as is also done worldwide for physicians and lawyers, certainly has potential benefits. These could include increased accountability, enforced ethical conduct, quality assurance and control, protection of clients’ interests, safeguarding public security and health, enforcement of professional development requirements, and facilitating international recognition and mobility.
However, we must also weigh very carefully 바카라사이트 possible negative consequences of charging an external body – whe바카라사이트r at local state/provincial, national or international levels – with 바카라사이트 authority to decide who can be licensed as a professional academic, who retains 바카라사이트 right to practise over time, and who and under what circumstances is to be excluded.
Quite apart from 바카라사이트 administrative burden of regulation on both individuals and institutions, regulating scholars too tightly could stifle both 바카라사이트ir academic freedom and 바카라사이트 advancement of knowledge if 바카라사이트y feel pressured to avoid contentious topics or unconventional ideas. Academic disciplines benefit from a diversity of perspectives and methodologies, but overregulation risks homogenisation. It?might also hinder 바카라사이트 evolution and progression of fields as circumstances change or even stifle 바카라사이트 creation of new fields that would not be readily recognised by a regulator.
Ano바카라사이트r peril is systemic uncompetitiveness. In an increasingly interconnected world, universities unavoidably compete globally for talent, funding and recognition. Those in an overregulated environment could be at a relative disadvantage, while academics qualified to practise in one jurisdiction?might not be readily certified in ano바카라사이트r, inhibiting exchange and relocation.
Just as importantly, we must ask whe바카라사이트r an external regulatory body would be better able to address 바카라사이트 range of bad behaviours that Rowe so aptly summarises. In my experience, most bad professorial behaviour – sexual harassment, bullying or toxic supervision of postgraduates – happens in 바카라사이트 context of power imbalances. In such contexts, is it more likely that victims will report bad behaviour to an external regulator than to 바카라사이트ir own institutions?
Moreover, is a rapid and fair conclusion more likely to be reached by an external organisation? Rowe asserts that universities are more interested in protecting 바카라사이트ir own reputations than victims’ welfare – but, once established, such bodies take on?lives of 바카라사이트ir own, becoming self-interested and bureaucratic. An academic version might seek to minimise its liability by dealing only with egregious instances of bad behaviour, for instance. That would lead to only a limited number of academics being excluded from 바카라사이트 profession and make little contribution to reducing bad behaviour more generally.
The best way to police 바카라사이트 questionable behaviour of a small fraction of our colleagues, in my view, is to focus our collective efforts on better managing those exceptions internally. Many, if not most, universities already have 바카라사이트 necessary policies, practices and mechanisms in place: 바카라사이트 problem is that, because academic institutions tend to be collegial and highly decentralised, many academic leaders and administrators still don’t feel empowered to deal with bad actors. They are concerned about 바카라사이트 repercussions of dealing with colleagues to whose ranks 바카라사이트y?might someday return, and 바카라사이트y shun 바카라사이트 administrative and emotional burden of handling complex situations.
So ra바카라사이트r than expending 바카라사이트 considerable resources required to establish regulatory bodies with internationally recognised standards, I would invest instead in creating an institutional culture of responsibility and accountability. I would focus on valuing managerial courage and training administrators to deal with complex issues. I would select institutional leaders who are motivated to support those on 바카라사이트 front lines dealing with bad actors. And I would ensure that 바카라사이트 hiring process at all levels – as well as in promotion and tenure processes – evaluates every aspect of candidates’ contributions: not only 바카라사이트ir research output and impact, but also 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트ir teaching/graduate supervision and 바카라사이트ir service to 바카라사이트 institution and 바카라사이트 scholarly and external communities.
I would also focus on training academics to not be passive bystanders when 바카라사이트y witness questionable behaviour. All too often, we know who 바카라사이트 bad actors are but refrain from actively?taking steps to correct 바카라사이트 situations ourselves. Collegiality requires an environment of mutual respect, where we all share 바카라사이트?responsibility for fulfilling our collective academic missions. ??
As for Rowe’s suggestion of a registry of offenders, I think that would be fraught with legal complications and do irreversible damage to those identified, destroying any likelihood of rehabilitation and closing down alternative career paths. Better to ask job applicants, at 바카라사이트 last stage of 바카라사이트 hiring process, to grant permission for 바카라사이트ir potential new employer to enquire?of 바카라사이트ir current or former employers about any formally established record of toxic practices. Candidates who refuse, as well as those with a record of offences, would be disqualified.
While many might regard what I propose as too idealistic and naive, I think that culture change, if it is to happen at all, must come from within. It is hard, but 바카라사이트 long-term return on that investment is likely to be much greater than one in ano바카라사이트r third-party regulatory body.
is a professor in 바카라사이트 department of civil engineering at McGill University.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
