That teaching higher education courses without research track record makes an educator irrelevant and obsolete is not an understatement. His/ her strength in research measures whether or not he/ she is still speaking the language of the times or just shamelessly asserting archaic parlance to the detriment of educational systems. Why should research be the main parameter for teaching in the higher education? In my area of expertise—business administration and related disciplines—no one can confidently affirm that students gain really useful insights from a mentor who just rely on books. The discipline itself is constantly evolving and with developments, such mentor would now be accused of rotting in the ivory towers or worse: forcing his/her less proven “authority” to the innocent. Most disciplines are similarly growing and stagnation is never an acceptable virtue of teaching and learning.

While society needs updated knowledge to solve more complex problems, books are no longer considered as sources of new knowledge. Conventional wisdom, yes; but fresh ideas, no. The long period involved between writing and publishing them makes books stay far from the updated realities of turbulent markets and corporate buzz, among others. I assume this explains why mentors, not just in my discipline, should be productive researchers. Good researchers are good mentors. Compared to those who only know the methods and strategies of classroom instruction, the researcher-mentors are still the real carriers of illuminating halogen bulbs in dark rooms where others could have devoted themselves to a small candle because they hallow cobwebbed mementos of the past. The only excuse to such ridiculous devotion is if the mentor teaches history or organizational evolution where previous knowledge could give the shots. But even in teaching Rizal subject, one would not do quite well if lessons are presented through banana leaves in lieu of engaging Prezi presentations; the mentor still needs the latest advancements in teaching and should know how to create a mix of best strategies to maximize learning—one that can only be done through research.

In my 16 years of teaching in a university (I have just resigned from it), I know this by heart that is why I do not allow the generally negative milieu to stop me from being passionate in research. Though there may be some mentors out there who still play defensive about the issue, they will finally meet a hard awakening: how can they deal with the international trend, which makes research productivity as the main criteria for promotion and tenure? Schools also contribute to the research atmospheres. Many schools seem to escape the gaze of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Their deans and higher officials do not have a single peer-reviewed journal publication outside their institution which means their appointments are merely politicized and becomes an arrogant, if not reckless, challenge to the international criteria for the academics' prelation. Without research reputation, they are turning our educational institutions into a house of cards; they are converting them into out-of-place enterprises or miniature fiefdoms. They unmake what they want to create.

On the side of achieving researchers encountering such practices, they normally feel uneasy especially if bypassed in promotions due to too much discretion among schools which only include the sorry preferences of the “gods” (non-researchers). Should CHED just see to it that only institutions of higher learning, and not the talents who are the real subject of its thrust, benefit from its research-related programs? How about looking at how not to scare research achievers to prevent “erosion” in these schools? Anyway, the Commission must not forget who really are the forces behind academic institutions.

Must the Commission now be stricter about appointments to higher positions?

I am glad that the Commission is now processing an omnibus to include research publication as a requirement for tenure among the faculty members. This I learned when I conversed with Dr. Ronquillo at the CHED Region 7 office, Lahug, Cebu. I appreciate his advice to me that being a main player in research at my previous university, I should share my knowledge as a free-lance mentor. That advice is a sign that I am not a lone voice in the wilderness advocating what is good for the society amid lions from institutions who kill what they want to encourage. The only reason why I tread a lonely path as an achieving researcher is that non-researchers cannot toe the line with my passion and I cannot give up what I built up for the discipline's growth. “Excellence is not a skill; it is an attitude,” averred Ralph Marston. If one desires the upward trend, he should consider: “Perfection has to do with the end product; but excellence has to do with the process (Jerry Moran).

(LucellLarawansits as editorial board member (the only Filipino) of the Journal of Business Ethics and the Journal of Bank Management run by the American Research Institute for Policy Development. His email is lucelllarawan@gmail.com.)