World‐class universities and the Soviet legacies of administration: Integrity dilemmas in Russian higher education

Abstract

This paper explores integrity dilemmas experienced by Russian academics in the context of building a world‐class university. Interviews with professors and managers of major research universities in Moscow provide critical insights into the organisational and attitudinal incongruities generated by a coercive state—a challenge that Russia has been unable to rise above following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scepticism as to the “master model” of competitive performance is evident in relation to the Russian 5‐100‐2020 excellence scheme, the overseers of which prioritise “reputation management” over integrity in governance and performance. In addition to exposing the consequences of deficient institutional autonomy, which prevail in the context of a post‐totalitarian society, this paper calls for enhanced critical inquiry into university excellence programmes imposed by performativist and vanity‐driven governments.

Academic freedom and intellectual dissent in post‐soviet Ukraine

“…Concepts that were developed in relation to university systems operating in Western liberal democracies are often a mismatch for experiences in post‐totalitarian societies and may produce vastly different connotations, or outright misunderstanding. Moreover, it is not easy for scholars to recognize the value of intellectual dissent given the stubborn influence of Russian propaganda in the world (Zhuk, 2014) as well as the prevailing organizational cultures that propel a “colonial complex—inferiority” (Tlostanova, 2015), “hyper‐centralisation” (Oleksiyenko, 2016) and “academic feudalism” (Oleksiyenko, 2021b) in the post‐totalitarian contexts.…”

“…Dissenting academic voices are particularly important in the context of global higher education affected by legacies of feudalism, tyranny, indoctrination and militarization (Giroux, 2002; Hladchenko et al., 2020; Kuraev, 2016; Oleksiyenko, 2018). Yet, the reorientations become discombobulating (Oleksiyenko, 2021b), when notions of academic freedom are contextualised (Tierney, 2020), hierarchised (Karran & Mallinson, 2019) or overtly dismissed (Holtz, 2021).…”

World class universities and international student mobility: Repositioning strategies in the Asian Tigers

“…Resource management requires a competent team of executives who can create endowment funds and donor networks that contribute to campus development. Yet, the developmental ambitions can end up with excessive rhetoric and under-investment if legal frameworks are weak and power struggles prevail in the higher education systems (Oleksiyenko, 2021).…”

On Politics in Comparative and International Higher Education

“…Russian officials have sugar-coated their strategy in neoliberal language; thus, the branch campuses were viewed by an average international, lacking knowledge of Russian language and history, as any typical provider of international higher education services (as in any other GATTS-promoted model of international trades and services -see Oleksiyenko, Chen and Yip 2013). Making good use of the "Sputnik syndrome" (Chirikov 2018) and other travesties which capture the Western imagination (Oleksiyenko 2021b), the Russian government has successfully advanced its interests regionally and globally. Meanwhile, very few questioned the ethics of the internationalization rationale, as described by Chankseliani (2021):…”