Research at the Mercy of Capital
An Analysis of the State of Research in the Philippines
“While internationalization per se can be devoid of economic or hegemonic motives, the reality dominated by a neoliberal US and Western Europe suggests otherwise”
Introduction
The impact and importance of universities can be understood by their ability to undertake three functions: teaching (instruction), research, and extension. These three are equally important and efforts to carry them out have a huge impact on society.
Nowadays there is emphasis on strengthening research capabilities, and many universities have either achieved remarkable reputation in doing research, or are drawing up plans to bolster their capabilities. Nevertheless, many universities in the so-called developing countries are still mostly teaching universities, with less emphasis on research, while universities from developed countries are renowned for their strengths and capabilities in research. In the Philippines, only about 20% undertake research activities in addition to their teaching and extension duties, while a sizable 80%-90% are mostly engaged in teaching.
These disparities in research capabilities do not remain at the top, administrative levels; rather, its effects trickle down to the individual researcher on the ground, whose talents are being wasted by lack of opportunities to undertake useful research in their own country. This article looks at the difficulties the Filipino researcher has to endure to plan, manage, and carry through an entire research project from start to completion: from small, local problems like funding difficulties and red tape, to larger, systemic problems.
Plight of the Filipino Researcher
The difficulties in research are especially aggravated in countries like the Philippines, where roadblocks like bureaucratic processes as well as corruption divert the researcher’s attention to problems other than that of their research. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED), for example, is supposedly the prime provider of grants as well as capacity building for research, but funding acquisition has been needlessly difficult and stringent. While guidelines are there to ensure fair implementation, it also adds up to bureaucratic processes that make research funding more difficult than it should be. An applicant for a specific research grant, for example, has to go through some 3 or more months of bureaucratic processes, writing and revision of research proposals, as well as waiting time before funding gets approved and disbursement finally takes place. The approval rate lies between 30% and 40%, which CHED attributes mostly to weak research background or methodologies, or that the applicant is not considered an expert in their field. While ideally these are sound criteria for judgment, the low approval rate might also be a symptom of the lack of training or access to capability building programs, a point which will be discussed later. Besides this, some grants take too much time to be disbursed to the researchers, and sometimes it never reaches the researcher at all. The process is tedious and tiring, discouraging potential researchers from applying.
This relative scarcity of research funding and opportunities lead to a sort-of competition between various research interests, forcing the government to prioritize what kind of research is deemed to be important at a given time. This scarcity also leads some researchers to bend over backwards just to secure funding, even if sometimes it means conceding to the advice of CHED’s evaluation panels at the expense of the researcher’s agenda or leeway.
In some cases, funding opportunities, and especially capability-building seminars, are also available yet not widely disseminated. CHED’s research capability-building conferences are mostly held in Manila, making access by educators from the provinces to these conferences more challenging. Aside from lack of awareness, some find the CHED application process too tedious and thus were discouraged to try.
The unreliability of government funding in research efforts is also manifested by the tendency of Filipino researchers and research institutions to rely on private and foreign sources of funding, which may have adverse effects on the direction of research. One such effect is the tendency of the donor agency to dictate the research agenda of researchers, leaving little room for creativity or exercise of the researcher’s agenda. Furthermore, it allows the donor’s research agenda to predominate, and this is a problem especially if the donor’s agenda does not conform to the overall research program of the university nor does it aim to solve a local problem. In a study by de la Cruz (2013), university researchers working in university social research centers (USRC’s) stated that the donors basically controlled the USRC’s research agenda, without regard for other factors such as university research thrusts and local/regional challenges, among others. In addition, being donor-dependent also makes research programs susceptible to changes from within the funding institutions. Limited funding cripples these research centers’ ability to sustain a long-term program and be reduced to working on topics that receive funding.
Inevitably, these difficulties lead Filipino researchers to seek better opportunities elsewhere, contributing to a migration of Filipino researchers as well as other professionals in a phenomenon called brain drain. The country has been grappling with this since the 1970s, with the government eventually admitting defeat and making it official by creating agencies that regulate and take care of the overseas workers’ welfare. While the government sees this practice of labor export as a positive thing because of the dollar remittances received, it is overall damaging to the country’s development since it deprives the country of valuable research talent and thus keeps the country’s research culture stunted.
Neoliberalism: Intrusive and Harmful
The plight of the Filipino researcher, particularly in academia, is best understood when we consider the current geopolitical order — a neoliberal one with the West and the United States at the top of it. Neoliberalism is a set of policies and ideas that ultimately aim for unrestricted access to markets and flow of capital through the increased role of the private sector in many facets of society, including basic social services. It is best summarized through the policies of liberalization, privatization, and deregulation. Liberalization opens up the economy to foreign competition which, in a state such as the Philippines where local industries are underdeveloped, further exacerbates the unequal footing of local and foreign businesses and thus securing foreign domination of the economy. Privatization is the increasing delegation of various sectors of the economy to the private sector, including basic social services such as education, healthcare, and water supply. Deregulation hands over more control to the private sector by effectively minimizing or relinquishing the government’s power to oversee or intervene in economic matters. Effectively, neoliberalism is an abandonment of the state over matters of economics and even basic social services, leaving these susceptible to market as well as other external forces.
Neoliberalism is manifested in the Philippine government’s acceptance of policy recommendations from international financial institutions to fulfill international obligations (such as debt servicing) as well as to attract more foreign capital to invest in the country. In a process known as structural adjustment program (SAP), the government succumbs to external pressures to rationalize/realign funds to favor debt servicing, as well as austerity measures that can cause hardship for the people. One such austerity measure can be in the form of privatization, as exemplified by the division of the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Systems (MWSS) into two private concessionaires.
Picture the state of research in the Philippines due to the adoption of these policies: funding for research is relatively small, leading the government to prioritize certain research thrusts over others. Rules for funding are made stringent to ensure that the measly funds would not be wasted, leading to increased competition among academic researchers. Funding is also relatively skewed towards science and engineering research as opposed to social sciences and humanities. Furthermore, increased stringency leads to tighter bureaucratic practices that ultimately delays the disbursement of funding.
Compare this image to that of the research in the United States as well as Western Europe: prestigious universities with relatively high research productivity in prestigious scientific journals. This puts them on top of most university and journal rankings which translates to more endowment from various sectors.
These contrasting images represent the current state of education and research under increasing internationalization dominated by neoliberalism, and it is clear who wins and who loses.
While internationalization per se can be devoid of economic or hegemonic motives, the reality dominated by a neoliberal US and Western Europe suggests otherwise. Neoliberalism promotes the free market and profit as the common good and calls for unchecked, unrestricted access to markets. It benefits multinational corporations as well as the advanced, capitalist countries on which they are based while giving them the upper hand in assigning roles to the various countries and institutions which they effectively control. It is a pervasive ideology that enters every facet of society, with the aim of turning each of them into markets and industries that generate profit.
Neoliberalism affects the Philippine education sector, particularly higher education and their research efforts, since such external pressures also forces the government to “rationalize,” i.e. make choices. Its susceptibility to market forces lessens its independence to make decisions on its research agenda. Instead, it is forced to prioritize which projects or goals are “more important.” This is exemplified by the relatively low budget dedicated by the country for research. While it does increase, it remains at around 1% of the GDP, as compared to other industrialized countries devoting a significant amount (around 2%). A huge chunk of the budget is instead allocated to other areas deemed “priorities” such as infrastructure development and, more recently, military and police funding for the war on drugs.
Thus, there is heavy reliance on private (and foreign) funding for research, as well as foreign direct investment (FDI’s) in general. While these kinds of funding indeed help out by bringing in grants and giving more opportunities for researchers, the nature of these research activities is still somehow affected by external pressures and interests, especially that of the donor. FDI’s, meanwhile, have the potential to increase productivity for local firms and even have the potential to spur industrial growth that can be utilized to construct laboratories for universities which can help increase productivity in terms of scientific research, yet the realities on the ground show that FDI’s did not translate into significant investment to local industries, nor did it greatly affect unemployment rates. The Philippines still has not jumpstarted local heavy industries nor does it have some degree of control over key industries. (the shipbuilding industry, one of the significant heavy industries in the country, is mostly controlled by foreign capital).
In academia, the entrance of private capital in the research sector in the form of grants or donations can be detrimental, since the donor’s economic priorities will inevitably affect research output. It effectively gives room for private entities to control (or even set) the agenda of the research groups they are funding. It allows them to withhold funding on research projects that are not marketable or are deemed to be of low demand, and focus on “trending” topics which may benefit them the most (i.e. research projects with a faster return of investment). It increases the market’s influence over research and makes it subservient to industry needs, as opposed to being a more holistic research program geared towards regional/national developmental needs. An example of this is the abundance of science and engineering scholarships and funding as opposed to the lack of such opportunities in the social sciences and humanities sector, commonly regarded as “of low value.” This is also a notion continually reinforced by mass media in articles, texts, and news with headlines like “The most/least useful degree programs,” among others.
These pressures from the macro levels eventually find their way back to the level of the Filipino researcher. Scarce funding, or slow disbursement of funds can make doing research in the country more difficult than it should be. Scarce funding discourages some researchers from seeking funds altogether, instead opting to use funds from their own pockets, while some seek sources from private funding, which as demonstrated might make them susceptible to private interests, or what market forces dictate to be feasible. The lack of capacity-building programs as well as sound research training further contributes to the problem by making it more difficult for more Filipino researchers to access funding as their proposals get rejected.
In a way somewhat unique to the academe yet analogous to a modern-day factory, neoliberal encroachment affects academia in such a way that the research process is converted into an entrepreneurial activity, becoming increasingly measured and surveilled by various measures of quality control, identified only by measures of productivity (publishing), and increasingly being characterized by metrics such as journal and world rankings. Research increasingly becomes a measure of individual accomplishment in academia. The phenomenon of publish and perish, as well as requirements to produce a certain number of publications to attain and/or maintain tenure, puts additional strain, stress, and anxiety on academics, since the security of their jobs depends on the number of publications they can make over a certain period of time, quantity is sometimes being given more priority over quality, or that research becomes geared on what is “trending” and other problems, some even detrimental to regional needs, are given less attention. It further causes divides between tenured and non-tenured faculty, since the former are given priority in obtaining research grants. Furthermore, Academics are pitted against each other by these quantitative measures only akin to a factory producing goods. It defeats the old values of collegiality and replaces it with competition.
All in all, these difficulties in doing research in the academe contribute to its low research output, particularly when compared to industrialized countries. This low productivity might become a problem in the next budget hearing, when it gives the state more reason to “rationalize” funding to areas deemed more “important.” The vicious cycle then continues.
Towards Research for the People
Increasing the number of grants alone is not the solution to the problem. In fact, the research budget did increase over the years, but still remains at around less than 1% of the GDP and is measly when compared to industrialized countries or even some of the neighboring countries in Southeast Asia. The government can also invest in capacity building, encouraging seminars and grants-in-aid, which many academic researchers would find appealing. The better dissemination of capability-building seminars across the country is a welcome step towards strengthening the research backgrounds of academic researchers.
However, the systemic problem remains: the country’s hands are tied. Its ability to set its independent research agenda is influenced by external forces, so much so that it is forced to prioritize one over the other. Science and engineering still dominate over humanities and social science research grants in terms of funding and information dissemination.
The increasing internationalization of higher education institutions is not a bad thing per se; in fact, openness for the flow of knowledge and scholars is ultimately beneficial to everyone involved. What makes it crippling, however, is the hierarchy which centuries of colonialism and imperialism created and are now being worsened by the intrusion of neoliberalism into the educational system. Besides its emphasis on individual accomplishments and promotion of competition even between knowledge workers, it also ultimately serves to attract talent out of the developing world and into the knowledge economies of the developed world, further sealing their dominance.
A research culture that is oriented towards the betterment of the people, therefore, has the potential to reverse this trend and provide more opportunities for talented Filipino researchers. This is to be achieved by breaking free from imperialist dependence by striking down harmful neoliberal policies and reorienting the national research agenda towards solving national problems and serving national, regional, and even local needs. The country must also assert and embark on a national industrialization program which will not only provide opportunities for scientists and researchers in the country but also increase self-reliance and find direct applications of research solutions to real-world, national problems.
While those are indeed still big dreams, we can start with small steps. On the ground, we have to admit that we cannot effectively solve real-world problems and challenges in isolation from the people who will eventually benefit from our work. At the same time, we have to recognize that we can learn and benefit from the people’s first-hand experience of the problems we are trying to solve.
We can start fostering a research culture that centers on the people and placing value on the knowledge they can potentially contribute to our research endeavors. A true people-oriented approach must replace the current research culture centered on laboratories, published in journals inaccessible to the masses.
Researchers must be highly encouraged to form links of solidarity with the masses who are just as victimized by neoliberalism as researchers are, and must use their expertise to solve problems the masses are facing.
We must strive to involve the masses in our research by engaging in immersion activities that allow us to experience first-hand where and how our research can help communities. In solving development-related problems, for example, a multidisciplinary team can spend a few weeks in small barrios and indigenous communities to observe and try to understand a certain problem from multiple fields and points of view. They can also partner with organizations already working in the area to help them gain access as well as preliminary information. In the social sciences, ethnographic approaches as well as counter mapping activities allow knowledge workers to learn outside hegemonic structures and from the masses themselves.
It is this kind of research culture which directly benefits the people and ensures that the people themselves are making use of such solutions. Eventually, such a culture will demolish ivory towers and orient research towards a more community-oriented, nationally-committed goal, paving the way for more systemic changes.
REFERENCES
Almonte-Acosta PhD, Sherlyne A., and Rose Marie Salazar-Clemeña PhD. “Developing Research Culture in Philippine Higher Education Institutions: Perspectives of University Faculty.” Competition, Cooperation and Change in the Academic Profession: Shaping Higher Education’s Contribution to Knowledge and Research, Hangzhou, China, 2007, pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6b67/0b4aac3f2713db319ea743c158d650b8c82d.pdf?_ga=2.147224439.1318766371.1597493060–484461404.1597493060.
Bambeger, Annette, et al. “Neoliberalism, internationalisation and higher education: connections, contradictions and alternatives”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40:2, 203–216, Jan. 22, 2019, DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2019.1569879
Dela Cruz, Leland Joseph R. “Whose Expectations Matter? External Funding, Academic Dispositions, and University Social Research Centers in the Philippines.” Philippine Sociological Review, vol. 61, no. 1, 2013, pp. 147–173. JSTOR,. www.jstor.org/stable/43486359. Accessed Aug. 11, 2020.
Calma, Angelito. “Funding For Research and Research Training and Its Effects on Research Actvity: The Case of the Philippines”. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. vol. 19 no. 2, 2010, pp. 213–228.
Commission on Higher Education (2016). “Pathways to Equity, Relevance and Advancement in Research, Innovation, and Extension in Philippine Higher Education. CHED Memorandum Order №52”. Retrieved August 16, 2020, from ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CMO-52-s.-2016.pdf.
IBON Media and Communications, “Stop over-relying on foreign investments, government told”. June 4, 2018. https://www.ibon.org/stop-over-relying-on-foreign-investments-government-told/.
Kapila, Sachin & Lyon, Fegus, Expedition Field Techniques: People Oriented Research. Retrieved August 24, 2020, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/caa7/7df7e933a0fe75475a839273ae7019f014a7.pdf.
Sanyal, B.C., & Varghese, N. (2006). Research Capacity of the Higher Education Sector in Developing Countries. Retrieved August 18, 2020, from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e730/7aba4fcd1e32bf057e4bb81b9e83bdf2cad2.pdf?_ga=2.148236023.1728741048.1597776635-742711216.1597776635.
Wa-Mbaleka, Safary & Aguila Gomez, Maricel. (2018). “State Funding of Research in the Philippines: Processes and Stakeholders’ Experiences”. Prism. Volume 22.
Vurayai, Simon & Ndofirepi, Amasa Philip (2020) ‘Publish or perish’: implications for novice African university scholars in the neoliberal era, African Identities, DOI: 10.1080/14725843.2020.1813084
