Despite university efforts to create honour codes and a culture of integrity, student academic dishonesty remains a widespread problem around the world. Previous theoretical and methodological approaches, which informed the development of measures for the prevention of dishonest behaviour, focus only on student justifications of academic misconduct as abnormal or deviant acts. However, understanding the arguments that both criticize and justify dishonesty at universities is crucial for developing an effective integrity policy. Based on Boltanski and Thevenot's theory, we develop and validate a questionnaire measuring the prevalence of students who draw on domestic, market and industrial orders of worth justifying or criticizing academic dishonesty. A total of 3,538 students from six Russian universities participated in the study. The results supported the applicability of the proposed model, demonstrating the validity and reliability of the instrument. The instrument can be utilized by universities for monitoring what order of worth prevails among students and developing honour codes and integrity policy.
The student engagement framework, originally developed for the US educational system, has become increasingly recognised internationally as a means of fostering learning gains in higher education. Despite its recognition, some researchers raise a question about the applicability of this framework in other cultural contexts. Our research extends the existing literature on student engagement by filling the gap of knowledge about the cross-cultural applicability of the student engagement framework. Utilising multi-group structural equation modelling, this paper answers the question about the national differences in associations between student engagement dimensions and the development of generic skills. Data collected from 21 universities across the U.S.A., China, Japan, and Russia, were used. Relying on student engagement literature, four student engagement dimensions were constructed: (1) class engagement, (2) extra effort to meet course objectives or own learning tasks, (3) disengagement, and (4) collaborative learning. The findings support multi-group invariance of the associations between student engagement dimensions and the perceived gains in generic skills across all participating countries. Regardless of country specifics, the extra effort and collaborative learning significantly contribute to the development of generic skills while disengagement has a negative effect.
This research explores the interrelations of higher education and welfare state models in the USSR of the 1960-1980s and Russia of the 2000-2020s. We first address the extent to which the provision of higher education aligns with the key imperatives of welfare redistribution: eligibility, state-market balance, and equality. Second, we schematize the values – instrumental, positional, intrinsic – of higher education that influenced well-being in the Soviet Union and Russia. We argue that the provision of higher education in these two state regimes complies with the political economy of two welfare models, suggesting a continuity across socialist and corporatist traditions. In the USSR, higher education was a part of a hybrid comprehensive-corporatist welfare model. Formally a universal right, it can be conceptualized as a state asset and a privilege attached to the class, entailing high intrinsic value. Higher education provision in Russia aligns with the conservative pattern while preserving traits of the socialist past and liberal transition. State commitment in the provision of public higher education and moderate marketization frame the hybrid nature of higher education as a social right and commodity with high instrumental and positional values.
This paper is devoted to changes in the structure of the higher education system in Russia, analysing both historical context and current institutional diversity. The review starts from the Soviet quasi-corporate system when the state combined demand-side and supply-side roles in higher education. The post-Soviet transformation brings new forces that shaped institutional diversity. Following that, the historical typology of institutions is investigated with regard to the major forces influencing these universities' development. Taking into account both the historical legacy and the crucial post-Soviet period (1990s–2000s), a typology of new types of higher education institutions is set forth. It represents an extreme case of state-authorized higher education facing market forces. The state abandons its monopoly on demand in higher education and cannot fully control the supply side. And the system itself is under pressure from the influence of different sides.
This paper evaluates the design of current contractual incentive mechanisms in Russian universities after recent significant contractual reforms in the national academic sector. We employ the theoretical framework of incentive contracts in order to identify and assess performance measures of university faculty determining the total income received from teaching, research and administrative duties. We show that for the entire sample, faculty salary is positively associated with publication activity. Teaching is significant only for the entire sample, but not significant for research-oriented universities and HEIs with no special status. Administrative duties (expressed in the position held) are positively related to faculty pay: the largest effect is for rectors and vice-rectors, but for deans and heads of departments or laboratories the effect is also strong. Heads of universities and structural units receive a significant bonus for their administrative position. For research-oriented universities the largest effect in publication activity is for the number of papers in high ranking journals. In universities with no research status we discovered a significant gender gap: the male faculty earn more than their female colleagues. There is a positive linear relationship between salary and seniority for the entire sample and in universities with no special status.
This study addresses the lack of studies of diversity in post-Soviet higher education systems. It aims to examine institutional diversity in two post-Soviet countries as the result of higher state and market forces in the context of high-participation systems of higher education. The ‘enrollment economy’ has become the most powerful signal for higher education institutions in both countries. However, in Belarus, the conservative position of both the state and organizations, mitigates the effects of market-driven signals. The study reveals bifurcation as the key process distinguishing Russian higher education from Belarusian. While still in Russia middle-layer HEIs are not capable of changes in sectoral identity locked-in by the Soviet model.
This article aims to answer three questions concerning (1) the prevalence of the mismatch between student expectations and real university life, (2) factors influencing this mismatch, and (3) the effect of the expectation-reality mismatch on academic performance during the first year of study at university. The results of this study suggest that a large share of first-year students overestimate their future academic experience. However, this mismatch cannot be predicted by personal background characteristics and motivation at the beginning of study. According to the findings, three mismatch characteristics affect students’ academic outcomes: (1) a mismatch between expected and real grades, (2) a mismatch between expected and real levels of interest in studying, and (3) a mismatch between expected and real time for extracurricular activities at university.
We provide a framework for integrating sociological and political-historical approaches to the worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. Doing so enables scholars and policymakers to better identify variation across place and time in how the provision of higher education has been rendered culturally meaningful and politically feasible. We identify three conceptions of state commitment to higher education: as a national asset, a citizen right, and a commodity. The conceptions are not mutually exclusive and can simultaneously animate national cultures and politics. We also suggest a novel periodization of global higher education history from 1945 to the present. Our work serves as an introduction to the seven other articles in this special issue, which consider the twentieth-century evolution of higher education politics and policies in Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and USSR/Russia.