education reform

Mapping change in former Soviet higher education systems

Posted on Updated on

Emma_presenting_mapping-change_Mar2018_CIES
Me in action presenting at the Comparative and International Education Society’s 2018 conference in Mexico City. My ‘presenter hands’ are marginally more controlled than usual!

I recently presented at the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) Annual Conference and this blog post is about my presentation called Mapping change in former Soviet higher education systems: A view from the Russophone space.

I also presented with my colleague Hayfa Jafar on our new joint research on how faculty in post-conflict societies are experiencing internationalization in higher education – watch out for more on this to follow in the future.

As part of my PhD thesis on how higher education in the former Soviet space has responded to the fall of the Soviet Union, I want to include some analysis of how academics who have published about this regional space and time have conceptualized change.

In planning that analysis, I noticed that we know a lot about how authors writing in English conceptualize change in the former Soviet space – whether we like it or not, English is the dominant language of academic publication and there are quantitatively more articles and books available in English.

Yet my research is about a space where Russian has been the dominant language of the academic community. So this led me to wonder: do authors writing in Russian and publishing in Russian academic journals think about and write about change in similar or different ways? And how much do we know about this in the English language space?

(Spoiler alert. The brief answers are a) that there are both important similarities and marked differences, and b) not very much at all)

That explains the context to the analysis I then undertook of 23 articles written in Russian published in Russian language peer-reviewed journals published since 1991 (a list of the articles and journals can be found in my presentation). All the authors write about Russian higher education and were based at Russian institutions at the time of writing.

There are many possible ways to present what I found in this analysis (and I thank my supervisor and his research group for their feedback as I went through this process) but I decided to summarize my findings using a chronological but non-linear map. You can see it in the background of the photo above, and in full below.

The purpose of the map, which is designed like a Venn diagram, was not only to highlight some of the key themes that emerged from my analysis, but to show how these themes changed or overlapped over time.

The three phases shown are based on a framework adapted from Semyonov and Platonova’s work on policy change in higher education in Russia since 1991. They explain the three phases as:

  • Laissez-faire, from 1991 to around 2003. Although there were legislative changes, on the whole this period is considered to be one less government intervention in higher education, not least because of widespread economic crisis;
  • A period of major reform, from around 2004 to 2011. State investment in higher education led to the introduction of the Bologna Process and a unified higher education entrance exam, plus reforms to create merged and enlarged ‘super-institutions’ – the federal universities, plus the new designation of national research university;
  • Since 2012, a period epitomized by reforms aiming to improve the effectiveness of higher education through e.g. performance evaluations, competitive funding schemes, and more mergers/new institutional types emerging.

Sabzalieva_Mapping-change_Venn_Phases-of-change

My analysis showed broad convergence with Semyonov and Platonova’s findings with several notable differences. I discussed four of these in my presentation. Here’s a very brief summary:

  1. Whereas for the state, the first period might have been laissez-faire, for the people living in Russia and working in the higher education system, their response was more connected to a discourse of crisis and survival.
  2. A number of articles in the first two time periods talked about how change wasn’t happening, and in fact there was more continuity with the Soviet system. Higher education is shown in many articles as being on the sidelines of the social change happening around it.
  3. In the crossover between the two later periods, I noted that some of the articles observed contradictions in the reform process, particularly in relation to the introduction of the Bologna Process
  4. Across all three phases, there is a lot of discussion about faculty: what is their role, how should they and are they responding to change, and so on. It wasn’t surprising to find more coverage of faculty matters in the Russian articles as most are written by practising academics who are or have been in some way involved in what’s been happening in Russian higher education.

This analysis will eventually form part of my PhD thesis so I don’t have a standalone paper to share. However, if you’re interested in finding out more, I’ve uploaded my presentation to Research Gate – although do note that my presentations are highly visual, so there are not many words to read! The presentation also has a few bonus slides that I didn’t share during the conference. Also, please do leave comments after this post if there are things you’d like to say in response.

 

School education in Central Asia – the four challenges for 2015

Posted on Updated on

In this round up of education news from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan at the start of 2015, a number of paradoxes emerge, none of which lend themselves to quick or easy solutions. Here are the four issues that I think will be on the agenda for education in the region this year:

1. Reform needed, but at whose cost?

There is a growing acknowledgment of the problems in the school sector and the need for reform that is particularly evident in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the two most politically open countries in Central Asia. Everyone from the President downwards is calling for improvement, but this is set against real economic difficulties that are both internal (slow economic growth, lack of investment in the sector) and external (price of oil, what’s happening in Russia. Reform inevitably comes at a price, but it’s not clear at this point how that will be funded.

2. Whose reform is it anyway?

Kazakhstan has had to put on ice plans to lengthen compulsory schooling from 11 to 12 years, the plan being to bring the country in line with ‘international standards’. The as yet unanswered question is the extent to which the government in Kazakhstan genuinely believes this to be beneficial for the national setting, and the extent to which these are part of ‘bottom-up’ plans for the future direction of education, or whether this is an example of change being externally imposed in the name of globalisation.

3. Is education a public or a private good?

Not a question unique to Central Asia, but interesting to observe a growing dialogue around the ‘value for money’ areas that have been creeping into British higher education and are perhaps longer established in countries like the US that have long charged high fees. The Central Asian take on this debate follows the notion that in a market economy, everything can be for sale, including education. But there are a number of commentators who argue that in fact the aim should be a knowledge economy and in this type of situation, education is fundamentally a public good.

4. Education for all?

Under Soviet rule, literacy rates across Central Asia were almost universally 100%. Whilst the respect towards education has not significantly diminished, nor the literacy rate dipped more than a few percentage points, the reality of school education in Kyrgyzstan in particular is that standards are slipping. Fewer are training as teachers because the salary rate is low and professional development opportunities are limited, and there is a growing disparity in the availability of quality education in urban and rural areas. Thus, whilst education is still nominally available for everyone to participate in, the fact remains that the standard of that education is very varied and in many cases, it is easier/more convenient/cheaper not to partake at all.

Sources

Government has will to reform educational sector in Kyrgyzstan – Vice Prime Minister, http://akipress.com/news:554283/

Kazakhstan: Education Reform Shelved Due to Economic Downturnhttp://www.eurasianet.org/node/71731

Education.kg: paid service or public good?http://www.eng.24.kg/community/174212-news24.html

Freedom in education?http://www.eng.24.kg/community/174320-news24.html