The Field of Higher Education in Pakistan as Experienced by Faculty: A Bourdieusian Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faculty play a key role in the development of a nation. Their ideologies, work, knowledge, and attitudes are all significant in not only determining the students’ success but also the overall quality of the education system. This study explores the experiences and struggles faced by the faculty in a public research university in Pakistan and their approaches to navigating their everyday work lives. It employs Bourdieu’s theoretical triad of habitus, capital, and field to highlight the struggles faced by the faculty in their everyday academic lives. The study is designed to understand the shaping and reshaping of academic habitus and the resultant formation of their sense of place. The interviewed participants included PhD holders who earned their degrees internationally as well as those who did so locally, belonging to the departments of Chemistry and Management Sciences. The study highlights ideological differences between the two disciplines, their varying backgrounds and dispositions. The study showed that not all faculty members working in the Pakistani academic environment hail from the same environment or have had similar access to resources and experiences. Their varying backgrounds and dispositions act as paradigms to help them understand and navigate their academic careers, starting with their choice of pursuing a Ph.D. The interviewed faculty experienced a clash between their expectations and reality when it came to new habitus formation, resulting in a very docile and compliant faculty. Overall, the study highlights a key common concern from participants across the board in relation to higher education reforms and systemic issues, which leads to multi-level issues of varying gravity. A lack of importance given to Social Sciences and overt importance given to Sciences were identified as creating rivalry and jealousy amongst the faculties. However, there were some commonalities between the faculties, including the use of the word ‘we’, non-uniform interpretation and implementation of policies, lack of job security, communication, and appreciation. Despite the significant differences amongst international and local PhDs, there did not appear to be consistent differences amongst any two subgroups, irrespective of how one divides the participant pool.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".