We see the presence and discuss many a time but rarely found any solution. Impact could be (and many a time visible) and could be termed as a form of corruption in intellectual arena or tactics of education system (many other forms, terms and name could be designated). This is about the well heard term and commonly used by people (scholars) about their observation of its presence in many instances. It is about Nepotism or Lobbying.
It is wide spread in science and scientific arena, having different degree of impact at different places.
Nepotism and Lobby
Nepotism by literal meaning is favouring the personal relations over the merit while Lobbying is collection or group of personals with similar interest and favouring the people linked (or related) to that group over the merit.
In science, it comes through many different routes and at different stages and phases. The practical examination during the schooling period may the first interaction for a scholar where these terms may be showing their presence. Still that may be the preliminary and not so relevant, but at higher stages it becomes more prominent.
Type of Nepotism and Lobby inculcated in arena
The nepotism is could be any short or type beside the personal relations.
Relational: This is main what the term stand for. This is one where a scholar with direct relation with senior gets favour over the others.
Gender: When one gender gets favour over the other.
Regionalism: When a person from one specific region gets favour.
Community: Where person from one specific community get favour over the other.
Casteism: Person from a specific caste gets favour.
Groupism: When a specific person belonging to a group is favoured (group may be any short of like research group, lab, organization ..... )
Nepotism in Science
It is difficult to keep the neutral and unfavouring environment in the work places. Sometime even the peer group scholars create the environment that lead to favouring of one someone. But it should be the responsibility of the senior members of the organization/institute/laboratory/class to keep the unbiased environment in the fraternity. A single instance of favour could be beginning point for all future impacts/favours.
How it comes
When it comes, when it will show its present and where it will come; we can be aware of to some extent but it is difficult to rationalize how it comes. Sometimes the term 'Recommendation' used by the selection community where a candidate is recommended by some senior or by a member of society/organization. Even though the recommender generally have to mention the points about the performance and capability of a candidate, but generally the selection committee get biased even by the fact that who is recommending. (Here the main responsibility of recommender comes to keep unbiased atmosphere in fraternity).
If selection committee can be formed of real intellectual fellows then that will prefer to judge the candidate not the recommender.
One more point of entry particularly in science streams is selection favour to lab students. Generally, it is observed that a science or faculty tries to recruit or get recruited (by recommendation or direct contact with selection comittee or by being a direct member in selection comittee) his/her students from lab. He/she contends the point of capability of candidate over the others but in real he/she may be doing favour that candidate so that he/she can get favour from candidate whenever he/she need. Once the candidate gets the position, he/she becomes biased to favour who get him/her recruited. Particularly, the directors and senior scientists/faculty members are found involved in this crime.
It’s Impact How it affect the quality
1. Scholar attitude degradation
2. Social image of scholars
3. Morals and motivation of scholars
4. en-route : Setting a trend among scholars to follow that route.
5. Lose the importance of selector
How it could be avoided
1. By central agencies acting as recruitment agency
2. Selection should be independent of cast, creed, religion, region and relations.
Any short of selection (small or for higher post) should be free from favourism. It is small instances of favourism who urges a scholar to adopt such practices in future. Can't an institute/university state "The university/institute is an equal opportunity provider independent of cast, creed, religion and nationality" .. not only in word but in application.
3. Institute should follow the strict norms in their day to day activities to curb the nepotism and lobbying.
4. Scholars (at stage of career ... either Ph.D. student or Director) should be independent in their decisions and work and should be held responsible for their deeds. Everyone should be capable of suing the other.
5. Favouring senior cadre personals (or stating them as ultimate say) should be demolished.
How it can benefit
1. there is always a good impact of bad things as well ... those scholars who do not come to the main stream and continue to struggle, one day they emerge as leaders (definitely because the effort and struggle put forward by out of main stream are much more than that of a main stream scholar). And in the last, people favoured by nepotism or lobby become follower of him/her.
2. Many institutes who value and prefer the quality keep themselves away from it and there are many institutes who really follow unbiased environment. Such institutes have very high value among scholars.
