Challenges of innovation in post-Soviet higher education

Abstract

This presentation examines the challenges of innovation in the dramatically transforming contexts of higher education in China, Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. The four countries are major drivers of geopolitical tensions lingering from the Soviet past, which affects the sustainability of global order, peace, and development. The insights from these contexts strengthen the previous literature and policy analysis in handling university innovations within fragile political and economic environments. By drawing on qualitative data from interviews, policy documents, institutional and mass media reports in each country, the cross-case analysis in this paper draws comparative parallels between capacities of governments, universities and academics to align rhetoric and practice to resolve power asymmetries and overcome the Soviet legacy. Theoretical framework: The empirical data are analyzed with the help of a conceptual perspective on de-Sovietization of higher education. This perspective urges for in-depth analysis of innovation (mis)alignment challenges that emerge across the three levels of governance: governmental policies, institutional changes, and academic grassroots engagement (Oleksiyenko, Zha, Chirikov & Li, 2018). The progress and sustainability of transformations can be feeble in higher education if one of those levels fails to create proper dynamics for quality contribution, commitment and collaboration. Except for the Chinese de-Sovietization policies of 1998-2012, the post-Soviet transformations have shown to suffer from divergence of stakeholder interests and efforts in deconstructing the “one-man-management” legacy (Kuraev, 2016). This presentation examines the convergences and divergences in the de-Sovietization projects (1991-2014) by drawing on four different cases: a) resourceful and impactful strategy employed by China, b) cautious catch-up strategy used by Russia; c) disengagement strategy entertained by Ukraine, and d) de-colonization strategy practiced by Georgia. Across these four cases, the governance (mis)alignments show a range of scenarios and outcomes where governments, institutions and individual academics were developing more losses than gains in the long run. By comparing those cases, this presentation tries to explore if more benefits could prevail in the transforming contexts. Sources Used for Data Collection and Analysis: The four cases were developed with the help of data collected in China, Georgia, Russia and Ukraine within two Hong Kong RGC-funded research projects: 1) on Global Competition and Collaboration Strategies in Higher Education (2012-2015); and 2) on De-sovietization of Higher Education: Legacy-Innovation Tensions in Cross-Cultural Perspective (2016-2019). The four countries represent a good variety of political, economic, and educational change trajectories which shaped universities after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The data were collected through combination of the PI visits with key research universities in the countries, interviews with influential scholars, reviews of literature in higher education, policy studies, political science and sociology. Besides, the PI reviewed policy documents, institutional and media reports. The PI has also gained insights from focus group discussions and expert reviews at various local, regional and international conferences. In the process of data analysis, sources were triangulated, while key themes and patterns were structured to communicate the message on the challenges of alignments in the de-Sovietization projects in the selected countries. The construct validity was strengthened through collaborative writing in one the volumes (see Oleksiyenko et al. 2018) which helped with the development of a theoretical framework that was presented above. Discussion of Key Results: The comparison of the four cases suggests that de-Sovietization of higher education has been a major global project of innovation, which is largely understudied and under-conceptualized in the literature. In the process of major systemic and institutional revamp, different countries have developed inimitable dynamics and outcomes of transformations. This presentation examines the differences of these dynamics and results while looking into the following key themes: 1) political determination; 2) inclination to strengthen research capacity; 3) comprehension of excellence and search for improved standardization; 4) participation in and contribution to the global discourse. As the four cases suggest, there have been major variances within those four themes. For example, China and Georgia have made a more significant progress in de-Sovietization while being driven by determined political leadership. Neither Russia, nor Ukraine could match the velocity and impact of those transformations until 2008. The Chinese transformations were more fruitful and sustainable because of the stronger desire to build research capacity. The Chinese politicians succeeded in aligning resourceful and impact-oriented strategies for research shaped by government, universities and academics at the same time. The Georgian transformations have made significant progress after the 2003 Rose Revolution when the government and the professoriate sought to improve the quality of academic work through discontinuation of corrupt practices in access to higher education. However, the misalignment of interests in the strategies of governments, universities and individual scholars undermined the sustainability of de-Sovietization at the later stages. These challenges became even more pronounced in the case of Ukraine, where cultural, linguistic and religious divides have been shaping the discourse of withdrawal from global changes and trends, and largely led to failure of de-Sovietization and subsequent loss of people and territories. While Ukraine followed the Georgian case of de-colonization after 2014, its unsustainable and corrupt system of higher education has remained a major burden in building a progressive modern society in the post-Soviet space. These challenges transpire even more in the Russian case, where the academic society is divided between the governmentally-regimented Soviet legacy-holders, looking for opportunities to recreate an empire, and the new generations of intellectuals who believe in creating a democratic nation. More insights from the comparative analysis will be provided in the presentation. Impact and Further Research: This paper makes a major contribution to advancement of de-Sovietization studies in global higher education. It also illuminates a theory of innovation in higher education by elaborating the concept of (mis)alignments of stakeholder efforts. The presentation will end with a number of questions looking into leadership capacities that define those (mis)alignments. References: Kuraev, A. (2016). Soviet higher education: an alternative construct to the western university paradigm. Higher Education, 71(2), 181-193. Oleksiyeko, A., Zha, Q., Chirikov, I. & Li, J. (2018). International Status Anxiety and Higher Education: The Soviet Legacy in China and Russia. Hong Kong: CERC/Springer.