By Siri Gamage –

Dr. Siri Gamage

The debate about the use of Dr. title by the present Speaker in Sri Lanka’s parliament presumably without obtaining a PhD from a reputed university raises an important issue in the way such academic titles have been used in the political sphere in recent decades. It is well known that the higher education sector in the country was also politicised along with other government institutions where there should have been a high degree of autonomy. The issue is whether the matter relating to the speaker’s use of Dr. title in front of his name supposedly without obtaining a PhD is an isolated incident?  In other words, was this a common practice among political sphere?  Another issue is whether the use of these titles in English vs Sinhala vernacular had anything to do with the confusion? Before addressing these questions, let me explain the accepted way of using Dr. title or even Professor title by those who acquire them after years of research and study in universities.

It is well known that to obtain a doctorate one has to first qualify to pursue a doctoral program in a higher education institution. Generally, one should have obtained a first class in the first degree or a research master’s degree to qualify to undertake a doctoral degree program. Once enrolled in the program, in some universities students are required to do several core courses before undertaking a research project. Such courses can be on research methods and conceptual frameworks pertaining to the field of study. In others, one can enrol in a PhD program and start research without having to follow any courses. Here, the student has more autonomy to pursue the research with less control and supervision from the supervisory panel. Both these types of doctoral programs provide important knowledge and skills that are useful when the student undertakes the research project and continue search for new knowledge.

Research project usually starts by conducting a literature review in the chosen field to identify a gap in knowledge and research so that the student can prepare a research proposal for the project. The proposal needs to include the aims of research, research problem definition, research questions to be examined, methodology to be used to collect data/information including methods of analysis, expected outcomes and a list of references.

Once the data are collected and analysed the student has to interpret the findings and arrive at conclusions corresponding to the aims of research. Usually such a research project is undertaken by the student under the supervision of experienced and reputed professors in the field of study. In some universities this can be a principal and one or more co-supervisors. In others, there is a supervisory panel overseeing the research process.

Broadly speaking there are two types of research. 1) qualitative and 2) quantitative. Once a thesis or dissertation is compiled by a student, it is sent to at least three examiners for examination and preparing a report to the university indicating whether the student is suitable for granting the doctoral degree or he/she should be required to revise the thesis or some chapters. Such revisions can be major or minor.  Once the student undertakes necessary revisions to the satisfaction of supervisors, the supervisors recommend the university that the student should be granted doctoral degree. Once the university’s examination board and/or the academic board approves the recommendation, student is granted the degree and Dr. title ceremonially during the convocation. After this the student is entitled to use the title during his/her lifetime.

Thus, according to the accepted process locally and internationally, anyone who did not go through the above-mentioned research process and obtained a higher degree, one should not use Dr. title as it can consist of a fraudulent activity. What I described above is the standard process adopted in obtaining and using the title in Western countries and former colonies of the British empire or in the American university system.  The Dr. title implies a status corresponding to academic activities undertaken by a person and the success achieved.

However, there are some complications when it comes to the use of this title in countries outside the Western European or American systems of higher education. Even within these regions there are variations but let’s not focus on them in this article. E.g. doing a doctoral degree in Germany vs in North America or UK. The Sinhala term for Dr. is acaharya. It implies a learned or wise man or woman. I remember this term was used for my school teachers in the high school during the 60s. They were graduates or those with teaching qualifications. During my academic career at the University of Peradeniya (1974-1986), Sinhala title acharya was used to refer to those who had gained a doctoral degree. However, there was a distinction made between the Phd degrees obtained from Western universities, India, China, Japan, Malaysia or from Sri Lanka itself. Generally, degrees obtained from western countries were regarded as having more reputation to those gained from Asian universities. This was reflected in the process adopted for academic promotions. Social attitudes in universities and out in the community contributed to such discrimination. In the Sinhala language there is another term close to acharya term. It is achariya. This refers to a blacksmith.

According to the way the university hierarchy is organised, a person who obtains a doctoral degree can get promoted to an associate professor or even a professor later on the basis of his/her research output, teaching skills and contribution to the field of study through publications of books, journal articles and service in other means such as presentations in seminars and conferences. Misuse of professor (mahacharya) title in Sri Lanka is also well known especially in political settings. Mere fact that one is affiliated to a higher education institution is often taken as the basis to refer to someone as Mahacharya. I am aware of a Senior Lecturer from Peradeniya university affiliated with the current opposition being referred to as Mahacharya rather than Acharya. In the political platforms of major parties, there were always one or more Mahacharyas whether they held the position as such or not.  It was seen as a feather in the cap of political parties and a way of gaining recognition in the eyes of the general public. They were loyal servants of the political authority once in power. Even though there was a proliferation of professors in the university system in the last few decades, abuse of these titles is not healthy.

Let’s come back to the key question. Is it unreasonable to use acharya title by a learned person without obtaining a doctoral degree from a Western or eastern university? The case of current speaker – who has now resigned- relates to the Japanese higher education system. I have little knowledge about this system and someone else may comment on the proper way to obtain a doctoral degree from a Japanese or for that matter Chinese/Indian university. In my view, according to the local idiom and practice, it is not an offence to use acharya title by a learned person without obtaining a PhD because the title has been used in Sinhala tradition to refer to even school teachers in Sri Lankan society. There could be parallels when the term is used in the Buddhist monastic tradition. Whether a PhD is necessary to refer to a learned monk as acharya needs further examination.

However, according to the Western idiom and practice as well as those in the global south where the western mode of education and learning is common, using Dr. title without obtaining a PhD is not warranted. It can confuse the people especially prospective higher degree students and research communities. In some countries where the western system is used, some universities use professor title to refer to those academics who assume administrative roles such as Heads of Schools, Deans and so on. In the university in Australia where I served as an academic, this practice is used. I did not like this practice as it confers the title to an academic staff member without showing research excellence.

I did not examine the use of these academic titles in Tamil or any other language in this article. There could be similar nuances in other languages that complicate the western understanding and usages.

Another type of degree granted by higher education institutions is honorary degrees. These are offered to individuals who have made a significant contribution to a country in a given field. If I am not mistaken, Dr. E. W Adikaram’s degree was an honorary degree. Such degrees are awarded in the annual convocation organised by a university for graduates. However, in the case of the speaker’s degree issue this is not relevant.

What this incident shows is that we need to be careful in coming to conclusions about language use and culturally different practices in multicultural/intercultural societies. What I want to show is that the use of these titles can be different depending on the specific context. There is no universal practice that we can reference because the world is formed by different countries and culturally conditioned systems of teaching, learning and research.

If the speaker who has now resigned used the title in the sense of acharya (learned person or scholar), it is not a hanging offence.  The demand for his resignation by some commentators perhaps shows ignorance of local idioms and practices, diversity of contexts, the effect of looking at such incidents from a purely Western perspective or indeed from political perspectives.

Sri Lanka’s higher education system itself needs to be reformed to incorporate indigenous/local ways of thinking and doing. It is currently heavily biased toward Western European and American ways of thinking and doing. Academic dependence on Western ways of thinking and doing is a pestering problem preventing the growth of local/indigenous knowledge, epistemology, and methodologies.

Decolonisation of teaching, learning and research is imperative for higher education in former colonies like Sri Lanka to be salvaged from academic dependence on Western episteme, methodology, related discourses and practices.