In their pursuit of excellence academics are involved in four overlapping components of scholarship.
The first and the most obvious is teaching, e.g. a Medical School cannot be a school if there is no teaching component. This does not only involve the transmission of factual knowledge but should also include the teaching of methodology and problem solving, especially in an atmosphere of uncertainty.
The second is application, which involves the translation of knowledge into practice, rendering it useful as well as testable and reproducible. This implies the importance of people who are experts in the skills related to their profession.
One can learn not only by listening to such experts, but even more by observing how they tackle and solve their problems and by being coached in the tricks of the trade. No cookery book ever made a chef!
The third component is integration, which is concerned with making connections across disciplines and involves the various faculties in a large context of 'knowledge'. This was the subject of my earlier commentary (Academic interfaces and collaboration - The Sunday Times, December 12, 2006).
When one observes how often advances in any discipline result from breakthroughs in other fields such as CT scan, MRI and fibreoptic endoscopy, it is surprising that this component of integration has not received the recognition and encouragement it merits.
The fourth component is discovery. This includes the hallowed world of research, where one selects, observes, records, compares, analyses and classifies phenomena, finally deriving appropriate conclusions. This may be achieved by experimental manipulation, theoretical reasoning or, more often, by a combination of both.
The results, which may variably have wide or narrow content or application, may be published as research papers or books, presented as oral or poster presentations at conferences, or used as theses for academic qualification. A minority, for various reasons, may not see the light of day.
All four components are of great importance in an academic context and it is a mistake to emphasise one at the expense of others. An appropriate balance is essential in the evaluation of these factors. The smaller the community, which the academic centre serves, and the scarcer the resources, the greater is the importance of striking such a balance.
Lopsided considerations, favouring one component and relegating others, often spring from the misconception that reduction in repertoire enhances efficiency.
The corollary to this would be that the most efficient and praiseworthy is he who does the narrowest, most repetitive and most menial task! This is hardly a widely held view.
With a catchment population like ours, we cannot afford to alienate academics who possess a wide range of abilities, those who can do as well as teach, who can perform research and evaluate the research of others, as well as communicate and co-operate with others within and outside their faculties. Expertise costs and is hard to come by. Our university, indeed our country, is in no position to waste.