Академическое руководство через призму менеджериализма: связь между развитием вуза и научной специальностью ректора
One of the current trends of the Russian Higher Education is strengthening participation of HEIs in global higher education. The increasing number of approaches to universities rankings reflects this trend. International and Russian rankings draw close attention and criticism from academic and expert community. Despite the criticism, rankings outcomes are in demand and influence universities’ promotion and their positioning in the global higher education area. Contemporary Russian rankings systems are diverse and strive to satisfy needs of various stakeholders. However, all these approaches are single dimensional rankings that use a composite indicator and weight coefficients. The presented article describes development of a multidimensional ranking system in Russia. This work has been done in the framework of the project “Developing and Approbating a Template Methodology for National Ranking of Higher Education Institutions” implemented by NTF (2011 – 2013). The authors demonstrate deficiency of league tables; prove relevancy of a chosen approach as it considers complexity and differentiation of the Russian Higher Education system, its current modernization, missions and diversity of the Russian HEIs. Drawn on the project outcomes, the authors present development of the national multidimensional ranking methodology: its concept, choice of indicators, the approbation outcomes, dilemmas and decisions.
The author of the article impugns the efficiency of consideration of productivity of activity of higher schools (universities) as a criterion of their development which is connected with the polysemy of understanding of the given term, the multi-purpose nature of the organization and the distinction of the subjects of the estimation of its efficiency. Simultaneously he believes that as the problem of development of science is assigned to universities in modern Russia it is necessary for the state as the only customer of preparation of scientists to show universities this order accurately and to give full state financing.
International cooperation of experts, teachers of higher educational institutions is of great importance for long periods of time. The message described a five-year experience of international cooperation of the United editorial Board of scientific journals (UEBSJ) as an integrative platform between Russian and foreign universities. First and foremost there are strong research links through the publications of UEBSJ between the Bulgarian and Uzbek universities.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.