Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University Students' Paper. Vol. 30, No. 10. 1967.

Letters to the editor

page 10

Letters to the editor

Prof Brookes replies to Hall

Sirs.—It is a pity that your space and my time should be occupied in dealing with W. J. Hall's misconceptions, rather than in considering serious questions of academic policy. However, his letter in your last issue clearly calls for a reply.

1. Ad Hominem? To argue ad hominem is to play the man, not the ball, in dealing with W. J. Hall's first attack I showed that several of his assertions did not tally with the facts, that in some instances they were seriously misleading, and that his conclusions were invalid.

The smokescreen of invective in his reply does not hide the fact that he has made no attempt to rebut any of my contentions. If readers draw ad hominem conclusions, e.g. that W. J. Hall is inaccurate, illinformed, and insufficiently fastidious in his polemical methods, he should look to his own style of argument and not complain about mine.

2. Through the Lookine Glass. In his second attack. W. J. Hall has taken care not to state his assumptions explicitly, lest they be demolished as were those of his first effort. This ingenious method of argument produces odd resuits, as if one viewed the world through a mirror; in, the looking glass world of W. J. Hall the images are reversed.

For example, the report on future policy in Asian Studies proposes that teaching in Asian languages be introduced; so W. J. Hall complains about "confining the student to materials available in English."

Again, the report proposes the introduction by the Centre of graduate studies and research, to produce Asian specialists for New Zealand so W. J. Hall complains that it is to become a recruiting agent for an American graduate school, and to produce specialists for the United States.

Again, the report says that "in most cases, research students should visit the country which they are investigating"; so W. J. Hall complains about looking at Asia from the outside by library research."

Had Salient published the Future Policy in Asian Studies, or even an adequate summary of it, the looking glass quality of W. J. Hall's misconceptions would have been immediately apparent. Since it did not, the best way of exposing their irrelevance is to explain what the Centre is doing, and planning to do.

3. Objectives. The original objective of the Asian Studies programme, now about 10 years old, was to encourage VUW students to acquire some informed awareness of the major cultures of Asia and of the characteristics and problems of major Asian countries. The emphasis was accordingly placed on undergraduate teaching.

To this objective the recent report on future policy has added another: The production for New Zealand of a number (inevitably much smaller than those affected by the undergraduate programme) of specialists on Asian affairs. This calls for an expansion of graduate courses, the encouragement of graduate research, and the provision of language teaching.

4. Undergraduate teaching. Initially a small Department of Asian Studies was established, offering unit courses in the usual way. After five years the programme was reviewed and progress towards the first objective was felt to be disappointing.

Students generally opted to take units in disciplinary departments, hence there were insufficient enrolments in Asian Studies to warrant a larger staff or an expanded programme. Accordingly the then Head of the Department (Professor Palmier) and the then convener of the Asian Studies Committee (Professor Holmes) proposed a new approach, designed to foster teaching about Asia within relevant disciplinary departments.

For this purpose the Department was to become the Asian Studies Centre, designed to recruit a larger staff most of whom would be shared with disciplinary departments, in which they would do much of their teaching. These proposals were approved by the Committee, the Deans, and the Professorial Board in 1963, without significant dissent.

While the existing units were to be phased out as the new programme was introduced, it was agreed that a Stage I course in Asian History should be developed, not only for its own sake but also to provide a useful background for students taking Asian courses in other departments, such as Economies or Political Science. (W. J. Hall's assumption that an historical introduction to Asian civilisations is irrelevant except to historians would not be shared by most social scientists.)

It has also been decided to retain an advanced interdisciplinary unit. Asian Studies III. which may be of value to a number of students (such as prospective schoolteachers) who would not wish to undertake the proposed interdisciplinary programme for Honours. Its content may be changed to avoid overlap with departmental courses.

5. Language teaching. To limit undergraduate teaching about Asia to students who are prepared to study an Asian language would effectively frustrate the first objective of the programme.

However, if the Centre is to achieve the second objective (the production of Asian specialists) provision must be made for the teaching of one or more Asian languages.

The recent report on future policy recommends that a start be made with undergraduate courses in Indonesian and Malay, and that to be eligible for the prooosed Honours degree a candidate should have sufficient competence in an Asian language to enable him to undertake research. In time, perhaps, we may be able to offer teaching in half a dozen Asian languages, as W. J. Hall suggests; before approving such a development the Deans will doubtless wish to see how many students take advantage of the more modest programme now proposed.

6. Graduate teaching. W. J. Hall's attacks might almost lead one to believe that the future policy is one of retrenchment; in fact, neither the Department nor the Centre has so far offered a graduate programme, and it is the intention to provide one.

Thanks to the introduction of Asian material into the undergraduate teaching of a number of different departments, enough students are expected to develop a serious interest in Asian affairs to warrant the provision of an Honours programme designed to prepare them for research in Asia. The proposed course, details of which are yet to be worked out, will enable graduates who have majored in a relevant discipline and studied an Asian language to opt for a programme entirely devoted to Asian themes.

About half of the required study will be done at an advanced level in the candidate's major subject. The remainder (apart from further language study) will consist of courses at a less advanced level drawn from other disciplines.

If language teaching can be introduced in 1968, it is hoped to offer the Honours programme in 1969.

7. Graduate research. Despite W. J. Hall's assumptions to the contrary, it is clearly stated in the report on future policy that the potential specialists produced by the Honours programme will be expected to proceed to Asia to collect their research data, returning to complete and submit their theses.

Finance presents an obvious difficulty, hence the report mentions that the Common wealth Scholarships scheme might provide opportunities for research students to become attached to universities in Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, or Ceylon, and envisages that the Centre will foster close relationships with staff in Asian universities to ensure effective supervision while our students are in the field.

However, Asia is a large continent, in which many languages are spoken, and the range of possible research topics is immense; hence the Centre cannot guarantee a specialist with the necessary disciplinary and linguistic qualifications to supervise every topic which a research student might wish to investigate. For this reason alone, the report recognises that "graduates whose area of research interest lies outside that of Centre staff may well choose, after Honours, to transfer to other institutions (e.g. ANTJ or the EastWest Centre)."

Apparently it is solely this proviso — indeed, the last three bracketed words—that prompts W. J. Hall to fill 34 column inches abusing the new policy for "accelerating the brain drain." Even for a Canadian, this is carrying anti Americanism to extremes.

These two institutions were mentioned because they both offer scholarships to appropriately qualified New Zealand students, and because we understand that they both arrange for students to undertake field research in Asia. If we are misinformed, the Centre's advice to some prospective research students will doubtless be different; but this will entail no change in its policy.

To prove his case W. J. Hall would need to show that a Centre with (say) nine staff is capable of supervising any research topic on Asia. Needless to say, his own proposals show no such thing.

8. Conclusion. The reorganisation of Asian Studies has taken far longer than was intended, mainly because of recruitment difficulties, and interested students (one of whom is quoted by W. J. Hall could reasonably complain of the uncertainties which arose during the protracted transition.

Now, at last, we are over the hump: the new programme is successfully launched, the Centre has succeeded in recruiting staff of high quality, further expansion is planned, and there is general agreement on the lines of future policy.

As I have shown, even W. J. Hall should be gratified that the new policy conforms in so many respects to the scheme he has proposed; unfortunately it seems that he derives greater satisfaction from attacking imaginary policies in his looking glass world.

R. H. BROOKES.

Convener, Asian Studies Committee.

[Future correspondence on this issue must be limited to 300 words.—Eds.]

Cynicism

Sirs,—Your columnist "Cynic" thinks it odd that I asked Mr. Gager to stand for the post of Publications Officer. Would he believe that I simply think he is the best man available for the job? I can't see that politics come into such a matter—but rather that we must have the best possible administration of a portfolio which controls contracts worth over $14,000 per year.

To tag me as a "conservative" is an ill considered and inaccurate generalisation. I had hoped the new writer of "Cynic" might avoid the pitfalls of brevity and sensationalism which the first writer of "Insight" so often fell into.

H. B. Rennie.