Biography for Professor Juan Carlos Silas Casillas Juan Carlos Silas, born in Tlaquepaque, Jalisco, Mexico is currently the Director of the Interdisciplinary Center for the Study of Quality of Education and Eradication of Poverty at the Universidad de Monterrey (UDEM). He holds a PhD in Educational Policy and Leadership from the University of Kansas in the United States. Besides his administrative duties, Juan Carlos is a faculty member at the department of education at UDEM and responsible for the research projects related with higher education and equity. Most of his publications and conference presentations deal with organizational issues on higher education settings, the development of critical thinking on college students and, private higher education like: “Private Higher Education in Mexico at the beginning of the 21st Century” published in 2004 at the International Journal of Private Higher Education e‐journal; “Recognizing the Subsectors in Mexican Private Higher Education” in 2005 at the International Higher education or “Realities and trends in Mexican private higher education” in 2006 at Perfiles Educativos. He has been affiliated to national and international organizations and associations like the Program for Research on Private Higher Education. Dr. Silas was selected as one of the 24 international scholars for the 2007‐2007 New Century Scholar Program sponsored by the government of the United States. Think Big, Act Small: A Way for Increasing Research Productivity in Latin America Professor Juan Carlos Silas Casillas Director Interdisciplinary Centre for the Study of Quality of Education and Eradication of Poverty, University of Monterrey (Mexico) silasjc@yahoo.com; jsilas@udem.edu.mx ____________________________ ABSTRACT: The text intends to provide the reader with ideas about Mexico’s status on the subject and how can we look for an improvement in terms of educational quality and its impact on the nation’s development. It is not an analysis of the Mexican case, however, it provides with many elements describing Mexico that can be observed in other Latin American countries as well. The text describes the current status of many nations in regard to the United Nation’s Human Development Index, and elaborates on ideas about the situation of the higher education system in Mexico as well as the complexity its environment. In the last segment, the text suggests some ways for supporting the growth, development, and mainly the quality of the education to be delivered to the coming generations. The text presents the reader with data and concepts regarding community development, and the basic trends on Mexico’s higher education system: a) a very rapid and dynamic growth in enrollments, b) the diversification in terms of new types of institutions with academic models and delivery modes, and c) a very significant growth from the private sector. Furthermore, the paper reflects on two socio‐academic trends; a sort of “Economical Reductionism” which assigns higher value to technical‐administrative knowledge degrading the social, humanistic and even the scientific knowledge, and a “Educational Darwinism” which favours the holders of market‐
oriented technical training knowledge and credentials. The final segment provides examples on possible ways for strengthening the impact of educational research on the social development. ____________________________ Writing about societal transformations through higher education and research is a complex and thrilling task. The text intends to provide the reader with ideas about Mexico’s status on the subject and how can we look for an improvement in terms of educational quality and its impact on the nation’s development. It is not an analysis of the Mexican case, however, it provides with many elements describing Mexico that can be observed in other Latin American countries as well. The text describes the current status of many nations in regard to the United Nation’s Human Development Index, and elaborates on ideas about the situation of the higher education system in Mexico as well as the complexity its environment. In the last segment, the text suggests some ways for supporting the growth, development, and mainly the quality of the education to be delivered to the coming generations. A look at the context Nowadays it is very frequent to listen to the idea that the world is inexorably heading towards a knowledge‐based economy and is transforming into a knowledge‐based society. The image of a world based on knowledge is very attractive since it depicts a strong value‐added economy and academy as well as an affluent society not linked to physical facilities but to “portable knowledge.” On a related note, its also frequently mentioned that higher (and basic) education institutions will be the leading edge forming the new generations in both the knowledge and skills required to perform well in this new environment. This highly attractive idea is, at least from the Latin American perspective, very debatable. Elements of the Knowledge‐based society and economy in Mexico are evident only in very limited spaces that are regularly determined by international variables over which a country like Mexico has no control. On the matter that a country does have control is on the progress of its human resources (human capital), on the funneling of monetary resources for research and on the definition of a clear path to follow. If Mexico or any other country is seriously trying to relate with this kind of knowledge‐based society, must engage in practices apart from the current status of academic development. This, of course, has implications for the educational sector and its research component. As a starting point it is necessary to contemplate where we are. An interesting exercise is comparing Mexico with other nations. The next few paragraphs will focus on comparing Mexico with four groups of countries: a) Partner countries on NAFTA, b) Other large economies in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil and Chile), c) The so‐called BRIC group of developing nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China, and d) Other countries with equivalent levels of developing during the 1960s (Spain and the Republic of Korea). According to the Human Development Index (HDI) from the year 2004 reported by the UNDP on 2006, Mexico is part of the high HDI group of nations, ranked on place 53. NAFTA partners are on the “Top Ten” group (Canada is 6th and the United States hold place number 8), Spain and Korea are ranked 19 and 26. Argentina and Chile hold the 36th and 38th positions on the ranking. The abovementioned countries have achieved a position higher than Mexico’s on the HDI. On the other hand, the four BRIC countries are located in the mid‐development group of nations. Russia is ranked 65, Brazil 69, China hold place 81 and India is last in this comparison ranked 126th. Countries Canada United States Spain Korea Argentina Chile Mexico Russia Brazil Health .92 .88 .91 .87 .83 .89 .84 .67 .76 Education .97 .97 .98 .98 .95 .91 .86 .95 .88 Wealth .96 1.00 .92 .89 .82 .78 .77 .77 .74 Total .950 .948 .938 .912 .863 .859 .821 .797 .792 Ranking 6 8 19 26 36 38 53 65 69 China India .78 .84 .68 .64 .61 .58 Source: Human Development Report 2006. UNDP .768 .611 81 126 Taking a deeper look at the variables included in the indicators, it is possible to see that on the educational component Mexico is under almost all countries in the sample, slightly above China and well over India. A worrying element here (from the Mexican point of view) is that there is a fairly big group of countries with an overall HDI lower than Mexico’s that have achieved a higher mark on the educational component. In this group one can find Latin American countries like Bolivia, Grenada, Panama, Peru, Venezuela and our hosts: Trinidad y Tobago. Going back to the longitudinal analysis of the national development, comparing Mexico with Spain and Korea is a very interesting task because it shows it is possible to transit from a lower developmental stage to an advanced one in a few decades. A similarly interesting case is the Chilean. According to the available information in 1960 Mexico’s per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 3,155 US Dollars; Spain’s was 3,072 and Korea’s 1,105 USD. That is a virtual tie between Spain and Mexico while the accumulated wealth in Korea was one third of the Mexican; as we all know, this has shifted in a couple of generations. A plausible explanation is related with a clear focus and important investment on the educational system and the generation of knowledge. As a matter of fact, both Korea and Spain are performing slightly better than the United States and Canada in the educational component. In the research realm, it is clear that the research activity can be found in a higher density in countries with a higher economic development. The United States leads the countries in the sample with a very impressive generation and dissemination of knowledge and 4,605 full‐time researchers per million of inhabitants. Spain, Canada, Russia and Korea follow with 3,762; 3,597; 3,319 y 3187 researchers devoting their entire workday to the generation of new knowledge. On the lower part of the chart we can find Argentina with 720, China with 708, Chile with 444, Brazil with 323, Mexico with 268 and India with 119 (UNESCO, 2006). The dramatic difference in terms of production of research and the capacity to carry on is very understandable if one looks at the focus that educational policies have had in the lower‐end countries. These countries have not focused on the generation of knowledge but on achieving a greater educational coverage in all level. Of course, some research production has taken place, Mexico´s CONACyT is an example of it, but as a whole, the emphasis and the allocation of resources is far from the desired. In the Mexican case, it is evident that has enhanced the coverage in all levels and modes of delivery. Enrollment on school year 2005‐2006 included a little more than 31 million students; about 25 million of the in basic (Kindergarten to 9th grade) education, 3´658,765 students enrolled on 10th to 12th grade and about two and a half million (2´446,726) students on the higher education system. Mexican higher education, from the nominal and quantitative perspectives has reached every corner. This is due a very important effort in terms of increasing coverage; this has evidently yielded some results, however it is easy to see that the quality part is still requiring major adjustments. The higher education sector in Mexico is very dynamic. Social, demographic and political changes have produced three basic trends: a) a very dynamic growth in the enrollment of the higher education system as a whole, b) diversification, meaning the emergence of various types of institutions with alternative programs and delivery modes, and c) a significant increase in the number of private institutions and their share of the national enrollment (Silas, 2005a). Enrollment in all educational levels, and especially in higher education, shows an exponential growth. The national enrollment in basic education went from 10´750,545 students in 1970‐1971 to 24´634,065 in 2004‐2005. This represents 13´883,520 more students, almost 408,000 kids each year. High school enrollment went from 369,299 students in 1970 to 3´547,924 in 2004‐2005, 3´178,625 more students, that is a 28% annual increase. In Higher Education the situation is outstanding, especially in “Licenciatura”, the emblematic Higher Education level, because it has grown from 252,236 students in 1970‐1971 to 2,087,698 in 2004‐2005. The second trend is diversification of institutions, models and programs. It’s obviously related with the increase in population, but it’s also affected by the paradigm change about the uses and function of Higher Education, which will be explained ahead. The main changes are: 1) the development of new programs in both public and private institutions with a clear emphasis on serving the market requests, and 2) the start of new kinds of institutions aimed to respond to the educational (training) needs of professionals in the job market. The 1980’s and 1990’s were particularly distinctive because public and private institutions adjusted their programs and designed new “licenciatura” degrees according to the professional needs of the market. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) included new disciplines, mostly related to computer sciences, media communication, and industrial production, while programs such as agronomy or marine sciences as well as primary‐sector‐related programs, decreased significantly (ANUIES, 2003). During the last 15 years of the 20th Century non‐university higher education institutions mushroomed in both, private and public scenarios. These institutions have sometimes received labels like “pseudo‐universities” (Altbach, 2001). These institutions present a specialized disciplinary focus and do not pretend to work the way full‐fledged universities do. Public research centers or arts and culture promoting institutes who do not have teaching as a core activity but offer some licenciatura or graduate degrees characterize this group. In the private realm one can mention two groups: a) organizations whose programs are specifically focused in a particular area (communication sciences, psychology and psychotherapy, dentistry or gastronomy), and b) smaller institutions, usually created by families or individual entrepreneurs whose geographical coverage is circumscribed to a specific urban area. These institutions offer traditional programs at a very low cost of operation usually related with the third sector of the economy. Enrollment in these institutions has increased exponentially and, according to SEP and ANUIES, the trend may continue for the next years. Diversification is also evident as other types of Higher Education have appeared like two‐year degrees: “Profesional Asociado” or “Técnico Superior Universitario (TSU).” The creation of these type of higher education degrees, especially TSU, has been recognized as a mechanism for coupling the higher education formation with the market needs expecting that Technological Universities could: a) contribute to the formation of the national human capital, b) give more options to students who want to continue their studies, and c) widen the work potential of citizens in underdeveloped economic regions (Villa y Flores‐Crespo, 2002). The third trend is related to the diversification mentioned above. Statistics from the Ministry of Education (SEP, 2006) show a dramatic increase in private institutions´ enrollment. The national total for private institutions went from a total enrollment of 35,160 students in the 1970‐1971 school year to 662,218 in 2004‐2005, a 1,883% growth in 34 years. Taking the data from the last 15 years and the 1990‐1991 school year as reference, the total growth in the public subsystem was 526,546 students and 464,011 students in the private subsystem. This increase seems to have its origin in multiple reasons but the most important are: a) the tacit incapacity of public institutions to absorb the huge demand in their classrooms. Despite the titanic effort made during last years and the creation of more spaces, growth has evident physical and economic limits and, b) some sort of “academic entrepreneurship” aiming to supply educational services in order to satisfy a strong social demand that has not been covered by the existing institutions. This seems to be tolerated by central policy, which does not create, design, or even anticipate emerging private sector roles (Levy, 2002). According to Kinser and Levy (2005) the creation of non‐university higher education institutions has been the most common way of development of private education in the world. This expansion seems to be known, and somehow consented, by national governments as well as educational systems, because it’s related with increasing the chances of low‐income students for enrolling in higher education, which in other circumstances could be impossible for them. The complex environment “Future is no longer what it used to be” has been said in a rhetorical way, but that is quite correct when it comes to talk about Mexican higher education. Mexican HEIs are pulled by two apparently opposite forces. One of them is the obligation to respond to national, regional and local needs in terms of development, and the commitment to develop individuals as professionals and as citizens. On the other side, context has modified and magnified expectations towards HEIs, but the amount of available resources has not increased in the same proportion. In sum, HEIs are required to do more with lesser resources. Axel Didriksson (2005) has stated that universities play a main role in supplying knowledge and technology to the society. Universities are fundamental centers for research and their graduates are crucial elements generating information, knowledge, wealth, and culture. However, this promising scenario seems to be immersed in a market‐centered reality presenting new challenges and demands. In response to this, higher education institutions, both, public and private, have increased their complexity and widened their functions, and change their focus and move away from traditional delivery forms. These changes, according to Didriksson (2005) are not easily accepted by social analysts who observe two related phenomena: a) an “Economic Reductionism” that gives a higher value to the technical‐administrative competences and devaluates social, humanistic and even scientific skills or knowledge, and b) a new “Educational Darwinism” favoring the owners of technical and professionally oriented training made evident in “the right credentials.” These two elements establish important challenges to HEIs, but at the same time, limit their room for action. This way of understanding higher education is not exclusive of Mexico or appeared overnight; it has been the result of harsh economic realities and the pressure from social actors requiring a higher degree of competitiveness from higher education institutions. Mexican higher education has been under pressure to adjust to the “vocational” needs of the society and the job market. The transformation in this realm, as mentioned paragraphs above, have been mainly through the restructuring of the curriculum in order to make it closer to the market needs and the development of new institutional types directly linked to the vocational needs of the professionals. The reality of these transformations has been evident in the last 20 years in which the perception about the state and its role shifted dramatically, decision makers have looked for ways to slim down the bureaucracy and the authorities seriously attempted to shift the role of the state from an acting one to an apparatus focused on regulation, assessment and overseeing. Higher education was assumed as the main axis for the national improvement through the development of “the individual” instead of “the community.” The system favored the idea of impacting the labor market through the formation of the individual, which implied a curriculum linked to the market and greater flexibility; during this time, newer mechanisms for linking the university and the market were developed and started a strong rhetoric about the culture of quality. In other words, the predominant educational model is one centered in efficiency, lean and agile that equals good quality with the capacity of the graduates to get a smooth entrance into the job market. Didrikson (2000) highlights how the mere existence of this perspective in the higher education realm is a manifestation of the logic of commercial competitiveness and related to “economic policies both at national and international and civilization‐like ideas of modernity and progress”(Didriksson, 2000 p11). In this train of thought, knowledge and its use seems to be restricted to “the processes of technological innovation and industrial production, competitiveness and leadership and are related to the more productive units” (Didriksson, 2000 p12). Two corollaries to such statement are that, on one hand knowledge seems to be valued after its commercial or transactional worth suffering a “commoditization” process as Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) called it. These authors warned about the transformation of the value of knowledge mentioning that the highest return to the investment in knowledge seems to be taking place in private business, leaving public occupations or industries out of the preference of students. The abovementioned transformations have common elements with the phenomenon called “academic capitalism” developed by Slaughter and Leslie (1997) and Slaughter and Rhoades (2004). This concept and its basic components try to explain the process how HEIs couple with the prevailing economy and presents teachers, students and administrators as constituents and users of networks of knowledge inside the framework of “the new economy” privileging capital over other elements. Mexican higher education system faces a serious transformation towards understanding higher education institutions as organizations required to respond the market demands with the same strength and determination they used to respond to the society as a whole. Students make rational choices about the program and the institution they wish to enroll to according to their estimation in terms of “return” to their educational investment, the direct costs and the cost of opportunity of devoting time to study and not joining the job market. It is also understandable then, that students often choose study programs related with the more dynamic sectors of economy such as business, communication and services and that their main aim is to obtain the credentials from institutions that, on the one hand will facilitate their entrance into the job market without thinking about the institutions ability to generate knowledge, and on the other hand, they will look for institutions that represent a reasonable balance between the economic investment and their needs and expectations. The road ahead is a climb Taking all the mentioned ideas into consideration, it is possible to start delineating possible paths for action in order to enhance the impact of higher education and research on the social development. The first idea is the one the titles this section: “no matter which road we choose, it will be a climb.” In a context of restricted public funds, economic uncertainty, and high competition for the attraction of foreign investment (in which China is beating us altogether). With an extensive and diverse higher education system, with a main operating ideology supported by the “economic reductionism” and “educational Darwinism” mentioned above, and with an agile private sector ready to take the vocational niches as well as a reactive public higher education system trying to catch up with the private mentality. With a limited capacity to carry research projects and minimal number of means for diffusion or research products, the question is: What can we do? This reality is undoubtedly complex; however, it is not as negative as it looks. Important changes can be made. It is clear that all people involved in the topic are interested in achieving higher levels of development and quality of life for our societies. It is also evident that professionals involved in teaching and educational research are capable people who have shown a genuine interest for the development of their pupils, and when the conditions are appropriate can pull off amazing results. It is perceptible as well that decision‐makers look for the implantation of solutions to the number of problems crippling our societies. In this scenario what is needed is refocusing the educational research agenda and realigning public policies (and budgeting) with it. The obvious question is: How? In the next lines I will elaborate on the subject through the use of examples. Example 1. In college hallways it is amazingly frequent listening to complaints about the lower profile of the students, this is the pointed as the main reason college professors cannot “produce” successful professionals. If you want good grilled meat you have to have good meat!! Is a rather offensive but emblematic statement. Academics mention (not without at least partial truth) that the problem has its origins on the lower levels; in the high school they do not teach hem well and do not help them develop their thinking skills!! High school teachers blame primary education and basic education teachers blame parents and the lack of resources. It is very likely that all statements involve some empirical truth. This is exactly the reason; in the best interest of higher education it is necessary to focus research projects on the variables affecting other educational levels. Conducting research projects focused on: a) the recognition of factors influencing the low performance of students, b) identifying its effect in both the educational and personal lives of the kids, c) knowing the actors, factors and mechanisms promoting learning on the basic levels, could have a chain effect on the learning practices of students when they are in college. This type of research is not expensive, yields results deemed interesting for the general public (and academia, of course) and can gain fast support from policy makers and funding agencies. Example 2. A recent report shows that the schooling average of people in the lowest income tenth increased only .64 years in the five years while people in the highest tenth increased its schooling average by 4.7 years (Blanco, 2005). This piece of information alone provides enough material for generating high‐impact interdisciplinary projects. The identification of the factors limiting and fostering learning in impoverished communities, a deeper knowledge on the socio‐
communitarian elements helping the kids to have higher appreciation for schooling and the solid construction of theory surrounding the issues would yield interesting results for the improvement of quality of life of impoverished communities. This type of research requires some more time, and since it is labor intensive is a little more costly than the previos, nevertheless, its benefits are huge compared with the costs. Example 3. Reports from health agencies show that our Latin American countries are facing a double problem. General population is having health problems of developed and underdeveloped societies. Some of our communities are still facing malnutrition and problems derived from the lack of basic sanitary conditions, and at the same time are experiencing diabetes, hypertension and other problems coming from over intake of calories, the intake of “empty calories” and the lack of physical activity plaguing developed countries. If we add issues like a continuing trend of aging population, the fact that one of the top causes of death relates to transit accidents and that one of the main reasons for clinic attention is related to multiple traumatisms derived from intra‐familiar violence. It is clear that the research agenda must include serious, interdisciplinary research questions about how can we overcome the abovementioned problems. This type of projects should include physicians, psychologists, educators, economists, and other professionals. Example 4. Environmental deterioration is evident. Recent reports predict that the communities that will suffer harshly are located on coastal lands, high hydraulic stress, located on the mountains, valley lower lands or lower income parts of cities. Our countries have plenty of these locations. It is urgent to include on the university research agenda interdisciplinary projects looking for the identification of factors leading to a social betterment. Biologists, geographers, demographers and environmental scientists can enrich their work with the inputs from educators, sociologists, psychologists and other professionals. If the reader has paid close attention to the subtle line linking all the ideas, might be drawing conclusions about the message I want to use for starting my concluding remarks. The message is very simple: “we need to think big and act small”. Saying it on a different way, we need to be clear about the larger problems crippling our communities, have “the dream” and the ambition to carry on, and at the same time we need to start acting soon, keep the focus of action inside the community and, overall do not attempt to radically change the world every six years. The experience at the interior of the small research center I have the luck to coordinate makes clear that a good idea, well supported with sound theory, linked to a concrete social need and championed by institutional and governmental actors, can achieve many important things. In this sense I just like to end here saying that the only way to achieve this is involving decision makers, beneficiaries of the results and the experts, but over all: talking, talking with everybody, everywhere, and everyday. If we let the silence take the place of our words, the road for the coming generations will be a steeper one. Let us talk a lot and start many small projects that are high quality and high impact projects. This will for sure enhance the resources and the support from decision makers and improve public policies. Thanks a lot Refereneces ALTBACH, Philip G. (2001) The rise of the pseudouniversity. International Higher education No. 25 Fall 2001. ANUIES. (2003) Anuario estadístico 2003. México DF: Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior. DIDRIKSSON, Axel (2000) La universidad de la innovación. Una estrategia de transformación para la construcción de universidades del futuro. México DF: Centro de Estudios Sobre la Universidad‐Plaza y Valdés Editores. DIDRIKSSON, Axel, ARTEAGA, Carlos & CAMPOS, Guillermo (2005) Retos y Paradigmas, El futuro de la educación superior en México. México, DF: CESU/Plaza y Y Valdès. KINSER, Kevin; and LEVY, Daniel C. 2005. ʺThe For‐Profit Sector: U.S. Patterns and International Echoes in Higher Education,ʺ PROPHE Working Paper No.5. http://www.albany.edu/dept/eaps/prophe/publication/paper/PROPHEWP05_files/PROPHEWP0
5.htm. LEVY, Daniel (2002) Unanticipated Development: Perspectives on Private Higher Educationʹs Emerging Roles. Program for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE), Education Administration & Policy Studies, State University of New York at Albany. Available online at http://www.albany.edu/~prophe/publication.html, Albany, NY. PRESIDENCIA DE LA REPÚBLICA (2005) V Informe de Gobierno. http://quinto.informe.presidencia.gob.mx/docs/anexo/pdf/P042.pdf SEP (2006), Estadística Histórica del Sistema Educativo Nacional. 2006 Secretaría de Educación Pública. Website: http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/appsite/nacional/index.htm. SILAS, J.C. (2005a). Realidades y tendencias de la educación superior privada en México. Revista Perfiles Educativos. Vol. XXVII, No. 109‐110. CESU‐UNAM SILAS, J.C. (2005b) Desarrollo y perspectivas del Sistema de Educación Superior Particular: Retos y oportunidades. Conferencia magistral del Foro Nacional sobre educación superior particular ANUIES. Noviembre 10, 2005. México DF, México SLAUGHTER, Sheila y LESLIE, Larry (1997) Academic capitalism: politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. SLAUGHTER, Sheila y RHOADES, Gary (2004) Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (2006) Human Development Report 2006. UNDP VILLA, Lorenza y FLORES‐CRESPO, Pedro (2002) Las universidades tecnológicas mexicanas en el espejo de los institutos universitarios de tecnología franceses, en Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, No. 7, pp. 17‐49.