Simultaneous Autonomy and Accountability: Blockchain in Aid of Higher Education Governance
One of the demands of Higher Education (HE) professionals and teaching fraternity is autonomy to do the right things and not have regulators micromanage. In the latest Draft National Education Policy (DNEP) by the Central Government in India (https://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/Draft_NEP_2019_EN_Revised.pdf), the word “autonomy” appears 112 times, all in the 384 paged report! Relatedly, DNEP is also keenly conscious of the need for HE institutions’ accountability towards various stakeholders of society. The words, accountability and accountable, appear 58 times in the same document.
In the free world, the dual outcome of autonomy and accountability is an age-old aspiration of all institutional entities. This is especially true in the field of education. Balancing the two is a huge challenge. We hypothesize that Blockchain Technology can help with its ability to create document integrity, dynamic version changes, transparency, decentralization, flexibility and security.
The argument for autonomy is predicated on it producing better contextual responses and experimentation potential at local levels; these in turn would produce better quality and excellence. The argument for more accountability is based on the sheer size and overall impact of the sector on society. It is also admitted that the system in India, despite decades of high-handed regulatory overreach, has not displayed satisfactory performance.
Against this backdrop is also the fear that those in the Higher Education sector, deeply entrenched as they are in a regulatory bind for decades, will use any freedoms, if suddenly granted, in an inappropriate way. Can and should the floodgates of autonomy be suddenly released? Or how can this be done gradually? All these doubts lead to paralysis and postponement of decisions. The fear is not unfounded given the record of some of the HE institutions. It seems we are all caught in a jinxed vicious feedback loop that needs to be punctured.
There is a clear distinction between regulation and governance. Regulation is about the regulator or the “higher authority” issuing diktat, and the “regulated” complying, no matter what. On the other hand, governance allows for an open architecture. The regulated are not supposed to follow the power above blindfolded. The “governing” would provide the principles of engagement that the “governed” have to genuinely internalize and pursue. These principles have to be interpreted and applied by the governed to suit the context. Local rules have to be framed by the “governed” to suit the conditions that exist at the ground level. Following the spirit or principles is more important. There would be no slavish compliance.
If universities have to be centers of top-quality knowledge generation and higher-order teaching-learning practices, governance is the route. But the historical trajectory of the practices, lack of appreciation of governance and self-regulation, lack of a way to impact and achieve these higher-order skills, all are stacked against positive change. The system-dynamic nature of the situation makes things too problematic with no clue on where to start.
Self-governance is a higher-order ability that is called for more in the knowledge realm than in any other social sector. Educators do important tasks, but not necessarily, urgent tasks. The timely conduct of classes, examinations and turnaround of grades and degrees have to happen in time, but there is hardly any uncertainty in timeliness. But those serious about education believe that they are doing the most important of all social tasks, of molding the finer aspects of the citizenry for the future. To bring about change local freedoms and autonomy are a must.
To achieve self-regulatory status and practice higher-order protocols, globally the higher education sector has devised inter-institutional mechanisms that can ideally replace top-down regulation. This is accreditation. Accreditation is a process of collegiality which emphasizes the demonstration of higher-order processes by participant institutions to achieve stated institutional missions. In this sense any accreditation body and its constituent institutions are meant to be a “knowledge collective”. The institutions would mutually ensure that the members follow processes to achieve the missions and goals set by independent constituent institutions. There may be the support of bench-marking and comparative analyses, but these are not meant to be the last word. The process ensures that the system is not meant to be overly evaluative and judgmental. It is all about self-regulation through mutuality within the sector.
It is interesting to note the mission statement of Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the organization in the US that oversees the working of accreditation agencies in the country, no matter what the discipline is. CHEA covers medicine, engineering, management, architecture, humanities, law and every field of higher education. It’s mission formulated in 1996, reported most recently in Feb 2020, is as follows:
“The Council for Higher Education Accreditation will serve students and their families, colleges and universities, sponsoring bodies, governments and employers by promoting academic quality through formal recognition of higher education accrediting bodies and will coordinate and work to advance self-regulation through accreditation.” https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/2018-2019%20CHEA-CIQG%20Annual%20Report_Final_0.pdf
The expression “self-regulation” in the mission statement is indeed deeply telling of how those in power (political class and bureaucracy), but outside the academic realm, cannot and should not try to meddle with Higher Education. For this to happen there is a need for buy-in from society. While most students (and parents of students) are interested in jobs after any university education (and rightly so), there is little understanding among them of the nuances of governance, regulation, accreditation etc. So, for the society, the easy way is to simply leave it to the political and bureaucratic classes to “strongly” regulate the higher education space. The results are here to see.
Enter Blockchain
Blockchain is a way to achieve both autonomy and accountability at the same time. If the following decided data are incorporated into the DNA of individual institutions, a dynamic experiment-loving knowledge collective can be created by the faculty and students generating superior results. These are:
- Individual institutions would be clear and serious about meeting their own “approved” mission.
- Faculty members of the HE institutions are tasked to be innovative, while at the same time tasked to be responsible for the results through high quality directing and mentoring of students in a decentralized manner towards the mission.
- With the mission in place, the individual institutions would develop logically argued means of achieving the mission/ goals and pursue the same. In other words, there would be a plan or roadmap that is properly documented as mission-centric. The effort will be towards achieving collective time bound, decentralized goals.
- The task of the regulator would be to help create an accreditation eco-system complete with the collegial and professional assistance in implementation and institutional mentoring with the help of blockchain.
- The bane of centralization can and will be eliminated. The regulators can concentrate on empowering and creating an ecosystem that is decentralized and merit seeking which will be a far cry from compliance orientation.
- All innovations and changes will be documented by the individual faculty members/ institutional heads through blockchained ledgers so that flexibility is possible in making changes. These changes would be made after consulting peers, students, institutional heads and institution-level stakeholders while respecting the overall regulatory governance principles but without having to follow micro instructions from regulators.
- Blockchain systems would be able to create an exception report based on the 1) expected means and changes in the means undertaken between time t1 and t1+1 and 2) results expected by the end of the period at t1+1 and actual results achieved.
- Blockchain would allow recording of experimentation and changes while at the same time providing feedback on the performance during the year in a systematic form at individual, departmental and institutional levels.
- With Blockchain, the role of the Board of Examiners (BoE) and Board of Studies (BoS) would be to examine what transpired during the period already lapsed and suggest improvements. It will cease to play the role of permission granted.
Technology is a double-edged sword. Shoshana Zuboff in her book “In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power” over three decades ago had pointed out how the computer could create tyrannical centralization, or the reverse, generate freedoms of the highest order and genuine human well being. Today this wisdom is coming home in a truer sense with AI, ML, Blockchain, Data Analytics, Surveillance Technologies etc. Perhaps the most significant and lasting impact would be on education with its life-long impact on human beings. We can create a positive revolution in Higher Education by releasing the energy that is available in academia (together with a great deal of accountability) if we only can use Blockchain technology in a wise manner.
Learn blockchain development with our ‘100 days of code’ program and also be a part of our community to be in touch with the latest developments and trends in blockchain technology!
