The development of state policy is a complex process that involves multiple factors, including political, economic, and social considerations. One of the key debates in this area is whether state policy should prioritize specificity or diversity. Specificity means that policies are tailored to address particular problems or groups, while diversity means that policies are designed to accommodate a wide range of needs and interests. This debate has important implications for the effectiveness and inclusiveness of state policy. To shed light on this issue, we have conducted a detailed analysis of the arguments and evidence for both positions. Our findings are presented in this article, which aims to stimulate discussion and reflection on the role of state policy in promoting social welfare and progress.
Conceptual confusion in state policy
Life is very diverse and we must respect its diversity in order to thrive. Therefore, when developing a policy or regulation, whether general or specific, diversity must be clearly seen in order to have appropriate provisions. Then, the specificity will become the normal and if it is not specific, the diversity will become “specificity”.
Conceptual confusion in state policy is a common issue in many countries. It refers to the situation where the policies that are being formulated and implemented are either unclear or not in line with the goals of the state. In recent years, this has become a major concern for policymakers, researchers, and citizens alike. According to a recent report by the World Bank, conceptual confusion in state policy is one of the main reasons for the failure of many policy initiatives around the world. The report reveals that in the past decade, more than 40% of policy initiatives have failed due to conceptual confusion. This has resulted in wasted resources, missed opportunities, and in some cases, negative consequences for citizens. It is therefore imperative that policymakers and stakeholders work towards improving policy clarity and coherence. By doing so, they can ensure that policies are effective, efficient, and most importantly, in line with the goals of the state.
Understanding what equality and standards
Along with the development of society, the law is more and more honored. Of course, then, equality and standards are absolutely necessary. But understanding what equality and standards are is not simple, even extremely complicated. The trivialization of these concepts easily leads to mechanical regulations that then overcome them like climbing Mount Fansipan or even the Himalayas. Below, I discuss a few examples.
As we all know, after a period of conferring the title / title of associate professor, professor, the standards have been built, and are increasingly perfected. The purpose of the standards is very clear, to ensure the quality of professors/associate professors. Only thing, although it has been revised many times, the main idea is that the set of standards must be applied to all branches and scientific fields has not changed! Because there must be this same standard, when developing a document, everyone proposes and expects the “specificity” of their industry to be accepted as the general standard. The end result is obvious to everyone: each industry is only allowed to pass a few “specialties”, and therefore everyone feels at a loss.
The main problem here is that we have trivialized the norm, talking only about specificity and forgetting about diversity. Like life, science is diverse, and therefore new. The peculiarity of each branch, even science, is the diversity of science. In this case, understanding equality is understanding and accepting the diversity of each industry. Thus, the standard must be the standard for each industry to be correct and close.
Ideally, the evaluation of candidates should be based entirely on the quality and scientific content of each person as in developed countries, where not only are there many good experts but also use experts from all over the world, regardless of borders or political or religious differences. In that place, the cited indexes or SCI, SCI-E, … have little value, even forbidden to talk about. In our country, of course, we cannot mechanically follow the example of developed countries, relying entirely on councils and experts. Not saying is also conspicuous, accepting that will lead to professor, associate professor inflation. Therefore, there must still be standards; but must be industry standard. We have trivialized the norm, only talking about specificity and forgetting about diversity.
See more the difference between SCI & SCI-E in here
The next example is the standard doctoral thesis. According to the old Soviet model, each thesis must have a minimum of two articles. Over time, the regulations on journals of each industry and each training institution have become increasingly strict. I thought such rules were obvious. It was not until I became more mature and discussed with colleagues around the world, in different fields, that I knew: in most scientific developed countries, people only grade the thesis content, not paying attention to the content of the thesis. be published or will publish or not. Board members, especially professors, are primarily responsible for the content of the thesis. So what is the guarantee for quality? It is the reputation of the instructor. Those who produce poor quality doctorates will lose credibility. If you lose prestige, then no one will study anymore because after you have a degree, no one will recruit you. So what’s the point of having a doctorate (except for those who don’t talk about it)? Of course, when the bad professor didn’t show up, there were some people caught in the net. But in the world how to avoid all such woes.
Thus, the approach here not only emphasizes the specificity of each discipline but also each individual – a much higher degree of specificity or respect for diversity. In this emphasis on diversity, it is interesting that equality is achieved at an almost absolute level: “who is good will be given an opportunity, used”!
Of course, in our country, as well as the appointment of professors and associate professors, there is no standard that will add more paper doctorates. But also think about accepting “specificity”, or rather accepting diversity.
The next thing is to have to pay tuition to study, no matter what level.
During the subsidy period, there was no way to pay tuition fees, even those who could afford to study abroad (in socialist countries) could still save a scholarship (although very meager) to return home to support their families. . Therefore, when the market economy penetrated, it was extremely difficult to collect tuition fees, starting from private schools to public schools. Ironically, by this point, the issue of scholarships became a dilemma. To attract students, some good students, some places offer scholarships – but really just reduce tuition fees! – and the issue of scholarships, even for graduate students or graduate students, also makes people feel unreasonable and unfair. In our country, such peculiarities cannot be accepted. Therefore, the UNESCO Center for Mathematics located at the Institute of Mathematics has no way to recruit graduate students and graduate students from countries in the region as committed to UNESCO. Because who knows, in scientifically developed countries, where tuition fees are very high, people offer many very attractive scholarships to live on and not charge tuition fees to attract talents from all over, including whole Science&Tech! They are not foolish. From those graduate students, there will be a number of extremely outstanding, later adding to their excellent team of experts. On the other hand, even while working as doctoral students or graduate students, such students have been involved in scientific projects and can bring about many achievements. As it turns out, the special policy of granting scholarships to such potential individuals is, in fact, an effective and inexpensive way to use scientific human resources, not only for long-term but also immediate benefits. .
In our country, as well as the appointment of professors and associate professors, there is no standard that will add more paper doctorates. However, it is also worth thinking about accepting “specificity”, or rather accepting diversity.
Although many other examples could be cited, I would like to add only two that belong to management. The main task of a researcher, whether primary or senior, is to conduct scientific research at the highest possible level. I don’t understand on what scientific basis, but in 2016 the Ministry of Science and Technology issued and required those who want to be principal researchers and senior researchers to have “Certificate of fostering scientific research titles”. Of course in those programs, the general and specific goals are clearly stated, but I am very skeptical of its practicality and reality. For example, I can’t believe that a person studying Mathematics can write better articles, after studying that General Training Program with very clear objectives: “c) Developing scientific research skills; skills in synthesizing, analyzing information, investigating, surveying, serving scientific research. Improve skills of organizing S&T activities; develop skills in writing scientific articles and other basic career skills”. A Math person cannot advise (let alone teach) a Physics person anything to do. one of the above objectives and vice versa. How is it possible to come up with such a general idea?
Another example is the standard regulation for editors-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief of scientific journals, even international scientific journals – where qualification is the number one standard, for the purpose of organizing the Evaluate the quality of the article submitted for publication to accept publication or not. The next criterion is the ability to invite a highly respected editorial board, from which to invite good researchers to submit articles. Called the standard, it is actually two criteria, and the selection is completely based on the advice of leading scientists, but there cannot be an explicit standard. And perhaps those are the only criteria. It is inconceivable, then, why to apply very strict standards for editor-in-chief to a highly political newspaper or journal, to a purely scientific journal, without the risk of revealing national secrets. or illegal?
The leaders have said many times, in general: regulations are built by people, so when seeing inadequacies, it is necessary to resolutely adjust and amend. Why use such regulations to bind our hands and feet?
Such direction, but in reality, modifying something that already exists is a hundred times harder than building a new one.
In conclusion, the question of whether state policy should prioritize specificity or diversity is a complex and multifaceted one that requires careful consideration of various factors. Our analysis has shown that both approaches have strengths and weaknesses, and that the choice between them ultimately depends on the specific context and objectives of state policy. However, we believe that a balanced and flexible approach that takes into account both specificity and diversity is most likely to achieve the desired outcomes. We encourage policymakers, academics, and civil society organizations to engage in a constructive dialogue on this important issue, and to work together to develop state policies that are effective, inclusive, and responsive to the needs and aspirations of diverse communities. See you in the next article on odaily.info