Gifts, Debts or Pin Money? On the Moral Ambiguity of Academic Contract in Russian Higher Education
This short paper is aimed at demonstrating that the economic logic inherent in the new model of academic contract collides with the collective structure of academic organizations in Russia. The paper is based on the results of in-depth interviews with top-level administrators and academic leaders gathered in 2013 at eight state universities located in three federal districts (Central, Southern, Siberian). While examining the process of reform implementation, we also focused on various interpretations of “academic money” (money circulating in the higher education environment). As long as material rewards were considered as instruments for performance management inside the academia, the price and value of academic work among university staff was also questioned.
Opinions of professors and chairmen of chambers of appeals on the quality of teaching in universities' law schools in imperial Russia in the late 19th - early 20th century are discussed.
We estimate efficiency scores for Russian universities based on data set of input and output criteria by using Data Envelopment Analysis. In addition, we use a reputation index as another indicator of a university’s productivity. To construct it, 4000 contexts are analyzed and 13 reputation criteria are found. The threshold procedure is used to aggregate them into a reputation indicator. Factors which lead a university to be efficient are studied.
The article is based on the historical-sociological analysis of the models of science in Russia and Germany, which serves as a basis for separation of convergence and divergence phases in the process. “The turning point” from former to the latter is establishment of the soviet model of science which leaded to universities’ deprivation of research function and their transformation into clearly educational institutes.
Global university rankings have become an increasingly influential tool for measuring and verifying academic excellence. Today, it is hard to find a country where higher education policy and leading universities totally ignore the issue of global competitiveness and rankings as public measures of academic quality. The persuasiveness of global rankings has challenged national perceptions about higher education development and involved governments and hundreds of universities in the so-called “ranking game” (Hazelkorn, 2014; Kehm, 2014). At the same time, we can observe different reactions by universities whose institutional strategies were imposed by the fact of being ranked. These reactions concern not only changes in external images and institutional strategies, but also internal changes of formal structures and identities (Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994; Espeland & Sauder, 2007; Sauder & Espeland, 2009; Colyvas, 2012). Furthermore, the reactions differ not only between universities of high and low ranks (Hazelkorn, 2007), but also between universities embedded in different academic systems. Following Clark (1983) and Maassen (1996), it can be argued that institutional context—which consists of elements related to disciplinary culture, the academic profession, and political culture—determines the different reaction by universities to global rankings.
In this chapter, we present the case of a university that has recently entered the race for global academic excellence. Our analysis addresses two important issues. We demonstrate how an abstract idea of global rankings is translated into practice in a university embedded in a specific institutional context. We also show how coupling between academic and administrative structures is organized under the pressure of global rankings.
The volume contains papers presented at an international colloquium " Russian-French links in biology and medicine" hosted by the St. Petersburg branch of the S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology at the Russian Academy of Sciences on September 13-14, 2011. The colloquium covered a wide range of subjects on the Russian-French links in biology and medicine ranging from the early 19th until the late 20th centuries. Particular attention was given to the history of Soviet-French and Russian-French cooperation in neurophysiology, physiology, applied biology, microbiology, ecology and genetics. A number of papers was devoted to those Russian biologisrs who carried out their research in France; these papers focused on such issues as the changing institutional frameworks of academic contacts between the two countries, the impact exercised by Russian biology upon French scholarship, transfer and reception of scientific knowledge in various subfields of biology and medicine, and changing state policies on international academic contacts and cooperation.
С сайта издательства
GUNi Series on the Social Commitment of Universities Higher Education in the World 5 Knowledge, Engagement and Higher Education: Contributing to Social Change We are living through a crisis of scale that affects all systems and that requires a new understanding of human progress and a new conscience that supports a new way of being in the world. The fifth edition of the GUNi Report, entitled: Knowledge, Engagement and Higher Education: Contributing to Social Change, explores the critical dimensions in our understanding of the roles and potential roles of knowledge, civil society and higher education institutions (HEIs) as active players in contributing to the creation of more just and sustainable world. The creation and dissemination of relevant knowledge could contribute to transforming the paradigms and beliefs established in social, economic and political systems and to moving to creative and innovative way of thinking and imagining new realities. Knowledge could help in raising ethical awareness and facilitating the civic commitment of people and professionals. In this sense, this Report will call upon policy-makers, scholars and leaders of HEIs around the world to rethink the social responsibility of HE. The Report provides visibility and critically examines the theory and practice of engagement. It approaches the challenge of Community-University Engagement (CUE) in an integrated manner. It explores ways in which engagement enhances teaching and learning, research, knowledge mobilization and dissemination. It approaches engagement in ways that accept the multiple sites and epistemologies of knowledge, as well as the reciprocity and mutuality in learning and education through engagement. The Report offers elements of a vision for a renewed and socially responsible relationship between higher education, knowledge and society. It is a product of three years research, in which 73 authors from all the world regions have contributed. GUNi has previously published four issues of the Higher Education in the World report (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011), plus a synthesis (2009) committed by UNESCO for the II World Conference on Higher Education held in Paris in 2009. www.guninetwork.org
In 2006, Russia amended its competition law and added the concepts of ‘collective dominance’ and its abuse. This was seen as an attempt to address the common problem of ‘conscious parallelism’ among firms in concentrated industries. Critics feared that the enforcement of this provision would become tantamount to government regulation of prices. In this paper we examine the enforcement experience to date, looking especially closely at sanctions imposed on firms in the oil industry. Some difficulties and complications experienced in enforcement are analysed, and some alternative strategies for addressing anticompetitive behaviour in concentrated industries discussed.