ISS at 65: Still educating academics of high integrity? by Bas de Gaay Fortman

By Posted on 1361 views

About the author:
De Gaay Fortman-003As part-time professor of economic development at the Institute of Social Studies Bas de Gaay Fortman gave his Inaugural Address on ‘Rural development in an age of survival’ in1972[i]. As the Institute’s Chair in Political Economy since 1977 his Valedictory Address was entitled ‘Power and protection, productivism and the poor’ (2002). Among his many books and other publications are Theory of Competition Policy (1966)[ii], Political Economy of Human Rights (2011)[iii] and recently Moreel Erfgoed (Moral Heritage, 2016)[iv].



As a long-standing member of the ISS community, Bas de Gaay Fortman, author of a book on moral heritage, argues that ISS should cherish its heritage of nurturing academics of integrity. He poses the question of whether ISS today can keep up this tradition, or whether the institute has been caught too much in the rigour of academic standards alone. Solidarity and staff-student interaction are key in breeding academics of integrity
.


As this blog appears in the Institute’s lustrum week, I shall take the liberty of going a little back into the history of this extraordinary academic institution. Actually, it was a personal meeting in 1967 with its first rector, Professor Egbert de Vries, who had just retired. His advice gave me focus in more than half a century of academic engagement.

Already soon after its foundation in 1952 I came to know of the Institute of Social Studies. My father was a part-time visiting professor at the ISS those days. The Institute had a rector but around him very few fixed staff. For its diploma courses—Master degree programs came much later—it used the services of professors at regular Dutch universities.

My school was close to The Palace where the Institute had been hosted by Queen Juliana of the Netherlands. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when I was a University student, I enjoyed Saturday evenings in its ‘Common room’, playing billiards, table tennis and chess with students from far overseas. Thus, I remember discussions with three Ivorians who followed a nine months diploma program to prepare for their appointments as Ambassadors of their newly independent country in Paris, Washington and with the UN in New York. Most remarkable, however, was a meeting with Bert de Vries after attending a conference in The Palace on ‘Development and Higher Education’. This was in 1967, when I was about to leave for Zambia to take up my appointment in the Economics department of its University. That conference had produced lots of well-meant statements on ‘our’ contribution to progress in the ‘developing countries’. ‘Do not be misled’, professor De Vries said, ‘there will be just one challenge for you: contributing to the education of academics of high integrity.’

In academic circles in this country, and undoubtedly elsewhere too, academic integrity is subject to much discussion. In codes of conduct it has been specified in standards such as ‘avoiding false claims’, ‘making sure that standard research practices are followed’, etc. Laudable principles. But let us look at the dictionary definition of integrity: ‘the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles’. Thus, integrity is a quality that typifies a whole personality. Among the synonyms of that attitude I highlight ‘uprightness’, ‘truthfulness’ and ‘trustworthiness’. These qualities, indeed, imply much more than just professional honesty.

ISS_1950s
Palace Noordeinde (1957~), The Hague. Photographer: Nico Naeff.

In 65 years of ISS commitment to the education of honest and upright academics, have we succeeded? Over the past decades, I have seen some strong indications that this engagement has made a difference. In countries in dismal material as well as spiritual conditions, it was often at the universities where oases of integrity still existed. In particular, I saw many of our alumni and alumnae showing courage and upright behaviour in times of structural injustice and oppression.

This year, I published a book on moral heritage, out of my concern that the moral heritage of the Netherlands and globally is increasingly challenged by developments in the past 50 years. The concept of moral heritage concerns the relation between morality and power and much of the ideas I developed in the book have been inspired by the students I met at ISS, whose integrity and commitment to the development of their country was often outstanding.

 

Let me conclude this lustrum blog with two brief observations. Firstly, our upright academics who have returned to places where their commitment towards honesty and public justice is urgently needed, expect more than just our professional support. Indeed, communication in our ISS Alumni – connecting the world-groups, needs to centre on solidarity more than anything else. Secondly, ISS needs to ask itself the question if its academic work and institutional setting is only focused on acceptable standards of research and teaching while missing out on the education of ‘academics of high integrity’? I leave this question open, noting however that first and foremost the latter mission requires personal and reciprocal interaction between staff and students. So far, compared to other academic institutions in this country, the ISS has been extremely fortunate in being able to create a conducive environment for personal interaction with its students or, in ISS terminology, its ‘participants’.


Egbert de Vries
Illustratie (van de ISS website, het portret bevindt zich nu in het souterrain) Egbert_Vries.jpg

Professor Egbert de Vries was the first full-time rector of the ISS during ten years (1956-1966), well-known as ‘rector magnificus’. He was also Emeritus Professor in International Development at the University of Pittsburgh. The Institute of Social Studies also awarded its honorary doctorate to Egbert de Vries in 1966.

 


[i] Published as article in De Economist, March 1973, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 157–171
[ii] Amsterdam: North Holland (now Elsevier)
[iii] London/New York: Routledge
[iv] Amsterdam: Prometheus

How do we decide what we research? by Terry Cannon

By Posted on 2611 views

T_Cannon_resAbout the author:
Terry Cannon is Research Fellow in Rural Futures, Institute of Development Studies at University of Sussex, UK.


This blog is based on the Development Research Seminar presentation by Terry Cannon, held on 10 October 2017 at the International Institute of Social Studies, during the 65th anniversary week of the Institute.

As ISS celebrates its 65th anniversary, I want to share some concerns about what we in development studies institutions are facing. Most of us might assume that we are ‘free’ to research what we want. ISS and similar institutions like my own at IDS work in what is loosely defined as development studies, and choose to research what we believe will support understanding of the issues involved. My concern is that we are increasingly deluded about our ability to make independent and self-determined choices.


Was there was once a golden age in which there was a complete lack of constraint in what we could research? No – the problem is rather a narrowing of scope, determined by changes that have happened in the last three decades in funding arrangements and institutional demands (for example the UK “Research Excellence Framework”), contractual pressures (e.g. for minimum publication outputs and external funding), and the emergence of what has been called the ‘neoliberal university’. These changes have been incremental, and have the appearance of rationality. But they are dangerous, and cumulatively they form a punitive framework in which staff are fearful for their place, their progression and survival within the system. It is also impossible for many younger colleagues to imagine that the world was ever different, or that a change to this system is even possible. Those who recognise some of the problems are forced – by the threats inherent in the system – to adopt a state of passive acceptance.

Bangladsh (140).JPG
Source: The author

When I mention the label neoliberalism, I am very aware that it is possibly misunderstood or seen as a knee-jerk, unspecific buzz word. I have little space to be more specific here, but will approximate it as an ideology that claims to be supporting free markets for the benefit of all, and yet fosters a situation in which wealth is transferred from the majority to the minority, while corporations increase their monopoly behaviour in very anti-market ways. Universities increasingly behave as corporations, competing for ‘customers’ and pushing down wages and conditions of their workforce (53% of UK academics are on casual contracts[i]), with cleaners and catering staff from outsourced companies at the ‘bottom’ of the pile on oppressive contracts and minimum wages. Meanwhile, in the UK the average salary of Vice-Chancellors (the “CEO” title of most university directors) is £274,000 a year.[ii] Universities have shifted from being institutions that support the social goals of the wider society into businesses that promote themselves. They are no longer capable of providing the role model for how society might be improved for the benefit of the majority, through ideas of equity, fairness and commentary on the excesses of governments.

What does this mean for development studies? My greatest fear is that the framework of institutional corporatism and funding models has undermined our ability to ask questions about what causes a problem. Poverty, hunger, vulnerability (to hazards or climate change) are not just ‘characteristics’ of different groups of people. But this is how they are increasingly portrayed, as with ‘lifting people out of poverty’, or ‘building resilience’. The SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) say nothing about what is causing problems of poverty, ill-health, hunger, poor water and sanitation and so on. But these problems are largely the result of processes of exploitation and oppression that must be understood and explained. In earlier times, that is exactly what development studies was doing.[iii]

Increasingly it is difficult to seek explanations for these problems: it is more awkward, and we cannot make ‘free’ choices to research them. Development studies institutions are now almost completely reliant on funding from governments and development banks. These institutions are often beneficiaries of the processes that are causing the problems, and have little desire to investigate their origins. The issues that we are ‘allowed’ to research often come ready-framed in ways that disguise the causes of the problems they supposedly address. NGOs are also sucked into this framework to ensure their funding pipeline is healthy, and have much less motivation than in the past to assess the power relationships that are involved in causing problems. This is very relevant for us in development studies, because we work a lot with international and local NGOs.

Bangladsh (87)
Source: The author

And a great deal of previous research is also largely ignored, because it is ‘awkward’: class analysis (which is a primary basis for understanding poverty and inequality) that was a significant source of explanation in the past (for example in relation to land tenure in much of Asia and Latin America) hardly gets a mention. Structural problems faced by women and girls are now dealt with through ‘female empowerment’. Donor conditionality on ‘gender’ expects development organizations to change oppressive male behaviour entrenched for centuries through projects that last just a few years. Vulnerability is addressed not by understanding what leads people to suffer from a natural hazard or climate change (processes related to class, gender, ethnicity, age and belief systems), but by focusing on technical fixes and not challenging the status quo.

In my work in Bangladesh, staff involved in adaptation or disaster risk reduction projects rarely discuss land tenure and landlessness as a cause of vulnerability. The donors and NGOs know that they cannot deal with the root causes and so engage in a game of mutual patronage to fulfil each short-term projects and then move on to the next (IFRC 2014 p.203). While these two related issues are more in the realm of NGO and DRR institutions, my argument is that development studies falls into similar traps. We are in danger of ignoring the processes within power systems that are the causes of many of the problems. When we are coerced and motivated to engage in research that comes with ready-made framings that discourage or make it difficult to identify what is causing a problem, do we become part of the problem rather than making arguments for what would be a proper solution?


[i] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/16/universities-accused-of-importing-sports-direct-model-for-lecturers-pay

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/university-vice-chancellors-average-pay-now-exceeds-275000

[iii] See my blog on the myth of community: http://vulnerabilityandpoverty.blogspot.nl/2014/04/why-do-we-pretend-there-is-community.html