In the heart of every great institution lies a legacy—one built by generations of educators, thinkers, and reformers. I am part of such a legacy. My forefathers were part of this esteemed university, and today, I teach here, driven by the same passion for knowledge and societal growth that shaped this institution decades ago. But what happens when that legacy begins to erode—not because of students, but because of mismanagement at the top?
This is a deeply personal account of what I believe to be a decline in the research environment within our Department of Design—a department once known for its academic vibrancy and pedagogical integrity.
The Issue: Research as a Threat?
Recently, I conducted a classroom-based observational study while teaching Sociology and Anthropology in Design. The objective was simple yet powerful: to understand how design students approach residential architecture. The study revealed that many students were designing spaces in isolation, as self-contained units, rather than thinking of homes as social instruments—structures that can strengthen communities and foster collective well-being.
This is not just a design flaw. It’s a symptom of a larger pedagogical disconnect—where education is stripped of its societal context.
I documented the exercise and reflected on student responses. I shared anonymized performance samples with the class for discussion and presented my paper as a critique and a solution-oriented approach to enrich architectural pedagogy.
But what happened next shocked me.
I was summoned by the Head of Department (HoD), who, without reading the full context or understanding the pedagogical intent, dismissed my research as unethical. She accused me of treating students as “guinea pigs.”
The Question of Ethics—Or Ego?
Let’s be clear: the study involved no physical, emotional, or psychological intervention. It was a pedagogical tool—well within academic norms. As educators, we constantly observe, evaluate, and redesign our teaching based on student responses. If every classroom observation requires bureaucratic permission, are we killing the spirit of inquiry altogether?
The HoD compared my research to another colleague’s, who had only collected superficial opinions without deeper design analysis. This comparison not only exposed her limited understanding of design research but also raised another troubling question: is creative academic work being blocked not because it is wrong, but because it does not pass through the gatekeeper’s approval?
The Problem of Unqualified Leadership
The incident is just the tip of the iceberg. This leadership crisis is rooted in lack of domain knowledge, obsession with control, and a desire for credit without contribution. When an HoD demands co-authorship in papers she neither contributes to nor understands, it becomes clear that the position is being used for power and visibility, not academic upliftment.
A leader’s role is to nurture faculty, empower researchers, and protect intellectual freedom, not micromanage or suppress it.
Ironically, she proudly claims to have blocked previous research submissions to national conferences—almost as a badge of authority. But rejecting research without merit-based evaluation does not protect standards. It destroys innovation and signals to faculty that compliance matters more than creativity.
Institutional Failure and Student Loss
This environment is not just a professional disappointment for faculty—it’s a tragedy for students. Young minds come to this institution with dreams, often leaving their hometowns and families behind, trusting the institution’s legacy.
What they find instead is a fractured learning environment—where innovation is discouraged, and faculty are forced to conform to superficial metrics rather than pursue meaningful work. Students lose access to progressive design models, particularly those rooted in Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS), because the leadership does not understand—or chooses not to understand—their value.
In my case, I was directly told that IKS has no place in the curriculum. But how can that be said without even exploring the research outcomes or student reception? Isn’t that the very definition of uninformed bias?
The Culture of Fear and Devaluation
Despite consistently receiving ratings above 4.5/5 in my faculty reviews, I was threatened with probation extension—based not on academic performance, but on arbitrary administrative grievances like website management, which is not even within my designated role.
This is the cost of standing up for academic integrity.
If performance metrics are ignored and non-academic duties become tools for punishment, we must ask: what values are guiding this institution? Is it growth and excellence—or control and conformity?
The Way Forward: Reclaiming Academic Freedom
Institutions need leaders who:
-
Understand the subject they supervise
-
Encourage research, not restrict it
-
Empower faculty, not exploit them
-
Respect tradition while welcoming innovation
Design is not just about aesthetics. It is about people, systems, and change. When the leadership fails to understand this, it is not just faculty who suffer—it is the students, the institution, and society at large.
The future of Indian design education depends on pedagogical freedom, inclusive dialogue, and intellectual courage. It is time we reclaim these values from those who misuse authority for ego, credit, or control.
Let this be a call to all educators, students, and institutions: Misplaced leadership can silence a generation of thinkers. Let’s not allow that to happen.
