OPEN FILE

Faculty perceptions of academic freedomat a GCC university

Michael H. Romanowski • Ramzi Nasser

� UNESCO IBE 2010

Abstract Massive oil revenues are currently fueling a surge in the number of educational

institutions in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, presenting leadership at all

levels with many unprecedented questions. In particular, the growth and reform of higher

education challenges the delicate balance between academic freedom and Arab cultural

values. This paper describes faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a major GCC

national university. Faculty members’ views and perceptions regarding academic freedom

are presented based on interviews, questionnaire responses, and the authors’ own thoughts.

Findings indicate that faculty members have complex and often contradictory under-

standings of academic freedom and related responsibilities and often engage in self-

censorship. The authors discuss these findings by engaging in self-reflection regarding their

own perspectives and personal experiences.

Keywords Academic freedom � Higher education � GCC states � Faculty perceptions

In recent years, few nations worldwide have witnessed the kind of unprecedented growth

and reform of the higher educational sector that has occurred in countries of the Gulf

Cooperation Council (GCC). This surge in higher education is fueled partly by the desire to

become ‘‘less dependent on foreign expertise and foster an educated citizenship that could

develop and manage the oil industry’’ (Beatty et al. 2002, p. 2). Governments searching for

ways to diversify their economies and educate their citizens are redirecting massive

amounts of money and effort to improve existing educational institutions, create new ones,

This study was partially funded by a Qatar University Internal Grant, #QUSG-EDU-ES-09-02.

M. H. Romanowski (&)College of Education, Qatar University, P. O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatare-mail: michaelhr@qu.edu.qa

R. NasserCenter for Educational Development and Research, Qatar University, P. O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatare-mail: ramzin@qu.edu.qa

123

ProspectsDOI 10.1007/s11125-010-9166-2

and establish branch campuses of elite international colleges and universities (Krieger

2008).

Not only is the GCC importing established universities; a deliberate effort is also being

made to expand and improve national institutions. For example, Education City in Qatar is

one of the first complexes to house several high-profile American universities. Romani

(2009) points out that the continuous Arab academic expansion is an attempt by Gulf

political leaders not just to close the ‘‘development gap’’ in their countries but also ‘‘to

change Arab academe from a site for knowledge reception to one of knowledge produc-

tion’’ (p. 4). Indeed, the idea of the Gulf becoming a major academic player is beginning to

spread throughout the Arab world, attracting faculty, students, and researchers from within

the region and beyond (Romani 2009). This new phenomenon raises several pragmatic

challenges, in particular challenges regarding academic freedom.

Although many Gulf countries may be more liberal than others in the region, GCC

societies cannot remain immune to the ‘‘massive importations of manpower and knowl-

edge—and of American-style higher education’’ (Romani 2009, p. 5). This type of edu-

cation can prove problematic because of the often-made claim that the borrowing of

Western values through education has led to ‘‘the corruption of Muslim society, the decline

of modesty among women, and a general rise in licentious behaviour’’ (Huff 2005, p. 62).

The concern is that if the intellectuals in these institutions express their opinions and

values, that could possibly create a ‘‘moral or cultural panic’’ challenging the delicate

balance between academic freedom and Arab cultural values. However, we know that

education cannot be apolitical, areligious and amoral unless universities and professors are

willing to evade the important issues of our times (Williams 2006). This then leads to

serious questions regarding the quality of higher education in the GCC states.

Some are concerned that reforms will not be able to cope with and sustain the huge

governmental stake in higher education and the concurrent constraints that Arab govern-

ments impose. Romani (2009) argues that political interference and repressive local laws

will hamper educational reform. Administrators at Northwestern University (NU) in

Education City expressed this concern. In response, the Qatar Foundation, the governing

body of Education City, has assured NU that academic freedom and freedom of inquiry

will be fully protected (Al Shami 2008). Still, the question remains: will massive spending

and reforms have a direct effect on academic freedom?

In what follows, we examine faculty perceptions of academic freedom at one GCC

national university, which we call RNU.1 We begin by developing a definition of academic

freedom gathered from a variety of sources. Second, we briefly discuss academic freedom

in the context of Arab higher education. Third, we describe our research process and then

present both qualitative and quantitative findings on faculty members’ perceptions of

academic freedom. Finally, we attempt to place these findings into the context of education

at GCC universities, raising various concerns and issues.

Academic freedom defined

Providing a fixed definition of academic freedom is difficult because no single definition

can cover all the complexities associated with the concept or adequately account for the

many cultural contexts where it is practiced. For the purpose of this paper, we develop a

definition of academic freedom that draws upon various documents.

1 This is a pseudonym to preserve confidentiality.

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP 2006), the

1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure provides a generally

agreed upon framework for academic freedom. The 1940 Statement includes these points:

1. Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results.

2. Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they

should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter that is not

related to their subject.

3. College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and

officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should

be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the

community imposes special obligations. They should be accurate, should respect the

opinion of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking

for the institution. (AAUP 2006, p. 3)

Most Western scholars would agree that these conditions are essential to provide pro-

fessors with the climate they need to teach, conduct research, and publish with minimum

interference by internal or external authorities or by public opinion.

Concerning GCC universities, academic freedom is recognized by international orga-

nizations like UNESCO as a guarantor of other fundamental human rights, such as freedom

of speech. The 1997 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-

Education Teaching Personnel, in its Paragraph 26, provides a definition of academic

freedom that is internationally accepted.2 The document is not legally binding but it does

provide an international consensus on the meaning of academic freedom. The following

excerpt, from Paragraph 27, illustrates several of the key elements.

The principle of academic freedom should be scrupulously observed. Higher-edu-

cation teaching personnel are entitled to the maintaining of academic freedom, that is

to say, the right, without constriction by prescribed doctrine, to freedom of teaching

and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing

the results thereof, freedom to express freely their opinion about the institution or

system in which they work, freedom from institutional censorship and freedom to

participate in professional or representative academic bodies. All higher-education

teaching personnel should have the right to fulfill their functions without discrimi-

nation of any kind and without fear of repression by the state or any other source.

(UNESCO 1997)

While any interpretation of the 1997 Recommendation is context-specific, there are four

basic elements of academic freedom that must be considered. First, professors ought to be

granted the freedom to undertake and publish research without hindrance. The second

element is the freedom to teach including the right to determine the curriculum and

teaching methodology. The last two elements are the right to participate in academic

governance and to carry out their functions without fear of repression. With these

definitions in mind, it is worth asking what the status of academic freedom is in the Arab

world.

2 When the Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel was signed onNovember 11, 1997, all GCC states were members of UNESCO. See http://erc.unesco.org/portal/UNESCOMemberStates.asp?language=en for the list of the 193 Member States.

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

Academic freedom in the Arab world

In Arab societies, Huff (2005) points out, two frames must be used to examine academic

freedom. The first is the political framework and factors that emerge from authoritarian

state officials. The second is the religious and cultural framework that is built upon reli-

gious traditions. The key issue here is that these frameworks are strongly integrated and

reinforce each other, and this relationship plays a significant role in shaping the under-

standings of political, cultural, and educational issues such as academic freedom.

Academic freedom in the Arab context faces pressures similar to those in any country

that remains under authoritarian rule. Kraince (2008) states that ‘‘the major obstacle to

building respect for academic freedom in Arab societies is the persistence of authoritarian

culture’’ (p. 5). For example, some authoritarian regimes build restrictions into academic

work, hampering and discouraging academic freedom (Altbach 2007). This is evident in

Arab universities when ‘‘heavy-handed and security-oriented administrations often inter-

fere in academic life in areas such as student admissions, faculty and student research,

student conduct, travel of faculty, choice of curricular materials, and topics of confer-

ences’’ (Herrera 2007, p. 414). Certainly, the degree of authoritarian government control

greatly varies among CCG countries. However the key problem is that this type of top-

down control of discourse ‘‘limits the free-flowing marketplace of ideas, where viewpoints

are distinguished on the basis of their substance, persuasive power and/or utility’’ (Uddin

2009, para 6).

The second framework that shapes academic freedom is related to religion and tradi-

tions, with which Arab education has long been intertwined. Thus religion plays a sig-

nificant role in constructing the parameters of academic freedom. Taha-Thomure (2003)

makes an important point that is worth quoting at length because it summarizes the concern

about religion and traditions and their link to academic freedom in Arab universities:

Constants in Arab society, that is the basic foundational ideas of religion, society and

tradition, are influential in engineering the width and breadth and depth of freedoms

permitted. In societies where general freedom is not allowed, we usually find that

traditions and beliefs take a preeminent role in defining what kinds of knowledge are

or are not accepted. Societal beliefs and traditions can even affect the special free-

dom that might be allowed in universities. (p. 106)

These traditions and beliefs play a huge role in shaping academia. It is clear that the role of

the professor in a school like RNU is substantially different from that of one in a Western

university because the religious ‘‘life and interpretations take preeminence over secular,

academic studies’’ (Taha-Thomure 2003, p. 2).

The common element within these frameworks that shape academics in the Arab world

is the issue of power. In this context, knowledge has a utilitarian function of providing

legitimacy for the political and religious establishments; thus it is no longer a tool to

initiate change but rather an instrument that supports and comforts the established political

order (Khelfaoui 2010). Those who hold power and see oppositional knowledge as a threat

to their legitimacy are unlikely to tolerate discourse that questions the purpose of their

existence, raises questions regarding government, or challenges the privileged knowledge

of overarching narratives. One can easily infer how those who hold power set the

boundaries on academic freedom and, in turn, on the knowledge transmitted in academia.

How does this affect professors and their particular disciplines? Professors in the sci-

entific disciplines can teach and conduct research with minimal restrictions but those in

fields such as the social sciences encounter more restrictions on their teaching and writing.

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

Professors in disciplines that are fertile for controversy attempt to provide ‘‘objective’’

historical accounts and ‘‘soft analyses’’ of critical issues. Those academics who produce

knowledge that challenges the status quo and power structures in authoritarian cultures ‘‘are

particularly vulnerable to any lack of freedom of speech in a society, because existing

entrenched interests will … resist the challenge posed by new ideas’’ (Karran 2009, p. 265).

Research procedures

The study had three objectives:

1. Examine faculty members’ perceptions regarding academic freedom.

2. Determine how these perceptions shape their role as faculty.

3. Determine various perceived influences on academic freedom at RNU.

Sample and methodology

For this study we collected data from three separate sources: a survey of RNU faculty

members, the personal experiences of the two researchers who are currently academic

faculty at the university, and informal interviews with faculty members regarding issues

related to academic freedom. The sample consisted of 94 faculty members at a national

university: 24 Qatari nationals, 35 expatriate Arab nationals, and 35 non-Arab academics,

62 males and 31 females. As not all of the 94 faculty members responded to all the

questions, some of the socio-demographic distributions do not total 94. Those who did

respond represented about 78% of the total sample. Half of the final sample had fewer than

6 years experience teaching in higher education institutions, and the other half had more

than 6 years experience.

Questionnaire

Based on the research objectives, a questionnaire was developed using both open and

closed-ended questions. The first part of the questionnaire included several open-ended

questions that asked faculty members about their understanding of academic freedom, how

it influenced their academic work, and whether the university allowed them to explore,

critically analyze, and discuss issues in the classroom. A capstone question, separated from

the main questionnaire, asked about satisfaction with the level of academic freedom.

The survey items were presented in form of questions and respondents could answer on

a 4-point scale, from strongly disagree, to disagree, to agree, to strongly agree. Because

some of the items were considered sensitive for some faculty members, we predicted that

they might opt for a neutral response i.e., ‘‘neither agree or disagree’’, thinking it was a

‘‘safe’’ answer. For example, one person responded to an open-ended question stating that

they were unwilling to discuss a situation where the university did or did not support their

academic freedom. Because of this situation, we omitted the option of ‘‘neither agree or

disagree’’ from the survey. Researchers have found that the number of options in a

response format (i.e., two responses would be ‘‘agree’’ and ‘‘disagree’’, and three would be

‘‘agree’’, ‘‘neutral’’, and ‘‘disagree’’) correlates significantly (r = ?0.92) to a rating

response scale of 100 ml line response format (Carifio 1976, 1978; Carifio and Perla 2007);

this suggests that the choice to use a three-interval or four-interval format would make no

difference to the validity of the responses.

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

The response data were subjected to a Chi-square test for each item, using 25% as the

expected frequency for each response interval. Thus we compared the actual responses to a

random situation in which, ideally, equal numbers of responses would be given to each

item. This is another form of the ‘‘null hypothesis’’.

Interviews

We conducted informal conversational interviews with five faculty members at RNU. They

included four professors from the College of Education: a national professor emeritus

(NPE), an American professor in the College of Education (AP), a non-Qatari Arab

assistant professor in Special Education (APSE), and a national who is an associate pro-

fessor of Educational Sciences (NAPES). In addition, a national who is an associate

professor of Engineering (NEP) was willing to be interviewed.

These interviews had no predetermined questions; this allowed the conversation to

remain open and adaptable to the participant’s perspectives and viewpoints. Basically these

were discussions among colleagues regarding academic freedom.

Personal reflection

According to Mruck (2000), empirical studies often neglect the researchers’ own reflections

and the communicative content. Possibilities for exploration emerge when the communi-

cation between the researcher and participants, and the resulting data, are placed into a

critical self-reflective process. For Nadig (2004), self-reflection is the constant examination

of the researcher’s thoughts and beliefs in regard to the participants in the research process.

This subjectivity is an important methodological tool for gaining a deeper understanding of

the participants’ thoughts and motives and for examining the researcher’s own thoughts and

experiences that provide insights into the realities of the particular research context. This is

especially useful when, as in this study, the researchers are embedded in the particular

context. Therefore, through critical reflection we provide what Banks (1998) calls an insi-

der’s and outsider’s perspective on academic freedom in this particular context. Throughout

this study, we engaged in critical self-reflection and dialectical discussions not only with

each other but with several colleagues. These discussions enabled us to share the results of

the data analysis and participants’ perceptions, and often served to triangulate the data.

Findings

Our analytic process involved all three data sources. We analyzed the quantitative survey

results. We also examined the responses to the open-ended questions on the survey and the

content of the interviews. In this process, several themes emerged that we then analyzed for

content. We then integrated our findings from the quantitative analysis into various themes

in order to support or refute particular findings. Throughout the process, we constantly

engaged in self-reflection. The rationale for the entire process was to provide an accurate

account of faculty members’ perceptions of academic freedom.

Limitations

As with any study, this investigation has limitations that should be mentioned. First, the

survey only provides participants’ verbal descriptions of academic freedom and related

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

issues that they tend to agree or disagree with. Participant responses cannot always be

taken as totally accurate descriptions of what the respondents actually do or really think.

With sensitive topics such as academic freedom, individuals might be unwilling to respond

with opinions that could in some way indicate their identity. In addition, survey research

often represents an over-simplification of social reality. Knowing that academic freedom is

not static, but rather an interactive and dynamic process, this research provides a snapshot

of the faculty members’ perceptions.

Quantitative data: Survey results

The Chi-square results were significant across all items of the questionnaire. This suggests

strong evidence against the null hypothesis, which holds that equal numbers of responses

would fall into each of the categories of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly

disagree (see Table 1). From these results we can conclude that the faculty members

generally believed that academic freedom was significant to their careers and that the

university upholds academic freedom. Faculty members were generally positive about

communicating, publishing, or discussing ideas freely with others, and thought that they

had autonomy in their selection of curriculum and reading materials.

Table 2 reports the means on each item, along with the standard deviations. The results

indicate that faculty members were specific about the importance of academic freedom in

general (M = 3.82, SD = 0.42), about their individual academic freedom to do their work

(M = 3.14, SD = 0.79), and about the university’s role in supporting faculty individual

research, or institutional support (M = 2.86, SD = 0.99). The survey results provided a

sense that academic freedom is important to these professors and that the university

respects free expression and supports faculty members in their academic work as

researchers and teachers. However, that picture was less clear in the interviews and in the

Table 1 Participant responses for each item of academic freedom survey

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Agree Stronglyagree

Chi-square

1. Academic freedom is important to me in my roleas a faculty member

1.1% 16.0% 80.9% 186.96**

2. The institution where I work generally upholdsacademic freedom

5.3% 8.5% 51.1% 33.0% 53.83**

3. My university hinders my research 60.6% 21.3% 5.3% 3.2% 88.32**

4. My university influences the issues I can discussin my classes

28.7% 34.0% 21.3% 11.7% 11.067*

5. My university supports the publishing of academicpapers that include new ideas or controversial oruncomfortable opinions

8.55% 22.3% 26.6% 27.7% 10.3*

6. My university restricts the type of books, readings,visuals, and films I can use in my classes

34.0% 29.8% 17.0% 13.8% 11.36*

7. My university allows me to express myself freelywith colleagues and students

9.6% 17.0% 34.0% 37.2% 20.44**

8. Cultural tradition should impede academic inquiry 44.7% 23.4% 23.4% 6.4% 28.34**

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

responses to the open-ended questions. It seems that the conception of academic freedom

that we offered in the definitions above was not tacitly understood. We discuss this point

later on.

Since the context for this research is the Arab world and particularly the GCC culture

that is more about inference, suggestion, nuanced connotations, and non-committal dis-

course, it can be argued that the survey statements might appear too bold or strong and that

this could be the reason for the variations between the responses on the survey and in the

open-ended questions and the interviews. Therefore, we compared the survey responses of

non-Arab to Arab participants, including an item analysis. We analyzed the differences

between faculty members who are Qatari nationals, Arabs from outside Qatar, and non-

Arabs, and the results are shown in Table 3. Using the F-test statistic, we found no

Table 3 Analysis of Arab, Arab non-national, and foreign faculty by group (mean and SD)

National Arabnon-national

Foreign F-ratio

1. Academic freedom is important to me in myrole as a faculty member

3.91(0.29) 3.88(0.33) 3.69(0.53) 2.868

2. The institution where I work generally upholdsacademic freedom

3.04(1.02) 3.18(0.67) 3.17(0.75) .230

3. My university hinders my research 1.55(0.96) 1.33(0.69) 1.53(0.68) .723

4. My university influences the issues I can discuss in myclasses

1.82((0.73) 2.21(1.15) 2.35(0.95) 2.007

5. My university supports the publishing of academicpapers that include new ideas and controversial oruncomfortable opinions

2.87(1.09) 2.70(1.08) 3.07(0.78) 1.081

6. My university restricts the type of books, readings,visuals, and films I can use in my classes

2.04(1.02) 1.88(0.89) 2.39(1.20) 2.063

7. My university allows me to express myself freelywith colleagues and students

2.83(1.11) 3.26(0.86) 2.89(0.96) 1.879

8. Cultural tradition should impede academic inquiry 2.09(1.13) 1.76(1.05) 1.94(0.80) .765

Table 2 Mean and SD on eachitem of the academic freedomsurvey

Mean SD

Academic freedom is important to me inmy role as a faculty member

3.82 .417

The institution where I work generally upholdsacademic freedom

3.14 .793

My university hinders my research 1.46 .765

My university influences the issues I can discussin my classes

2.17 .997

My university supports the publishing of academicpapers that include new ideas and controversialor uncomfortable opinions

2.86 .990

My university restricts the type of books, readings,visuals, and films I can use in my classes

2.11 1.06

My university allows me to express myself freelywith colleagues and students

3.01 .978

Cultural tradition should impede academic inquiry 3.82 .979

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

significant difference between the three groups. The most striking difference appeared for

the foreign faculty members who gave the lowest rating to the importance of academic

freedom. Qatari national faculty felt that the university has the least influence on what they

discuss in class. Finally, Arab non-national faculty felt that the university restricts the type

of books and other materials they can use in class. Those who came closest to reaching

agreement as a group were the foreign faculty.

Looking at the difference between respondents’ answers in terms of nationality, the

national faculty felt more strongly about the importance of academic freedom compared to

foreign faculty members. Perhaps the foreign faculty members are aware of their transient

status and therefore academic freedom is not the major issue for them that it might be in

their home countries. In looking at the issue of academic control, foreign faculty members

felt that the university had some influence on the issues they discussed in class, while the

national faculty tended to believe the university did not. One possible explanation for this

finding is that national members of the faculty may be more in line with the national

discourse that permeates the university. Foreign faculty felt they were restricted in the

types of books and other media they could use. Obviously, many faculty members felt the

same, especially given the restrictions we experience on a number of Internet sites and

books that may be assessed as being offensive to cultural and religious traditions. This

result sheds light on the relevance of context to one’s understanding of academic freedom,

as what one group—university faculty—regards as universal may not be seen that way by

others in the context of religious and authoritarian cultures.

The third analysis used a t-test to compare males and females on each item of the

survey; the results are shown in Table 4. On only one item, the second, we found a nearly

statistically significant difference between males and females: more males than females

believed that their institutions generally uphold academic freedom for the faculty. Our

study included more women from the faculties of Arts and Science and Education than

from other areas. These faculty members often must address social and critical issues and

Table 4 T-Test comparing opinions of males and females in the sample

Malemean(SD)

Femalemean(SD)

t-test

1. Academic freedom is important to me inmy role as a faculty member

3.84(0.42) 3.77(0.43) 0.74

2. The institution where I work generally upholdsacademic freedom

3.24(0.69) 2.90(0.94) 1.97

3. My university hinders my research 1.43(0.70) 1.54(0.92) -0.58

4. My university influences the issues I can discuss in myclasses

2.10(1.04) 2.36(0.87) -1.14

5. My university supports the publishing of academicpapers that include new ideas and controversial oruncomfortable opinions

2.95(0.97) 2.63(1.01) 1.33

6. My university restricts the type of books, readings,visuals, and films I can use in my classes

2.00(1.0) 2.38(1.15) -1.59

7. My university allows me to express myself freelywith colleagues and students

3.11(0.95) 2.77(0.95) 1.61

8. Cultural tradition should impede academic inquiry 1.93(1.0) 1.83(0.98) 0.46

* Significant at the 0.05 level

** Significant at the 0.01 level

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

may have felt, as females, that some of the issues they raise in their classrooms may not be

supported by the university administration.

Two important issues need to be addressed regarding the faculty members’ perceptions

of academic freedom. First, they expressed a sense of satisfaction with academic freedom

at the university: the Chi-square analysis revealed higher percentages on the ‘‘agree’’ side

for the positive items. Simultaneously, however, they seem to hold contradictory ideas

regarding their beliefs about academic freedom and their satisfaction with the degree of

academic freedom they experience. For example, when asked about their perception of

academic freedom, the majority seem to indicate that the university upholds it, and does

not hinder or impinge upon faculty research or issues developed and discussed in class.

However, when asked about how satisfied they were with the level of academic freedom at

their institution, the mean level (M = 1.89, SD = 0.87) was below the median of 2.5 on a

scale from ‘‘1’’ (very unsatisfied) to ‘‘4’’ (very satisfied).

Second, on the survey, 81% of the respondents indicated that academic freedom was an

important issue in their role as faculty members. Although this result seems to indicate that

they see academic freedom as essential and in fact cherish it, on the open-ended questions

45% of them said they are willing to adjust their teaching and compromise their academic

freedom by engaging in self-censorship. We explore this particular finding further below.

Qualitative data: Interviews and open-ended survey questions

Three major themes became apparent as we analyzed the qualitative data on academic

freedom: understandings of the concept, the role of responsibility, and self-censorship.

Understandings of academic freedom

Generally, the faculty members at RNU consider academic freedom to be significant to

their careers and they say the university upholds academic freedom. However, they define,

interpret, or understand the concept in different ways. The informal interviews and the

responses to the open-ended survey questions provide insights into these understandings.

For example our discussion with NAPES focused on several faculty members who had left

the university. These faculty members were frustrated with a variety of issues all centering

on some aspect of administrative interference. When asked if these situations involved

academic freedom, NAPES said yes and provided several examples. One faculty member

was asked to retire early, and others were asked to teach particular classes. Generally all

the examples could be seen as administrative conflicts that did not seem to exemplify our

understanding of academic freedom.

NEP presented a different understanding of academic freedom from the one we offered

above. This understanding centers more on an ‘‘earning’’ academic freedom based on

qualifications and experience. Academic freedom in one’s teaching includes selecting the

style for delivering material, selecting the course material, and making decisions on

homework, testing, and grading. However, the individual must possess an advanced degree

and have experience in the academic world. Academic freedom is relative, based on the

experience of the professor. For example, a professor coming to the university directly

from industry would have less freedom than an experienced professor with years in the

university. Over time, the new professor would earn the freedom to engage in more

activities of his or her own choice. Regarding research, professors have the freedom

to choose their research topics but must present their results in an appropriate way.

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

For example if their research is critical of a particular industry, then they would want to

present it in a particular way, and through the appropriate channels. Public criticism is

frowned upon.

One professor we interviewed (APSE) argued that academic freedom is generally rel-

ative in the sense that freedom is intrinsically tied to knowledge. Individuals cannot be free

to raise and discuss issues when they lack authority in the particular area. Moreover, APSE

argued, academic freedom is relative because there is always a metanarrative that defines

what is truth, what is to be read, and what is not. Accordingly, the implications are that no

matter where one is in the world, power drives what we call freedom and this is framed in

terms of truth. There will always be some limitations on academic freedom because it is

relative to a particular societal structure.

AP pointed out that universities provide academic freedom as long as the knowledge is

being taught in the context of accreditation. AP suggested that if standards and learning

outcomes are established for classes, then academic freedom simply has no place in this

framework. Thus, teaching is kept to the knowledge within the curriculum that is based on

the accrediting institutions’ models and standards. Moving beyond these parameters raises

‘‘controversial’’ issues, even if the issues are relevant to the curriculum. This is a violation

of academic integrity and simply understood as pushing one’s personal agenda. AP’s

comments support this understanding of academic freedom:

Yes, there are limits to academic freedom and compliance with regulations and rules

is very necessary. The academic work falls within the notion of rights and duties.

I have rights that I get and I have duties I must perform within the organized work,

particularly at RNU.

I think freedom is guaranteed for all the faculty members through the [faculty]

manual, which clarifies their rights and duties to the institution or the university. If

there is inconsistency with this policy then a faculty member is accountable. But

within the vision of the university and its values, there is no restriction.

In this perspective, the boundaries for academic freedom are set by external factors such as

accreditation requirements, curriculum standards, or university by-laws that allow faculty

freedom within these boundaries.

Academic freedom and responsibilities

Although it can easily be argued that faculty members have several responsibilities

regarding academic freedom, the participants in this study pinpointed two aspects of

faculty responsibility. First, there was a concern that faculty members have a responsibility

to the student. Comments on the open-ended survey questions illustrate this concern; the

two below are typical.

Yes there are limits to academic freedom. These are the student’s age and the degree

of intellectual maturity.

We should not hurt or abuse students in the name of academic freedom.

These responses seem to center on professors’ classroom interactions and discussions with

students and the raising of issues that those students might find offensive. AP pointed out

the need to define the word ‘‘freedom’’, and mentioned the concern that professors cannot

abuse or hurt people’s feelings in the name of academic freedom. Educators should not

politicize educational issues. Moreover, AP pointed out, if a professor unnecessarily

introduces a political issue in the classroom out of personal interest and conviction, this

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

might prevent students from having the chance to learn in a comfortable environment. AP

alluded to the idea that the students’ comfort could be a guiding principle in teaching at the

university level and said faculty members should insure that the classroom is a comfortable

place for all students to learn and express themselves. Similarly, NEP argued that all

faculty members have the responsibility to offer a high level of education for students, that

they must be fair with all students and avoid raising disturbing issues that might prevent

students from participating. In addition, professors must have the freedom to think about

and develop as professors. ‘‘How can I do this better?’’ and ‘‘How can I develop?’’ are the

key questions professors could be asking. Much of this reflects the current movement in

higher education towards a corporate sense of academia where faculty serve customers and

what dictates faculty performance or even content is increasingly intertwined with student

needs.

The second element of responsibility addresses the teaching situation. One respondent’s

open-ended response illustrates this point. ‘‘Academic freedom is a responsibility. As

adults, each member of an academic community must judge what is appropriate based on

the situation and audience they interact with’’. The concern for the audience is addressed

above in the concern for students’ comfort, but the issue that surfaces with this comment

and others is the concern for the teaching situation or context. This second concern is

evident in open-ended questionnaire responses that center on the concern for the culture,

customs, laws of the country, and religious ideas. Therefore, the argument is that academic

freedom could be tempered in accordance with the cultural and religious customs of the

particular context. The following response to an open-ended question illustrates this

awareness.

I am a religious person and some of the restrictions are not impeding academic

freedom for me. However, people from other religions or cultures may interpret

some cultural restrictions as limiting academic freedom.

These findings seem to indicate that professors have the responsibility to respect and honor

the local culture even if doing so hampers their academic freedom.

Self-censorship

Although respondents to the survey in this study underlined that cultural traditions should

not impede academic inquiry (69.56%), a major theme that emerged from the qualitative

data regarding self-censorship centered on the concern for culture and tradition. Various

comments from participants illustrate this concern.

I am fully aware of our culture. So, when I suggest any topic in class, I don’t need

external censorship except mine.

Yes. I avoid subjects that are culturally inappropriate.

The culture must be taken into account—many controls are established by conser-

vative groups such as the RNU community so we are succumbing to the spontaneous

tendencies of society and national institutions.

The limitation should be ethical and the research has to be consistent with the culture

of the society. Apart from these two factors there should not be any limit on research.

Yes, all the time. I avoid all references to Israel or the Jewish people despite their

contributions to world culture. I also avoid any kind of questioning of their religious

tradition. I do this out of respect.

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

Although no participants provided specific examples of support for or retribution

against particular situations involving academic freedom, our combined experience of

more than 40 years as professors in universities throughout the world has shown us that

faculty can experience both explicit and implicit consequences for expressing individual

viewpoints and pushing the boundaries of academic freedom.

The key issue here is that self-censorship is a complex issue that cannot be reduced to

faculty simply not raising controversial topics. A practical element is also important:

faculty members are dependent on administrators, colleagues, and student evaluations for

promotions and pay increases. This practical aspect of the job might be one factor, among

others, that often outweighs the principle of academic freedom. Furthermore, our

respondents offered no examples of times when faculty experienced restraints on their

academic freedom, so we wonder what it is that causes this fear or concern for the

limitations on academic freedom. Is it that faculty members are not willing to discuss the

specifics, or is the cultural climate based on myths that have become reality?

Discussion and personal reflection

How can these findings be placed into the context of GCC universities? The following

discussion integrates our personal reflections as we address each of the above themes.

Understandings of academic freedom

Our initial thoughts regarding the respondents’ understandings of academic freedom cen-

tered upon the idea that many faculty misperceived academic freedom. However after some

discussion and a thorough reexamination of the findings, we entertain the thought that some

of our respondents have never raised, discussed, or considered the concept of academic

freedom. Since most Arab universities are teaching institutions, professors take on the role

of a technician: teachers become ‘‘uncritical’’, ‘‘objective’’, and ‘‘efficient’’ distributors of

information ‘‘who neglect the more critical aspects of culture and schooling’’ (Giroux and

McLaren 1996, p. 304). They have an uncritical reliance on knowledge, and they perceive

their role as simply transmitting knowledge to students, focusing on the technical aspects. In

today’s globalized world, this technical aspect of knowledge is easily transmitted through a

different set of resources available specifically on the Internet. GCC academics must often

rely on outdated sources of knowledge and often merely translate or pass on knowledge,

rather than generate it. This situation is addressed by Sheikah Mozah Bint Nasser Al

Missned (2006) who described the current educational shortcomings in the Middle East:

Scholars have affirmed that the ‘‘traditional’’ system of education in the Arab world,

built upon the absolute power of those in authority, encourages learning by rote, and

blind acceptance of power. In such schools, girls and boys are taught not to question

their teachers, just as individuals in society are taught not to question their rulers. In

short, the type of education prominent in the Middle East sustains autocratic regimes

and inequalities—racial, class, and gender.

Al Missend hints at an important issue regarding academic freedom: the relationship

between power and knowledge. Power drives what we call freedom and determines its

accepted boundaries (Khelfaoui 2010). The blind acceptance of power and the traditional

system of education renders students and professors powerless to question the legitimacy

of knowledge or raise questions about important issues supporting the status quo.

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

Academic freedom and responsibilities

As professors, we are not arguing that academic freedom has no boundaries. It is not

simply the freedom to speak or teach as one wishes. Rather, it is the ‘‘freedom to pursue the

scholarly profession, inside and outside the classroom, according to the norms and stan-

dards of that profession’’ (Finkin and Post 2009, p. 149). Williams (2006) makes a sound

argument that education at all levels must have a responsibility to society and some

application to the greatest issues that the world faces:

We cannot address these issues without examining the political, religious, and moral

underpinnings of those issues. We can research these issues, expose students to that

research, present both sides of controversial issues, help students understand and

appreciate alternative perspectives, teach them how to present their own views in a

convincing and respectful fashion, and ultimately provide a moral and intellectual

climate for considering societal decisions that serve the greatest good for all people

in current and future generations […] they cannot avoid or prohibit discussion of

those issues if higher education is to contribute to a more humane society. (p. 22)

According to Williams, professors should be able to critically address the controversial

issues and explore their underpinnings. This means that universities must allow them to

teach in a relatively free environment and practice self-directed research without

unnecessary inhibitions.

As for knowledge, academic freedom is vital because it establishes the freedom

researchers need to advance knowledge fundamental to the profession (Finkin and Post

2009) and is essential for the development of academic disciplines. Professors have a

responsibility to their field to advance knowledge and they must have the freedom to

explore, challenge the discourse, deconstruct normative claims, and even open up the space

for a language of possibilities that can offer multiple narratives. This includes the constant

search for new ideas and concepts that disrupt and destabilize previously existing models.

However, this responsibility requires that professors abide by the academic and ethical

standards of their practice.

Faculty members often have concerns for their students’ feelings (Kelly-Woessner et al.

2009). Certainly students’ feelings must be considered but we would argue that students’

thinking can also be challenged. What is important is the way challenges are presented, and

several issues are worth considering. Challenging issues must be relevant to the course

content and professors are responsible to provide students with a model of intellectual

honesty by offering various perspectives on a topic. Students could be allowed to express

their opinions in a non-threatening environment without negative consequences such as

lower grades. The key here is that ‘‘academic freedom means a great deal, but it should not

mean freedom from responsibility to students’’ (Kennedy 1995, p. 12). There are certainly

boundaries and responsibilities that professors must understand and respect, but what these

boundaries are and who sets them is always in a state of negotiation.

Self-censorship

We would argue that all faculty members, whatever their teaching context, engage in some

degree of self-censorship. As in other areas of life, more management and control means

less freedom. However, the university context should be distinct from that of industry

where managers make policy and major decisions are generally implemented from the top

down. It is in the university that scholarly ideas are exchanged but when the space for these

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

exchanges is limited, as in many GCC universities, education becomes technical, a matter

of transmitting content to students without questioning assumptions or paradigms or asking

whose interests are being served.

Not every academic who chooses to censor him or herself has necessarily been

repressed by the university or the state laws. Yet the fact that many choose to do so reflects

the general climate of fear that leads professors to avoid discussing certain subjects—

chiefly politics, religion, and gender—thereby subtly repressing social progress and aca-

demic work among the faculty (Human Rights Watch 2005).Our informal interviews with faculty members and the findings from our survey raised

some important issues that also point to the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger

1957). This theory proposes that people attempt to reduce dissonance (conflict in their

thinking and behaviour) by either changing, justifying, or rationalizing their beliefs.

Cognitive dissonance can lead to changed behaviours over time as faculty members try to

reduce the tension they experience between the ideal (academic freedom) and the reality

(restricted freedoms). Among the participants in this study, we saw evidence of a changed

or adapted behaviour in the form of self-censorship.

Various studies of communication illustrate how individuals perceive the cultural cli-

mate in which they are embedded and how it influences their willingness to express their

views. Transferring this theory to academia, professors believe that the university climate

is closed to controversy or that there are political, economic, religious, or social taboos that

will likely force them into some form of self-censorship. Professors begin to calculate how

to impart their viewpoints and ideas and they can be cognitively overwhelmed with

decisions on what to say, to whom to say it, and when to say it; this process generally

scrapes away at the quality of their intellectual endeavours.

This concern for self-censoring is enforced when the individual relies on the institution

for social or economic support (Kelly-Woessner et al. 2009). Self-censorship among

faculty members is not always based on personal motivations but rather on a social

problem involving relationships between people and the cultural climate. Barsky and

Wood (2005) address the issue of avoidance, claiming that university employees avoid

conflict because they believe their voices will have little if any effect. This perspective is

also supported by Jost and Hunyady (2002) who argue that individuals say there is freedom

because doing so enables them to deal with the unpleasant experiences that accompany a

limited or controlled setting. Thus, self-denying behaviour allows one to maintain a sense

of self in relation to a given situation.

Conclusions

Little research has been conducted on academic freedom in the Arab world or elsewhere in

the Middle East. Thus, examining academic freedom in a national university cannot be

separated from the political, cultural, and political milieu of Arab society and the Arab

world. The opening of the Gulf States and the rapid pace of development there require

many in the Arab world to face several aspects of democratic societies through institutions

like Qatar’s Education City and Dubai’s Knowledge Village. Still, many academics in the

Arab world experience some doubt about academic freedom, creating an uncertainty and

instability that presents new challenges for the administration at RNU.

We would argue that for academic freedom to flourish in the Arab world there must be

political and cultural reform. This emphasizes our point that when discussing academic

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123

freedom, one must consider the cultural and political system simultaneously. Al Missned

(2006) raises this issue quite well and is worth quoting at length.

We cannot talk about a culture of quality without talking about massive political and

social reforms throughout the Arab world, and indeed the world in general. It is

useless to ‘‘play’’ at being free in schools while society squelches this freedom.

Actually, it can even lead to more instability. Recent studies have shown, interna-

tionally, that extremist and violent organizations are heavily populated with edu-

cated, politically disenfranchised youth, whose education taught them to expect the

right to participate politically, but their environments refuted this expectation.

She makes the important point that if a culture is not fully committed to academic freedom,

then the university should not put forth a false sense of academic freedom: doing so is not

only useless but in fact harmful to students who are not given the critical thinking skills to

explore alternative or even opposing views.

Nevertheless, serious work still remains to ‘‘persuade Arab governments that restricting

intellectual freedom is tantamount to depriving society of its capacity to generate the

meaningful, innovative and productive knowledge that is a precondition for survival and

success in the 21st century’’ (Arab Human Development Report 2003, p. 76). This work is

essential in the Arab world because academic freedom might help broaden Arab students’

understandings of the world and their own circumstances.

References

Al Missned, M. (2006). Speech by her highness Sheikah Mozah Bint Nasser Al Missned, at the opening ofthe conference on Arab Women Past and Present: Participation and Democratization, Doha, Qatar(March 3–5, 2006). www.mozahbintnasser.qa/pdf/GeorgeTown%20Speech.pdf.

Al Shami, S. (2008, April). Towards a ‘‘knowledge-based economy’’ in Qatar: Can Syria follow suit?Forward Magazine. http://www.fw-magazine.com/content/towards-%E2%80%9Cknowledge-based-economy%E2%80%9D-qatar-can-syria-follow-suit.

Altbach, P. G. (2007). Academic freedom in a global context: 21st century challenges. The NEA 2007Almanac of High Education. http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/files/Acad_Freedom_NEA_2007.pdf.

American Association of University Professors [AAUP] (2006). 1940 statement of principles for academicfreedom and tenure. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm.

Arab Human Development Report (2003). Knowledge production in Arab countries. http://www.arab-hdr.org/contents/2003/ch3-e.pdf.

Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a multi-cultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 4–17.

Barsky, A., & Wood, L. (2005). Conflict avoidance in a university context. Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 24(3), 249–264.

Beatty, K., Berrell, M., Martin, P., & Scanlan, T. (2002). Facilitating tertiary educational change in theMiddle East: From defining cultures to a culture of quality. http://www.inqaahe.org/admin/files/assets/subsites/1/documenten/1241773347_15-beatty-facilitating-tertiary-educational-change-in-the-middle-east-from-defining-cultures-to-a-culture-of-quality.pdf.

Carifio, J. (1976). Assigning students to career education programs by preference: Scaling preference datafor program assignments. Career Education Quarterly, 1(1), 7–26.

Carifio, J. (1978). Measuring vocational preferences: Ranking versus categorical rating procedures. CareerEducation Quarterly, 3(1), 34–66.

Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urbanlegends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences,3(3), 106–116.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Finkin, M. W., & Post, R. C. (2009). For the common good: Principles of American academic freedom. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

M. H. Romanowski, R. Nasser

123

Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case fordemocratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum, & S. A. Sherblom (Eds.), Breaking free: Thetransformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301–331). Cambridge, MA: Harvard EducationalReview.

Herrera, L. (2007). Higher education in the Arab world. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), Inter-national handbook of higher education (pp. 409–421). Dordrecht: Springer.

Huff, T. E. (2005). Freedom of expression in the Muslim world. Society, 42(4), 62–69 (May/June).Human Rights Watch (2005). Reading between the ‘‘red lines’’: The repression of academic freedom in

Egyptian universities. http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2005/06/08/reading-between-red-lines-repression-academic-freedom-egyptian-universities.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function ofideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153.

Karran, T. (2009). Academic freedom: In justification of a universal ideal. Studies in Higher Education,34(3), 263–283.

Kelly-Woessner, A., Woessner, M., & Rothman, S. (2009). Perception of political disagreement and self-censorship in downward communication. Paper presented at the ISPP 32nd Annual Scientific Meeting,Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p305670_index.html.

Kennedy, D. (1995). Another century’s end, another revolution for higher education. Change, 27(3), 8–15.Khelfaoui, H. (2010). Higher education and differentiation based on knowledge. In A. F. Mazawi & R.

G. Sultana (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2010, education and the Arab World: Political pro-jects, struggles and geometries of power. New York: Routledge.

Kraince, R. (2008). Academic freedom in Muslim societies. International Higher Education, 51, 5–6.Krieger, Z. (2008). An academic building boom transforms the Persian Gulf. Chronicle of Higher Educa-

tion, 54(29), A26.Mruck, K. (2000). Qualitative research networking: FQS as an example. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(3), Art. 34. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1051.

Nadig, M. (2004). Transculturality in process: Theoretical and methodological aspects drawn from culturalstudies and psychoanalysis. In H. J. Sandkuhler & H.-B. Lim (Eds.), Transculturality, epistemology,ethics, and politics (pp. 9–21). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Romani, V. (2009). The politics of higher education in the Middle East: Problems and prospects (MiddleEastern brief No. 36). Waltham, MA: Crown Center for Middle East Studies, Brandeis University.

Taha-Thomure, H. (2003). Academic freedom in Arab universities. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica.

Uddin, A. T. (2009). A motor of change for Saudi Arabia. http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/b/3473.UNESCO (1997). Recommendation concerning the status of higher education teaching personnel.

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

Williams, R. L. (2006). Academic freedom in higher education within a conservative sociopolitical culture.Innovative Higher Education, 31(1), 5–25.

Author Biographies

Michael H. Romanowski (USA) is a professor in the College of Education, at Qatar University in Doha,Qatar. He earned his Ph.D. from Miami University (Ohio). Prior to his appointment at Qatar University, heserved as a professor at Ohio Northern University and Huazhong University in Wuhan, China. Dr.Romanowski teaches graduate courses in leadership, curriculum, and research methodologies. His researchinterests lie in the areas of educational reform, curriculum, and the development of critical thought.

Ramzi Nasser (Canada) is currently the director of the Center of Educational Development and Researchand associate professor at Qatar University. He held various administrative, academic and research positionsat Beirut University College, the United Arab Emirates University, the Emirates Center for StrategicStudies, the University of Balamand (Lebanon), Bishops University (Canada) and Notre Dame University(Lebanon). He earned his Doctorate of Education from the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. Hisresearch work falls in the areas of geriatric assessment, institutional research, attribution theory,misconceptions in mathematics, and psycho-social attribution.

Faculty perceptions of academic freedom at a GCC university

123