AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program

Current Issue | Past Issues | About the Report

Report on Science and Human Rights

Summer 2005 Vol XXV, No. 1

Measuring Respect: Towards a Global Academic Freedom Survey

Robert Quinn

How much is academic freedom understood and respected around the world? Are conditions worsening or improving? The short answer is: Nobody knows for sure because there is a lack of comprehensive, quality information. Current efforts-including life-saving campaigns for threatened scholars undertaken by the Human Rights Action Network of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Program, the Scholars at Risk Network, the IIE Scholar Rescue Fund and others-rely largely on reports of specific incidents. These reports are vital for helping in each case, but insufficient for broader action aimed at wide-reaching improvements in conditions.

Scholars at Risk, an organization based at New York University that promotes academic freedom and defends the fundamental rights of scholars worldwide, is working to address this lack of information by developing a global Academic Freedom Survey: a regular, reliable measure of relative conditions of respect for academic freedom around the world. Once established, the Survey will become an invaluable tool for advocates working to promote academic freedom. It will provide a basis for periodic reports-on a region or issue of concern-or a watch-list or index of the ‘best’ or ‘worst’ performers, like those that have proven effective in other areas. Most important, the Academic Freedom Survey will provide a framework for feedback and wider dialogue about academic freedom issues that will contribute to international understanding and systems of protection.

Limits of incident-reporting

Current efforts to respond to attacks on academic freedom rely almost exclusively on irregular reporting of specific incidents: In country A, scholar X is arrested on false charges; his supporters notify local or international advocates who organize letter campaigns and protests. Or in country B, the faculty of University Z is forced to sign loyalty oaths by a newly installed authoritarian government; faculty refusing to sign are dismissed. Local and international advocates again respond with letter campaigns and protests. Such responses are extremely important and have been very effective in generating urgent attention from the media and policy makers on a case-by-case basis. With great effort and some luck, advocates have secured the release of imprisoned colleagues like scholar X; they have mobilized and found new academic homes for dismissed faculty like those from University Z. But as a foundation for broader advocacy, incident-reporting suffers from a number of significant shortfalls: It is by definition limited to after-the-fact responses. This means it is locked in the dynamics of crisis and confrontation, making proactive and cooperative strategies difficult, if not impossible. Incident- reporting also poses serious questions of bias and verification of allegations and facts; while not insurmountable these questions can impede rapid action and dilute the ability of campaigners to influence policymakers.

Incident-reporting is also dependent on the presence of witnesses and their ability to marshal outside attention and resources. This distorts understandings, particularly by masking the majority of incidents which go unreported because of lack of monitors or resources. Take again for example scholar X, who is arrested on false charges in country A. If supporters are present to organize a campaign on X's behalf, then country A may be labeled as "bad"on academic freedom issues (even if it is a relatively open society and scholar X's arrest was an isolated incident). Meanwhile country C might not be implicated in any reported incidents of attacks on academic freedom (and therefore conditions there may be considered better than they in fact are), merely because no one in country C reported problems and organized campaigns.

Most important, incident-reporting alone is ill-suited to establishing trends, positive or negative, or measuring relative intensities. It cannot yield meaningful comparisons over time or across cultures, and therefore is not an adequate basis of information to support the kinds of concrete, prescriptive recommendations that are more likely to yield significant, widespread improvements in conditions. By developing a methodology that compares conditions within and across countries over a period of years, Scholars at Risk hopes to highlight situations where improvements already have been made; to identify situations where conditions are worsening; and to foster cooperative dialogue about strategies for future improvements.

Developing a new methodology

Scholars at Risk, together with research partner RTI International (www.rti.org) is working to develop a methodology that goes beyond incidentreporting, using both quantitative and qualitative data in order to measure respect for academic freedom across cultures and time. We envision a methodology that combines three elements: objective “snapshots” of the background conditions, questionnaires for key stakeholders, and independent research on each country.

First, we will develop "snapshots" of the political, economic, social and cultural conditions under which academic communities operate in each country. The snapshots will be used to identify "peer groups" of countries whose academic communities are facing comparable background conditions, for example distinguishing countries with only a few higher education institutions from those with hundreds, or those experiencing only non-violent threats from those facing severe, violent attacks. This will increase the utility of the Survey by allowing for recommendations targeted to each peer group, and by revealing significant intra-group variations that would otherwise be disguised by the much wider, more severe variations across the total survey population.

We also plan to develop questionnaires for stakeholders to share both objective data and subjective perceptions of conditions in their higher education communities. Likely questionnaire subjects include education ministries, higher education associations, and university administrators, faculty and students. Mindful of the costs and challenges of distribution, return, follow-up and processing of responses, we expect to employ email distribution and response whenever possible, most likely in concert with selective distribution of paper-and-pencil questionnaires and a widely available internetbased response vehicle (like a response page on the Scholars at Risk or a partner's website).

The final element is independent research on each country. Scholars at Risk will invite from among Network-member faculty and students volunteer "country analysts" who will be responsible for preparing detailed narratives on conditions in one or more countries. Their analysis may be based on existing expertise; library research; recent books, articles, essays and country reports; national and regional higher education publications; and other surveys and indices. The analysts will also be expected to incorporate incident- reports, including reports in the media about attacks on scholars and universities. Whenever possible, analysts would be encouraged to communicate directly with alleged witnesses and victims.

Building positive dialogue

A review committee will combine information from the snapshots, questionnaires and country research into a final report. While the format of the report will depend on the level and scope of the data produced, it will include an overall analysis of global findings, short summaries of each country covered and a number of tables of ranked or weighted findings. It may also include recommendations for stakeholders.

For purposes of communicating to a wider public, the media and policy-makers, the report may include a watch-list, index or other scale of the 'best'or 'worst'performers. Such scales have proven effective in drawing attention to problem situations and spurring constructive engagement by policy makers in other areas, including for example good governance, anti-corruption, press freedom and political freedom. Mindful however of the problems with such scales (particularly those assigning sequential rankings), we will work to ensure that any scale is both well justified by the data and does not impede the Academic Freedom Survey's overall goal of increasing constructive dialogue.

Toward that same goal, Scholars at Risk will build into the Survey report a vehicle for feedback from stakeholders, particularly higher education ministries and educators. Conferences and other events built around the release of each Survey report will encourage dialogue, promote understanding of conditions in each country and help to identify areas for future cooperation.

Partners invited

Working with RTI International, Scholars at Risk hopes to produce a prototype in 12-18 months and the first wide-scale Academic Freedom Survey within 24-30 months of securing full financial support. In the meantime, we are developing the methodology and have invited comments on the project through public presentations, beginning with the April 2005 meeting of SAR Network members at New York University, the feedback from which has been tremendously positive. Scholars at Risk is currently inviting partners to assist with the Survey, including research partners with regional or topical expertise, as well as partners in funding the Survey design and implementation. Individuals or institutions interested in learning more about participating in the project are urged to contact Scholars at Risk at 1-212-998-2179 or scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu.

Robert Quinn is the director of the Scholars at Risk Network, the executive director of the IIE Scholar Rescue Fund and a member of the AAAS Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. Scholars at Risk is an international network of universities and colleges promoting academic freedom and defending the human rights of scholars worldwide. SAR member institutions offer sanctuary to scholars who suffer threats in their home country.
For more information: http:// scholarsatrisk.nyu.edu. The Scholar Rescue Fund is a project of the Institute of International Education (IIE). The Fund awards matching-sum grants to universities hosting temporary visits by threatened scholars. For more information: http://www.iie.org/SRF.