Allowing Industry experts as full-time faculty members in the Universities in India

Any new development/change brings with it not only some apprehensions, discomfort, uncertainty but also some hope. The recent announcement of allowing industry experts in India to teach in a full-time position with the Universities is one of such changes. Based on observations and learning through my career journey with progressive Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) in more than five countries, I am providing my views and opinions about this new development in the higher education sector in India.

The views expressed by me are my opinion and may provide some ideas on the implementation of this initiative (and beyond) based on some relevant and suitable best practices (of course in a customized manner, not to be followed blindly).

Some existing practices

I have noted some practices in the HEIs in Malaysia, the Philippines, the USA, Australia, UAE, and Europe. These practices provide multiple benefits. The benefits are discussed in the next section of this article.

Industry experts/practitioners are welcome to join the faculty/teaching body as full-time members of the HEI. They are termed as “Clinical/Practice faculty members”, like Professor of Practice/Clinical Professor. Many HEIs have a policy/rule for each department about the ratio of “Clinical/Practice” faculty member, and “research faculty member”. The definition/criteria of these two categories are very clearly described.

E.g.,

Clinical/Practice faculty members should have a minimum of a master’s level qualification with a minimum of 20 years of experience at a managerial level in a large/medium scale organization. A bachelor’s degree with more than 20 years’ experience can be considered for the lecturer/assistant professor positions only.

The above criteria can be different for different departments based on the peculiar needs of the department.

The implementation policies are deeper/richer with more criteria and guidelines. Some of these are also reflected in their annual KRAs/KPIs of the clinical/practice faculty members, based on their expertise and willingness.

Some examples are:

Clinical/Practice faculty members need to be active in writing/research, and service. They can write cases, professional articles, newspaper/trade journal articles, and research articles co-authored with research faculty members. To get a confirmed position/to retain the contract, a minimum of one of such output is required per year.

Clinical/Practice faculty members need to actively mentor/advise a minimum of 10 final year students of the department one on one and assist the student success department of the Institute in finding more industry mentors for other final year students.

Clinical/Practice faculty members need to actively work with the partnership office, Student career office, or other relevant units of the HEI to provide service to the Institute.

Note that it’s not only for the clinical/practice faculty members but the PhD research faculty members are also expected to provide such/similar services to the HEI units as individuals/in teams/committees.

The essence is to utilize the expertise and competencies of the industry experts for the benefit of the HEI and students as much as possible creatively and effectively.

Benefits

One notable example is co-teaching. I have co-taught an MBA course of strategy in Malaysia with 2 other faculty members, one of them was an industry expert. Two types of co-teaching are used.

1. Co-teachers design the content and learning material but only one faculty member teaches a class at a time, and the co-teachers teach different sessions individually.

2. After co-designing the course and material, in a class, all co-teachers teach at the same time in sync as a team, also called team teaching.

The second version is complex and needs practice and synchronization. It also has other concerns like how to count teaching hours etc. But, once these issues are solved, it is very effective for realizing the intended learning outcome of the students. ?I have designed and experienced both, and I can vouch for the strong learning outcomes for students when clinical/practice faculty members are engaged in a planned and thoughtful manner.

There are many other potential benefits for HEIs, staff and students from the activities of industry experts/practitioners if their expertise can be utilized effectively:

1.?????Possible effective utilization of the industry network of the expert. It can help in mentoring, skill development, internships, students' e-portfolio guidance, career counselling, and placements.

2.?????Applied research projects where a team can be formed with the inclusion of research and expert faculty members working together

3.?????Joint case writing/producing white papers. The case can be used for teaching and learning, or research.

4.?????Growth of consulting activities of the department. A team of research faculty members and clinical/practice faculty members can start consulting projects on behalf of HEI for the industry.

5.?????A team of clinical/practice faculty members and research faculty members can design training programs for the industry.

6.?????The curriculum of the programs can be reviewed by a team of clinical/practice faculty members and some external academicians to enhance the skill development/application-based component/delivery.

7.?????Clinical/practice faculty members can organize workshops for staff members of the HEIs in different departments to enhance their skills (e.g., Professional marketers can train marketing executives of the HEI).

The list can be as long as our creativity and imagination can go. The limitations are only in our mind and all challenges can be overcome if there is a willingness.

AN IMPORTANT PRE-REQUISITE

One critical aspect missing in Indian HEIs is the wing/unit called Teaching and Learning Centre. All progressive HEIs in all countries I have worked have this centre, responsible for providing a structured, mandatory, and organized long duration (at least one year) program to faculty members on the discipline Scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). SoTL program completion is a must for all faculty members – research/clinical/practice. Due to this reason, there is no blame game that clinical/practice faculty members just tell stories of their experience, and PhD faculty members are theoretical as all faculty members irrespective of their background become effective teachers scientifically.

The mandatory SoTL program provides training (knowledge and skills) to faculty members on how to teach effectively using modern teaching methods with components of outcome-based, experiential, student-centred, flipped, project-based, problem-based, team teaching etc. Faculty members become students of SoTL and ultimately get transformed to be expert teachers irrespective of being a research/clinical/practice faculty member. Without completing at least 6 months of the one-year program, no faculty member – PhD/clinical/practice is allowed to teach in the Universities, and they remain as tutors/assistants to other trained faculty members.

In India, at present, the training for faculty members is limited to sporadic and un-structured split sessions on teaching and learning practices or technical/subject-based topics, which has limited effectiveness in transforming faculty members to become effective teachers. Just doing a PhD/teaching for 20 years or just by being a manager of a company for 20 years does not necessarily equip a person to teach well as per the standards of scientific teaching and learning methods (though I have noticed limited effectiveness). Note, teaching is a professional practice, and teachers are professional practitioners, and as like many other professions, it needs properly structured, regularly organized training, especially at the time of the start of the teaching career irrespective of the background of the faculty member. Progressive countries have realized and implemented it effectively. India needs to review it, learn and implement it effectively. As the new National Education Policy in India is progressive, transforming, and potentially effective, I hope the government will take care of it later if not now.

The success of any initiative depends on an effective implementation at all levels, including within HEIs. And I am sure progressive private HEIs have never waited and will not wait for the government directives to be the best in the world. As in the case of any new change, new opportunities emerge, and if it is implemented thoughtfully and carefully, it will be effective in providing multiple benefits to HEIs and students. The question is “Are we willing to take a stride with a positive mindset to transform the education sector in a comprehensive manner in India, or are we still taking a piecemeal approach?”

Disclaimer: My intention is not to compare, criticize, or praise any country, or its education system. The intention is just to share my observations and learnings from my experiences in a useful manner.

?