Academic freedom and university autonomy: a variety of concepts

‘Academic Freedom’ in Indian Higher Education Settings

“…This freedom subsumes the right to teach, research, and publish, free from external influence and coercion (Menand, 1996;Haskell, 1997;Gibbs, 2016). Verbitskaya (1996) reported Ben-David, who said, "academic freedom is the freedom of the system of education and the freedom of research from political, religious, or ideological influence" (p.289). A Russian Scientist, Mendeleev, wrote, "academic freedom is the freedom of creativity.…”

“…According to Verbitskaya (1996), the idea of 'academic freedom' is very important in the life of universities. It possesses the inherent and hidden vibes as well as spirits to challenge the orthodox ideas and beliefs.…”

“…And, quality education would contribute to the progress and benefit of society. Verbitskaya (1996) believes that there should be a policy about HE that gives autonomy to HE institutions in respect to all procedures concerning personnel in carrying out teaching and research, financial activities on the legal basis, and the charter of the institution (p.291). I believe Indian higher education institutions must get 'autonomy' to plan and execute the following agendas for the inclusive development of the HE institutions, meeting the expectations of stakeholders in offering quality teaching, and involving in innovative research works.…”

Regulatory Power: Can a Feminist Poststructuralist Engage in Research Oversight?

“…Further, as I have chaired IRB meetings, I have also talked with faculty engaged in diverse forms of research, attended related professional conferences, and read critiques of the ways that IRBs function (especially critiques by qualitative researchers). I have come to realize that the discussions represent a range of very personal issues tied to specific individual experiences and perceptions (just as this discussion is my emergent perception and does not represent the literature on IRBs that can be found in such work as Oakes, 2002;Verbitskaya, 1996;Wagner, 2003), diverse philosophical views of regulation, fear of regulation, and at times, oversimplification of complex political and organizational processes. I am reminded of my own immediate negative reaction (as a qualitative researcher) to the allowed exemption (from full board review) of drawing blood in particular circumstances-or the physician board member who believed that interview content should be examined monthly by board members because it would be emergent and unpredictable-or the qualitative researcher who considered a board biased against qualitative methods because members asked how opposing sides on an explosively reactive issue in the community would be protected.…”