Rejoinder to my comment entitled "Regulating Research" (January 14) apropos Ramesh Gupta's Article "Improving the quality of PhD research" (Jan 4)

THE TRIBUNE, JANUARY 19, 2011, P. 10
Quality of research is more vital
Ramesh Gupta’s article “Improving the quality of PhD research” (Jan 4) and comments by Rajender Goyal (Jan 14), highlighted the need for streamlining and regulating research process and subsequent effective evaluation procedures by the universities and institutions conducting various research pursuit. However, I would like to add that the writer seems to be obsessed with the need to develop such a system which would restrict the registration of the topic on which work has already been done. If authorities or people at the helm of academic affairs of various institutions handling research activities become rigid about not allowing any topic to be re-registered, this would no doubt fail the basic aim and spirit of the ‘re-search’. Various academic pursuits have clearly shown that social and economic results tend to vary with time and changing circumstances. New research with new and better means evolves new visions, new outlooks on which fresh destinations can be targeted. Research based on fresh topics, if done only to gain or earn degree tags, to cross hurdles of point system to reach higher pay bands would surely not serve the basic objective of the research programme.
Contrary to the viewpoint expressed by the writer and supported by Mr Goyal, I am of the view that fresh research pursuits should be equally encouraged on topics on which work has already been done. The work already done with constraints and limitations of limited availability of means and limited access to information and data in comparison to the improved information technology scenario of today undoubtedly asks for fresh effort. Hence research conducted even on old topics can give better and more effective results in the changing social and economic scenario. Let the old topics be reopened and researched. Remarkable and astonishing results are bound to flow.
Research committees approving research topics should give due weightage to the effectiveness and relevance of the topic to the present-day and prospective problems confronting the nation. PhD registrations by the universities to earn better accreditation grades, writing PhD theses by the researchers just to scale the pay grade ladder, evaluating PhD theses by the ‘academic dons,’ just to unload the obligation would not serve the basic purpose of academic research.
PhD theses which do not confine themselves to the library shelves, which are helpful in evolving new line of thinking, developing new visions, exploring new paths and destinations should be encouraged, initiated and suitably rewarded.
SANJEEV TRIKHA, Associate Professor, M.M.(PG) College, Fatehabad