- Not a critique of individuals, depts, or persons
- A practical reflection on academic harmony
Universities are living systems of knowledge, they are also fragile communities of interpretation where meaning is constantly negotiated. Academic arguments rarely remain purely theoretical; they are filtered through institutional identities, disciplinary boundaries, and professional sensitivities that shape how ideas are received and understood
Academic critique can remain intellectually rigourous while also being socially responsible, institutionally constructive, and relationally careful. The guiding principle is both simple and foundational: academic critique must be directed at institutional structures and knowledge systems, not at individuals, departments, or persons. This distinction is not only conceptual but essential for sustaining trust, collaboration, and long-term academic harmony within universities.
The structural nature of academic conflict
In most university environments, academic disagreement is not primarily the result of personal opposition but of structural complexity. American academic William Timothy Coombs, in Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding, explains that institutional tensions often escalate when systemic issues are misinterpreted as personal intent. When structural disagreements are personalised, even legitimate academic critique can be perceived as the criticism of individuals, leading to emotional defensiveness and weakened collaboration.
What appears as conflict between individuals is often the surface expression of deeper institutional arrangements, governance systems, and disciplinary frameworks. Understanding this distinction is essential for transforming conflict into constructive dialogue because it shifts attention from blame to structure, where meaningful solutions can be developed.
Interdisciplinarity and the need for academic harmony
Modern universities are increasingly expected to function as interdisciplinary knowledge systems capable of responding to complex societal challenges. American academic Julie Thompson Klein, in Interdisciplinarity: History, Theory, and Practice, emphasises that interdisciplinarity is not an optional enhancement but a structural necessity in contemporary knowledge production. However, she also highlights that interdisciplinary initiatives frequently encounter resistance due to entrenched disciplinary boundaries, institutional traditions, and governance arrangements.
Across global higher education systems, it is widely recognised that strong disciplines do not weaken interdisciplinarity; rather, they enable it. Established academic fields provide methodological rigour, institutional stability, and external engagement networks, while emerging disciplines contribute innovation, conceptual expansion, and critical perspectives that challenge intellectual stagnation. Academic harmony, therefore, is not achieved through the dissolution of disciplinary identities but through the careful coordination and mutual recognition of diverse academic strengths within the institution.
Postcolonial academic context and institutional sensitivities
In postcolonial higher education systems, including Sri Lanka and the broader South Asian region, universities carry historical legacies that continue to shape how knowledge is organised and interpreted. As a result, many contemporary university systems still reflect inherited disciplinary separations that divide knowledge into rigid academic territories. These structures often make interdisciplinary collaboration more sensitive and complex, not because of individual resistance, but because institutional identities are historically embedded in faculty organisation, governance models, and academic tradition.
In such environments, it becomes especially important to ensure that academic critique is clearly framed as structural analysis rather than personal interpretation. Without this clarity, intellectual discussions may unintentionally be perceived as interpersonal disagreements, even when the original intent is purely academic and systemic.
Knowledge systems, institutional design, and academic development
Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trow, in The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, distinguish between Mode One knowledge production, which is disciplinary, hierarchical, and institutionally bounded, and Mode Two knowledge production, which is transdisciplinary, socially distributed, and problem-oriented. Their work demonstrates that contemporary universities are increasingly required to transition toward more flexible and collaborative systems of knowledge production.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Education at a Glance higher education governance research further confirms that institutions with rigid disciplinary structures tend to experience higher levels of interdisciplinary friction, administrative delay, and governance complexity, while institutions with shared governance frameworks demonstrate stronger innovation capacity and smoother collaboration across academic units.
From this perspective, academic conflict should not be interpreted as interpersonal disagreement but as a natural outcome of institutional transition. Universities are evolving systems, and during periods of structural transformation, tension is inevitable. The challenge is not to eliminate this tension but to manage it constructively through institutional design and communication clarity.
The role of strong faculties and emerging disciplines
A sustainable university system depends on a balanced relationship between established and emerging disciplines. American sociologist of higher education Burton Robert Clark, in Creating Entrepreneurial Universities, emphasises that successful universities function as adaptive systems that integrate disciplinary strength with societal relevance and institutional innovation.
In practical terms, well-established faculties often provide foundational stability to the university system. When these strengths are integrated, universities become more responsive to national development needs and more capable of producing graduates who are both professionally competent and socially aware. This is not a hierarchical relationship but a complementary academic ecology in which each discipline enhances the capacity of the other.
Universities, industry, and nat. development
Modern universities are deeply embedded in national and global development systems. American academic Henry Etzkowitz and Dutch sociologist Loet Leydesdorff, through The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and Mode Two to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations model, demonstrate that innovation emerges through the interaction between universities, industry, and government. Universities, therefore, function not only as educational institutions but also as active contributors to innovation ecosystems.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation’s ‘Global education monitoring report 2022: gender report, deepening the debate on those still left behind’, and the World Bank’s Towards Higher Education Excellence in Central Asia: A Roadmap for Improving the Quality of Education and Research through Regional Integration reports on higher education consistently emphasise that universities in developing countries must align academic knowledge with national development priorities, industrial needs, and youth employment challenges. This requires stronger collaboration between disciplines and more direct engagement between academic knowledge and external societal systems.
Within this framework, the humanities and social sciences hold significant applied value. They contribute to communication strategy, media systems, organisational culture, policy analysis, public engagement, and creative industries. When meaningfully integrated with applied and technical disciplines, they strengthen both academic relevance and national development capacity.
Crisis communication and institutional framing in academia
From a crisis communication perspective, Coombs explains that institutional stability depends heavily on how conflict is framed. When issues are attributed to individuals, escalation becomes likely; when they are framed as systemic or structural, dialogue and resolution become possible.
American academic William Lyon Benoit similarly emphasises that institutional communication should prioritise restoring shared understanding rather than assigning blame. In academic environments, this principle is especially important because intellectual critique is often misinterpreted through relational or emotional lenses.
This leads to a fundamental framing principle that supports both academic rigour and collegial stability: Academic critique is a critique of institutional structures and knowledge systems, not a critique of individuals, departments, or people. This principle ensures that intellectual engagement does not damage relational trust, while still preserving the integrity of academic argumentation.
Toward collegial harmony and institutional maturity
The long-term sustainability of universities depends on their ability to balance intellectual rigour with collegial harmony. Academic disagreement is not a problem in itself; it becomes a challenge only when it is misinterpreted or personalised. Barnett argues that universities must learn to operate within uncertainty while maintaining institutional coherence and relational stability.
Institutional maturity is achieved when universities can transform disagreement into learning, tension into innovation, and critique into development. This requires not only formal governance structures but also everyday practices of respect, communication clarity, and shared academic responsibility.
In practical academic life, relationships are strengthened through consistent collegial interaction, collaborative work, and the mutual recognition of scholarly contributions. Over time, this builds a culture where disagreement does not fracture relationships but strengthens institutional resilience.
Conclusion: From division to shared academic development
Across global and postcolonial higher education systems, evidence consistently shows that interdisciplinary tension is not a failure of individuals but a reflection of evolving institutional structures. Universities that succeed in managing this complexity are those that clearly distinguish between personal attribution and systemic critique, while simultaneously fostering collaboration across disciplines.
When this distinction is maintained, academic disagreement becomes productive rather than divisive. It allows institutions to grow intellectually while preserving human relationships and professional dignity.
Therefore, the central guiding principle remains essential: We need a critique of institutional structures and knowledge systems, not a critique of individuals, departments, or persons. Through this understanding, universities can move beyond inherited separations toward integrated, collaborative, and nationally responsive knowledge systems that serve both academic excellence and societal development.
The writer is a Senior Lecturer at and the Head of the Kelaniya University’s Mass Communication Department
-------
The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication