There have been a number of papers I submitted at the Department and Faculty level. A number of these papers have been turned down. However, whenever my papers are “taken down”, I study three parameters that may have caused such “take down”.
First is the level of superiority of my arguments. In the academic community, superiority matters. Existing argument may not stand where new reasoning is superior to previous reasoning. It is like the law court, it has always been about “beyond reasonable arguments”. I remembered submitting a paper to my Department on the need why “Significance of the Study” in research projects should be removed from chapter one in the Faculty of Education project format and positioned in chapter five. Download paper here: RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEST PRACTICES IN RESEARCH:pp 4. In my own view, a researcher should not be in haste to signify his study but must wait to make a finding first. That a researcher must deduct significance from the findings. I therefore, recommended that after findings, conclusion, implications of the study, then significance should come in before recommendations. Then, significance of study in the Faculty format will be 5.4, while recommendations is 5.5.
Unfortunately, before I could say jack, the matter has been trashed and it was referred as inconsequential. I maintained that if at all there was a meeting among my superiors on the issue I so raised, I will be called upon to make clarification on the matter. Trashing it out in my behalf made me feel bad. Maybe I am an academic nobody. But time shall change this. Intellectuality will reign. E never too bad.
Second to the above is the presentation. Did I convince my superiors enough? Well, this is another issue I look into when my papers are taken down. Again, I presented a seminar paper on the need for a market research centre in the Business Education programme under Voc Tech Department. Earlier, I have been wondering… if truly this is a BUSINESS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, where then are the businesses? A question troubles my mind. What qualifies this programme as a BUSINESS EDUCATION PROGRAMME? Surely I concluded, there cannot be a business without a market, hence the need for a market, whether physical or virtual has become imperative. I pointed to my superiors that the NDU skill acquisition programme, the NDU pure water business, the paint business and all of that were supposed to be a brain child of the Department. Unfortunately again, the paper was taken down. I asked myself, did I really convince my superiors? Why should this paper be taken down I asked. My Doc tries to adjust the topic to skill acquisition centres so that it can be accepted, but I said No. What I want is a market research centre, not skill acquisition centres. For I knew that these students have business ideas. When they bring these ideas, the research centre attendants look into these ideas, build and develop them, source for funds and keep them running. The idea is to make these students understand the principle of “learning and earning” for “teaching and learning is not enough. Again, I failed.
Third in this tripod is the level of understanding of academic superiors especially in academic matters: (Please, note that this aspect is for research purpose only and it is speculative. Not intended to create a notion of disdain and never derogatory. My superiors should take note). Sometimes, when I am fully convince that a programme will fly, at the end of the day, it comes back unattended. Why? Sometimes, it may not be that the presentation is ill thought out. The fault may lie in the way the superiors sees it. For instance, when I presented papers to the former Dean on the need for a Faculty website, the paper did not fly. Download paper here: Proposal on Website Opening. I did not even get any reply. Maybe it was because of the amount involved. However, when I readjusted the papers and submitted to the incumbent Dean, the programme did not only flew but was immediately established. My interest is between the two administrations. One administration may have favoured ICT oriented processes while the other did not. This indicates that the adoption and utility of ICT devices in teaching and learning will to a great extent be determined by the leadership administrative foresight in ICT matters.
This is a personal, objective perception of happenings in an academic community. No part of it should be read to mean disrespect for any academic superior. They should be treated as they are. Objective perspective of an author and not otherwise. This position is very imperative as wrong interpretation of this post may lead to hatred, implications and nursing of feelings of animosity for the author.