Collaboration of Russian Universities and Businesses in Northwestern Region
The main focus of this paper is the analysis of universities’ embeddedness into industrial sector of the Russian Northwestern region. We use webometric approach to evaluate the collaboration of universities with the use of Social Networks Analysis, as well as the examination of co-authorship network among universities and other agents. We develop our research within the framework of Triple Helix concept, taking only two agents from there: universities and companies. As a result, we found two groups of universities: which have a lot of connections with a variety of industrial and business companies and behave as key agents for the whole network as well as some with more narrowly focused types of collaboration, having fewer links with companies.
A “Network Analysis” section was arranged at the XVIIIth Interna- tional Academic Conference on Economic and Social Development at the Higher School of Economics on 11–12 April 2017. For the third year, this section invited scholars from sociology, political science, management, mathematics, and linguistics who use network analysis in their research projects. During the sessions, speakers discussed the development of mathematical models used in network analysis, studies of collaboration and communication networks, networks’ in- uence on individual attributes, identifcation of latent relationships and regularities, and application of network analysis for the study of concept networks.
The speakers in this section were E. V. Artyukhova (HSE), G. V. Gra- doselskaya (HSE), M. Е. Erofeeva (HSE), D. G. Zaitsev (HSE), S. A. Isaev (Adidas), V. A. Kalyagin (HSE), I. A. Karpov (HSE), A. P. Koldanov (HSE), I. I. Kuznetsov (HSE), S. V. Makrushin (Fi- nancial University), V. D. Matveenko (HSE), A. A. Milekhina (HSE), S. P. Moiseev (HSE), Y. V. Priestley (HSE), A. V. Semenov (HSE), I. B. Smirnov (HSE), D. A. Kharkina (HSE, St. Petersburg), C. F. Fey (Aalto University School of Business), and F. López-Iturriaga (Uni- versity of Valladolid).
In this chapter we explore the higher education institutional landscape taking the case of the largest post-Soviet higher education system: Russia. In the Post-Soviet period, Russian higher education has tremendously expanded. The dramatic growth of the number of students and institutions has been facilitated by the introduction of tuition fees in public and a new private sector. The shifts in social and economic demand for professional fields affected the disciplinary and organisational structure of higher educational institutions.
The external forces (economic, political, social conditions) and higher education policy have been changing during the last decades. In the first part of transitional period, the state provided limited regulation of the higher education system. In the 2000s, it has returned to its role of the main agent of change of the higher education system design. The diversity of institutional types that evolved in Russian higher education illustrate the consequences of massification and marketization, such as new “broad access” segments and institutional programme drift. Also, the governmental role in shaping institutional diversity can been seen through attempts to increase vertical diversity (excellence initiatives), on the one hand, and to restrain it by closing down bottom tier institutions, on the other.
The book explores different approaches towards the ‘entrepreneurial university’ paradigm, explores channels and mechanism used by universities to implement the paradigm and contributes to the public discussion on the impact of commercialization on university research and knowledge. It argues that different types of university-industry interaction may have repercussions even on funding of basic research if an appropriate balance is ensured between the two. University activities – both research and education in all forms – should provide economic and social relevance directed towards open science and open innovation. This book adds value to current knowledge by presenting both a conceptual framework and case studies which describe different contexts.
hjs;gfsgj j;s;fj'j;l j;sjf;sjf
During the last decades the number of universities extending their initial education and teaching missions towards the triple helix and knowledge triangle paradigms, e.g. knowledge and technology transfer and innovation has increased substantially. In line with this evolution the term ‘entrepreneurial university’ became increasingly popular however until recently there is hardly a common understanding of ‘entrepreneurial universities’. The main perception of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ rests with a visible and measurable contribution of universities to innovation and entrepreneurship in a broader sense. Although this perception is plausible and convincing it raises many open questions which mainly point to university governance models. The innovation and entrepreneurial university paradigm requires a holistic view on university governance approaches which include the full set of universities missions and respective management routines. In this respect it’s of utmost importance that universities keep a “healthy balance” between their missions. This statement is frequently used in many instances yet thus far there is no clear indication what a “healthy balance” implies. The chapter provides first indications about entrepreneurial university governance and respective management approaches.
Russian universities are increasingly competing for additional funding. This paper proposes a rating of scientific and practical effectivity of Russian universities, based on the account of the funding obtained through the research and development; assess the sustainability of built rating. Identified universities ranking leaders and disclosed "technological" model their success, discussed their policy of diversification of funding sources. There are typical examples of a new trend higher education market - "technologization" leading social and humanitarian universities.