Internationalization Legacies and Collaboration Challenges: Post-Imperial Hybrids and Political Fallouts in Russian Higher Education

Abstract

This study conceptualizes the internationalization of higher education as a legacy-bound response driven by geopolitical, cultural and economic dependencies. It examines the Russian case, and considers how Russian academics deal with complex sets of dependencies and rivalries, while sorting European, Asian and Soviet drivers in university positioning and partnership-building. The paper re-evaluates the path dependence perspective in the higher education literature by arguing that, notwithstanding the constructs and conveniences they are predisposed to select, academics have a choice to either comply with, or defy the governmental and institutional legacies imposed on them. The prevalence of one choice over the other, as well as an inconsistency of choices, shapes a complicated trajectory that can be referred to as "hybrid" development. This paper illustrates the progression of "hybrid" development by reflecting on the Russian legacy of imperial ambitions affecting the fragility of the global architecture of knowledge, policy development, cooperation and rule of law.

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

“…Legacy‐driven anxieties cause various post‐totalitarian universities to plunge into calculative thinking, market gaming, and nationalistic speechifying to attain more attention at home and abroad (Chirikov, 2018; Oleksiyenko, 2015; Yudkevich, 2011). Eager to report a success story and strengthen their political positions, university administrations often promote competitiveness, but end up enabling corruption (Osipian, 2012; Yang, 2016).…”

On Politics in Comparative and International Higher Education

“…Moreover, in various universities, faculties and departments, the proportions of scholars and stakeholders vary with regard to their allegiance to each layer of scientific, educational, or developmental engagement (Jones and Oleksiyenko 2011). Global, national and local connections can be shaped by universities' histories, cultures, and ambitions, which are reinforced through organisational designs and sagas (Hayhoe, Li, Lin, and Zha 2012;Liu and Metcalfe 2016;Oleksiyenko 2015). Given the global mobility of people and ideas, the political spectrum of inquiries and analyses in university courses and projects is unavoidably vast, even as universities themselves are bounded by the discourses and politics that their states, cities and regions may impose on their institutional networks through policy regulations (King, Marginson and Naidoo 2011).…”

Twenty years of accreditation in Russian higher education: lessons learnt

“…As a result, administrative responsibility was shifted to the department and faculty levels. At the same time, the government supported the differentiation of universities into federal, national research and flagship (regional) HEIs (Oleksiyenko, 2015). At present, the government assigns a university status on the basis of competition and provides for them additional funding.…”