Internationalsiaiton of Higher Education in Russia

Internationalisation of higher education in Russia: Looking East

Dina Uzhegova orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-5954

Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2019

Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education Melbourne Graduate School of Education The University of Melbourne

ABSTRACT

Internationalisation has become central on the agendas of higher education institutions and national governments across the world. Despite the increasing number of countries engaged in the process of internationalisation, to date, most of the research on this phenomenon has been dominated by developed Anglophone nations. Higher education institutions in these countries act as global knowledge centres and are arguably well- placed to advance their internationalisation goals (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Klemenčič, 2017), whereas higher education institutions situated in the academic periphery, face numerous challenges in internationalising their institutions. While there has been a slowly growing body of research on internationalisation of higher education in emerging economies, few studies have examined factors influencing the internationalisation process of universities located in the academic periphery. Considering that internationalisation is influenced by the local contexts in which higher education institutions are situated, examining the internationalisation process of universities in peripheral regions can provide different perspectives and contribute to existing understandings of higher education internationalisation more broadly.

This study investigated internationalisation of higher education in a less explored context of the Eastern part of Russia, more specifically Siberia and the Far East. Drawing upon Klemenčič’s framework for internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery, the study examined factors influencing internationalisation in all seven leading universities in this region that were identified by the Russian government as part of the state initiatives to modernise national higher education sector. Through document analysis of institutional strategic development plans and a series of semi-structured interviews with administrative leaders engaged in the international activities, the study sought to provide insights into how internationalisation is framed at the institutional level in response to government policies and what factors influence how internationalisation goals are realised in regional universities.

The study found that inherited factors such as geographic location, history, culture and tradition influence how internationalisation plays out in higher education institutions.

The findings highlight the need for more diverse policies on higher education internationalisation that recognise specific regional factors, as well as long-term institutional strategies that help create a culture supportive of internationalisation. For universities in the academic periphery, the findings suggest that more attention needs to be paid to developing their international profile and strategic international collaborations. More specifically, the study argues that rather than continuing to focus on the European West, Russian universities would benefit from ‘looking East’ and pursuing opportunities to collaborate with universities in the Asia-Pacific region.

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that

i. the thesis comprises only my original work towards the degree of PhD; ii. due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used; iii. the thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisors Associate Professor Chi Baik and Dr Victoria Millar for their support and advice that have made it possible for me to arrive at this stage. A special thanks to Chi who has agreed to supervise my research project and has provided me with invaluable guidance throughout these years.

I am also grateful to all my MCSHE colleagues for their collegiality and willingness to share their knowledge and expertise. I am particularly grateful to Dr Nora Abdul Aziz and Dr Douglas Proctor for their generous friendship.

Beyond the University of Melbourne, I would like to thank administrative leaders in the leading universities in Siberia and the Far East who gave up their time to be interviewed and who shared their perspectives on higher education internationalisation in Russia. This thesis would not have been possible without their cooperation.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank Professor Tamara Kostyuchenko who has sparked my interest in international education and who has always encouraged me in my studies.

My final words of gratitude are to my family for always keeping me on the right track, especially to my father, Mikhail, to whom this thesis is dedicated.

Dina Uzhegova

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT...... i DECLARATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... v LIST OF TABLES ...... viii LIST OF FIGURES ...... ix ABBREVIATIONS ...... x CHAPTER 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Higher education internationalisation in Russia ...... 3 1.1.1 Regional differences ...... 6 1.1.2 Looking East ...... 7 1.2 The study ...... 9 1.2.1 Research setting ...... 11 1.2.2 Terminology and definitions ...... 12 1.2.3 Scope and limits ...... 13 1.3 Structure of thesis ...... 14 CHAPTER 2. Internationalisation of higher education in an uneven world ...... 16 2.1 Understanding higher education internationalisation ...... 17 2.1.1 National and institutional motives to internationalise ...... 22 2.1.2 Strategic institutional internationalisation ...... 26 2.2 Internationalisation contexts ...... 32 2.2.1 The regional dimension of internationalisation ...... 33 2.2.2 The ‘centre’ versus the ‘periphery’ ...... 37 2.2.3 Possible risks of internationalisation in the periphery ...... 40 2.3 An integrated approach to internationalisation in the academic periphery ...... 44 2.3.1 Priority internationalisation gears ...... 45 2.3.2 The importance of a supportive environment ...... 48 2.4 Summary ...... 49 CHAPTER 3. The internationalisation of higher education in Russia ...... 51 3.1 Historical perspectives on Russian higher education ...... 51

3.1.1 Soviet higher education ...... 53 3.1.2 Higher education in post-Soviet Russia ...... 56 3.1.3 Recent higher education reforms...... 59 3.2 Internationalisation of higher education in Russia ...... 65 3.2.1 Project 5-100 ...... 69 3.2.2 Regional dimensions of higher education internationalisation ...... 72 3.3 Siberia and the Russian Far East...... 76 3.3.1 Russia’s turn to the East ...... 81 3.3.2 Leading universities in Siberia and the Far East ...... 84 3.4 Summary ...... 86 CHAPTER 4. Methodology ...... 87 4.1 Research aim and question ...... 87 4.2 Methodological framework ...... 88 4.3 Overall research design ...... 89 4.4 Selection of participants and research sites ...... 91 4.5 Data collection and analysis ...... 95 4.5.1 Document analysis ...... 95 4.5.2 Interviews ...... 98 4.6 Trustworthiness ...... 101 4.7 Limitations of the study ...... 102 4.8 Summary ...... 103 CHAPTER 5. To what extent is internationalisation on the agenda of leading Russian universities? ...... 104 5.1 Mission statements...... 104 5.2 Strategic development plans ...... 109 5.2.1 Internationalisation gears ...... 112 5.3 Universities in Siberia and the Far East ...... 119 5.3.1 Vision, values and priority objectives ...... 120 5.3.2 Project 5-100 Roadmaps ...... 124 5.4 Summary ...... 133 CHAPTER 6. Internationalisation of universities in Siberia and the Far East ...... 135 6.1 Conceptions of higher education internationalisation ...... 136 6.2 The State as an external driver ...... 140

6.3 Institutional motives to internationalise ...... 143 6.3.1 Remaining competitive ...... 143 6.3.2 International visibility ...... 146 6.3.3 Student and staff development ...... 148 6.4 Internationalisation challenges ...... 149 6.4.1 Geographic location ...... 149 6.4.2 Attitudes and cultures ...... 154 6.4.3 Alignment of educational programs ...... 158 6.4.4 Level of bureaucratisation ...... 159 6.5 Regional dimensions of internationalisation ...... 160 6.6 Summary ...... 164 CHAPTER 7. Towards an integrated approach to internationalisation ...... 166 7.1 Key challenges to internationalisation for universities in Siberia and the Far East .... 166 7.1.1 A top-down centralised higher education policy ...... 167 7.1.2 Institutional cultures resistant to change ...... 172 7.2 Priorities for universities in the periphery ...... 174 7.2.1 International profiling ...... 175 7.2.2 International institutional cooperation: The Eastern vector ...... 179 7.3 The importance of a supportive environment ...... 184 7.4 A reflection on internationalisation of universities in the academic periphery ...... 186 CHAPTER 8. Conclusion ...... 190 8.1 Contribution of the study ...... 193 8.2 Implications for policy and practice ...... 195 8.2.1 Policy considerations ...... 195 8.2.2 Practical considerations ...... 196 8.2.3 Research considerations ...... 198 8.3 Limitations of the study and directions for further research ...... 199 REFERENCES ...... 202 APPENDICES ...... 222 Appendix 1: Interview questions...... 222 Appendix 2: Plain Language Statement...... 223 Appendix 3: Consent Form ...... 224

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Institutional internationalisation strategies 31 Table 3.1 The group of Russian leading universities 62 Table 3.2 Factors limiting internationalisation in Russian universities 67 Table 3.3 Universities selected for Project 5-100 70 Table 3.4 Brief overview of the Siberian Federal District 77 Table 3.5 Brief overview of the Far Eastern Federal District 78 Table 4.1 Research design overview 90 Table 4.2 Leading Russian universities in Siberian and the Far Eastern federal 91 districts Table 4.3 University profiles 93 Table 5.1 International dimensions in the institutional development plans 110 Table 5.2 Klemenčič’s internationalisation gears in the institutional 112 development plans Table 5.3 Number of development plans where the international strategy 115 was related to the core institutional functions of teaching and research Table 5.4 Espoused positioning of the universities 122 Table 5.5 Reference group of peer institutions 128 Table 5.6 Reasons for low share of foreign students studying in the core 131 educational programs (including students from Commonwealth of Independent States) Table 5.7 Reasons for low percentage of international professors, teachers 132 and researchers among research and teaching staff, including Russian citizens – PhD holders from foreign universities

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 The actual extent of the depth and breadth dimensions of the 19 reach of internationalization Figure 2.2 Institutionalisation of approaches to internationalisation in 27 universities Figure 2.3 Elements in the development of international strategy in 28 universities Figure 2.4 Modified version of the internationalisation circle 29 Figure 2.5 Regional dimensions of action of higher education institutions 33 Figure 2.6 The Functional, Organizational and Political Approaches (FOPA) 34 Regionalisation Model Figure 2.7 The ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagement 45 Figure 3.1 Timeline of key higher education reforms in Russia, 1991–2015 59 Figure 3.2 The largest cities of Siberia 77 Figure 3.3 The largest cities of the Far East 78 Figure 4.1 Location of the leading Russian universities in Siberia and the Far 92 East Figure 6.1 Location of the leading Russian universities in Siberia and the Far 150 East

ABBREVIATIONS

APEC Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BRIC Brazil, Russia, India and China CIS The Commonwealth of Independent States EHEA European Higher Education Area EU European Union OECD Organization of Economic Development and Cooperation RIAC Russian International Affairs Council USSR the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

FEFU Far Eastern Federal University ISTU Irkutsk State Technical University NEFU North-Eastern Federal University NSU Novosibirsk State University SibFU Siberian Federal University TSU Tomsk State University TPU Tomsk Polytechnic University

CHAPTER 1. Introduction

Internationalisation has become one of the top priorities for higher education institutions and national governments globally. As observed by, Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley (2009), ‘with remarkably few exceptions, no corner of the globe or institutional type has proven itself immune to the call to ‘internationalize’ in some fashion’ (p. 3). While national governments across the world seem to share a common aspiration to have internationally competitive higher education systems with world-class universities, the process of internationalisation at the institutional level depends on a complex combination of factors and plays out differently in various countries and regions within them. According to Altbach, Reisberg and Rumbley (2009), the institutional drivers and ability to internationalise are influenced by local realities, such as a nation’s economic development, language of education and level of development of the national higher education system. For example, as Klemenčič (2015) points out, ‘the attractiveness of countries and regions or cities’ where higher education institutions are situated influence the extent to which they are able to attract foreign talent. In other words, the factors influencing institutional internationalisation are, to a large extent, underpinned by the local contexts within which they operate.

In today’s globalised world the centre-periphery dichotomy characterises the uneven academic landscape within which higher education institutions function (Altbach, 2016; Zgaga, Branković, Klemenčič, & Lažetić, 2014). At the centre are developed countries which typically possess a combination of favourable working and living conditions and are seen as centres of ‘civilizational and economic attraction’ (Klemenčič, 2017, p. 99). These countries can provide the majority of their higher education institutions with financial resources to produce and disseminate new knowledge positioning them at the international academic centre. These institutions are well-placed to pursue their internationalisation goals as they are generally already engaged in international research networks and have a multicultural body of student and staff.

In contrast, developing countries and emerging economies often neither possess the financial resources they can invest in higher education nor the conditions that can attract foreign talent. Lacking these advantages higher education institutions in emerging economies are seen as peripheral to those in the developed nations and arguably ‘depend on the centres for research, the communication of knowledge, and advanced training’ (Altbach, 2004, p. 8). Higher education institutions in the periphery require more effort and deliberate strategy in order to internationalise. It is important to note that centres and peripheries exist not only between countries on a global scale. Similar dynamics can be observed within countries themselves; for example, between capital cities and other lesser developed regions.

The literature on internationalisation reflects inequalities within the international higher education system. The concept of internationalisation has been mainly explored by the knowledge centres in developed countries and has lacked perspectives from the academic periphery. As Welch and Yang (2011) note, much of the research on internationalisation comes from and focuses on the experience of ‘wealthy, White, and Western countries, especially the major, developed Anglophone nations’ (p. 63). An examination of articles published in the Journal of Studies in International Education from 1997 to 2007 revealed that ‘nearly all of the more generic and conceptual articles are written by authors from Northern America, Europe, and Australia or New Zealand’ (de Wit, 2007, p. 255). While a more recent study showed that contributors to the journal from 1997 to 2016 originated from 40 different countries, more than half of them were from Australia, Canada the United Kingdom and the United States (Bedenlier, Kondakci & Zawacki-Richter, 2017). Thus, the perspectives of scholars from the global academic centre’ continue to dominate the discussion of higher education internationalisation.

The existing imbalance in the representation of voices in the field of international higher education is explained not only by the dominance of the global North, but also the passivity from many parts of the global South (Jooste & Heleta, 2017). However, as emerging economies become more active agents of internationalisation, international higher education developments there seem to draw more attention. In the last couple

2 years there has been a growing number of publications devoted to internationalisation practices in emerging economies, for example the Globalization of Internationalization: Emerging Voices and Perspectives (2017) and the Future Agenda for Internationalization in Higher Education (2018). This signals to a potential ‘shift away from the traditional dominance of the industrialised world towards emerging and developing economies’ (de Wit, 2017).

Given that the overall role and meaning of higher education in many emerging economies is affected by specific regional conditions and thus ‘differ substantially from what the researchers usually find in the stable liberal democracies’ (Miklavič & Komljenovič, 2014, p. 226), this shift in focus is important for expanding our understanding of higher education internationalisation. Furthermore, scholars predict that the periphery will continue to gain prominence within the changing landscape of higher education and higher education internationalisation and thus it is not possible to ignore the ‘emerging voices’ from the periphery (Egron-Polak & Marmolejo, 2017, p. 14). In this context, the current study investigating the internationalisation of universities in the Eastern region of Russia, seeks to shed light on perspectives from the periphery, particularly on the challenges and factor influencing their progress.

1.1 Higher education internationalisation in Russia

Russia presents a vivid example of an emerging economy where the process of higher education internationalisation has only recently moved to the forefront of the government’s attention, as a part of its broader modernisation of the higher education system. In 2005, education was announced by the Russian government as one of the National Priority Projects alongside public health, housing and agriculture. This shift in priorities toward the education sector has occurred in response to a complex interplay of internal changes in the country’s socio-political and economic spheres, as well as external influences such as globalisation and the growth in the knowledge economy (Konstantinov & Filonovish, 2008). Higher education reforms became a part of the Strategy for Social and Economic Development 2020 (Ministry of Economic Development of Russian Federation, 2010).

In addition, the first publication of the international university rankings in 2000, with only two Russian universities included, revealed the state of national higher education to policy makers and the professional community (Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 8). In his speech at the meeting of the Council for Promoting the Competitiveness of Russia's Leading Universities among the World’s Leading Research and Education Centres in July 2013, the Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, emphasised the need to regain ‘international competitiveness in research, technology and higher education’ and to bring ‘educational programmes in line with the best international standards’ (2013, July 5).

Since the early 2000s multiple initiatives to develop Russian higher education and transform the national university landscape have been launched by the national government. Russian higher education scholars, Block and Khvatova (2017), summarise the goals of a recent series of reforms as follows:

. cutting down state expenditure for higher education, e.g. mobilising universities for self-financing, independent from the state; . guaranteeing the quality of higher education; . increasing transparency of the education market by decreasing the number of universities; . lifting Russian universities up to the league of top international universities (pp. 774–775).

Despite the State’s initiative to enhance universities’ engagement in research and innovation and increase their competitiveness internationally, it remains unclear as Johnson remarks (2015), whether ‘various reform agendas and the points at which they align and diverge will ultimately add up to systemic transformation and global competitiveness’ (p. 300) of the Russian higher education sector. Or, as questioned by some scholars, whether following the popular trends of establishing world-class universities would mean ‘an internal change within Russian university practice at large’ (Block & Khvatova, 2017, p. 775).

A fundamental step towards the reconstruction of the Russian higher education landscape has been the establishment of new types of higher education institutions that formed a group of leading universities. The two oldest universities, Moscow State

University and Saint Petersburg State University, were granted special status. Ten federal universities were established in Russian federal districts between 2006 and 2015. Through two competitive selection rounds conducted in 2009 and 2010, 29 universities were selected to receive the status of a national research university for a period of 10 years. Froumin and Povalko (2014) note that the creation of the new types of institutions was considered by the Russian government to be ‘an element of the general social and economic modernisation of Russia, and an element of the new openness of the Russian education and research sphere’ (p. 50). Furthermore, in 2012 the Russian Academic Excellence Project was launched with an ambitious goal to enhance the global competitiveness and position of selected universities in international academic rankings.

Little research has been conducted on the internationalisation of higher education at the institutional level in Russia, especially in regional universities. There is a paucity of information on whether, and to what extent, internationalisation is a part of the institutional strategy of national research and federal universities. This can be explained by the lack of data on internationalisation regularly collected by universities, as well as a lack of publicly available data (Kuraev-Maxah, 2004). Institutional documents are rarely translated into English, which complicates research on the subject by foreign scholars. In addition, faculty and staff in Russian higher education institutions may not always be open to participate in research initiatives.

Given that internationalisation is an important component of the modernisation of Russian higher education initiated by the government, studies on internationalisation of higher education in Russia often provide an overview of state initiatives and major reforms in higher education, such as for example, Russian universities joining the Bologna Process (Pursiainen & Medvedev, 2005; Tomusk, 2006). Some recent research has provided a comparative analysis of education in Russia and other BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries (Adams, Pendlebury, & Stembridge, 2013; Carnoy et al., 2013; Altbach et al, 2013). While there have been a number of studies examining the internationalisation of higher education in Russia at the macro-regional level, there is a lack of literature on internationalisation in regions at the sub-national level, especially in

5 peripheral locations where higher education institutions face development challenges and fierce competition for talent. This study argues for a need to consider specific regional contexts when analysing internationalisation of Russian universities.

1.1.1 Regional differences

Given the size of Russia and regional inequality, higher education reforms have played out differently in various parts of the country. Being an extremely capital-centric country, there is a strong centre-periphery dynamic between the central capital of Moscow and the other regions in Russia’s periphery, including Siberia and the Far East. The socio- economic and geographic dominance of the centre over the periphery was inherited from the Soviet period and further increased during the post-Soviet transformation and economic recession (Bain, 2003). A strong legacy of a ‘capital cities centrism’ explained by Latova and Latov (2013, p. 62) as ‘the hypertrophied concentration of social advantages in the capital city regions’, creates strong centre-periphery relationships between Moscow and Saint Petersburg as the centres and the other regions in Russia.

For instance, of the 41 leading national universities identified by the Russian government, almost half are located in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Not surprisingly, Moscow produces 50% of Russian research articles (Smith et al., 2011, p. 37). While this can be justified by the historical role of Moscow and Saint Petersburg in the development of Russian higher education, as well as their current high population density, the high concentration of government investment in universities in these two cities creates social inequality among universities in the regions (Latova & Latov, 2013) and exacerbates the centre-periphery dynamic between Moscow and Saint Petersburg at the centre, and other cities and regions including Siberia and the Far East in the periphery. Thus, Russia not only occupies a peripheral position in the global academe, but the country itself is also divided into the academic centre and periphery.

According to Bain (2003), the geographic dominance of the centre over the periphery in Russia is reflected not only in ‘the highest concentration of talent in culture, science and education’ in the centre but also its possession of ‘the seat of the top state bureaucracies

6 that decide on the key investment, development and other issues’ (p. 66). The proximity of the Russian economic and political capital to Europe and the historical relationships with the region explain the government’s interest in adopting the European model of higher education development and integrating Russian higher education into a European Higher Education Area. However, as observed by the European University Association report on Trends V: Universities shaping the European Higher Education Area (2007), the attitudes of Russian universities towards joining the European Higher Education Area differ across the country. According to this report, while universities in the western regions of Russia express a strong interest in adapting to the European approach to higher education, those located in the central and eastern regions of the country have a preference to cooperate with Asia and the United States. Thus, given the size of the country stretched across two continents, and its geographic position between Europe and Asia, following only European higher education trends may not have the same effect on the advancement of internationalisation in various regions within the country.

In the context of existing regional disparities and centre-periphery dynamics, the approach to internationalisation varies across universities. However, existing studies on higher education internationalisation in emerging economies have generally either examined the overall national agenda and considered higher education institutions as a homogenous group, or examined specific state initiatives where the focus is on a small group of top universities that have ambitions to become ‘world-class’. In the case of Russia, ‘best practice’ is usually presented by universities located in major cities, Moscow in particular (e.g. Froumin & Leshukov, 2016). Thus, research on higher education internationalisation in Russia has largely been state-centred and has failed to consider regional differences.

1.1.2 Looking East

In recent years, there appears to have been a shift in the focus of the Russian government from Europe toward Asia, with regards to the political, economic and security cooperation. As part of this shift the need for the development of Siberia and the Far

East1 has become more prominent on the state agenda (see Strategy of Socio-economic Development of Siberia through 2020; Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the Far East and the Baikal Region until 2025). The turn towards Asia in Russian foreign policy, on the one hand, and the State’s strategy for the economic and social development of Siberia and the Far East, on the other hand, have the potential to produce spill-over effects onto the field of education and open up opportunities for regional universities. The economic cooperation between Russia and countries in Asia-Pacific could generate joint programs for staff development and research projects. The development of Siberia and the Far East could increase the attractiveness of these regions as a study destination for students from neighbouring Asia-Pacific countries. This will work in parallel to the special funding allocated to leading universities in the region as it is likely to help finance their internationalisation programs.

Some signs of such spill-overs from the engagement between Russia and Asia-Pacific into the field of education have already become evident. For example, education was for the first time brought to the agenda of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit held in the Russian city Vladivostok in 2012. Annex D of the APEC Leaders' Declaration is devoted to promoting cross-border education cooperation, showing that most APEC leaders recognise the importance of greater cross-border higher education cooperation, research, information, and knowledge sharing within the Asia-Pacific region (APEC, 2012).

According to the report titled Russia’s Guiding Landmarks in the Asia-Pacific after the APEC Summit in Vladivostok produced by Russian International Affairs Council and focused on specific areas of Russia’s cooperation with Asia-Pacific countries, some of the medium-term objectives feasible within two to four years in the area of cultural and information exchanges include the need to:

Develop Russia’s potential for integration into the Asia-Pacific by expanding student and professor exchange programs, promoting joint research and publications, raising required financing from governments and businesses,

1 For the purpose of this research Siberia and the Far East refer to Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District.

and pooling efforts to increase numbers of Asia-Pacific specialists with the Russian language skills and training required to work with Russian technologies. (Sumsky et al., 2013, p. 19)

These objectives highlight that education could provide another important platform for closer integration between Russia and Asia-Pacific nations. However, it remains uncertain whether leading universities in Siberia and the Far East will become a driving force for developing cooperation between Russia and Asia-Pacific nations. Given the government’s initiative to modernise and internationalise Russian higher education and the potential and importance of universities in Siberian and the Far Eastern region in this regard, gaining a better understanding of the higher education internationalisation process in Siberian and the Far Eastern universities is worth more in-depth research.

1.2 The study

This study aims to examine the factors influencing the internationalisation in all seven leading Russian universities in Siberia and the Far East. It asks:

What are the factors influencing the internationalisation process in Russian regional universities in Siberia and the Far East?

To examine the principal research question, the following subsidiary research questions are investigated:

How is internationalisation articulated in institutions’ policy documents, namely mission statements and strategic development plans of leading Russian universities?

What are the motives of leading universities in Siberia and the Far East to internationalise?

What are the challenges of internationalisation for these leading universities?

What conditions are needed to advance internationalisation in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East?

Given that Russia is a less explored context of research on higher education internationalisation, it is important to gain a better understanding of the extent to which internationalisation is a part of the institutional agenda and what international

9 dimensions are common among leading universities across Russia. Therefore, the study also asks the following subsidiary research question:

How is internationalisation articulated in institutions’ policy documents, namely mission statements and strategic development plans of leading Russian universities?

The study adopts an interpretive approach and employs qualitative methods of data collection and analysis in order to explore factors influencing internationalisation in Russian regional universities. The analysis is based on document analysis of institutional strategic development plans and mission statements and data collected from semi- structured interviews with a range of administrative leaders engaged in various international dimensions. The research is carried out by a Russian native who was raised in Siberia and who has a deep understanding of the socio-political and historical contexts which underpin the investigation. This knowledge as well as the ability to communicate fluently in Russian has helped with data gathering and analysis, as well as in providing a trustworthy account and insights from the research.

Given the exploratory nature of this study and the fact that existing research on the internationalisation of higher education is mainly based on Western models, it is important not to place the study within the limit of a specific framework. Therefore, the research design is guided by an Adaptive Theory approach (Layder, 1998). Adaptive Theory allows for the conceptual framework to be continuously developed and guided by the data collection and analysis at all stages of the research.

This study draws on the integrated approach to internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery proposed by Klemenčič (2015). The integrated approach to internationalisation is based on two main domains. One domain presents three core institutional functions of teaching, research and third mission2. Another domain consists

2 Third mission is conceived around the social mission and public role of the university. It is becoming an integral component of university function complementing its classic missions of teaching and research (see Pinheiro, Langa, & Pausits, 2015).

10 of cross-cutting internationalisation functions, such as academic mobility of students and staff, international institutional cooperation, international recruitment of students and staff and international profiling. Cross-cutting internationalisation functions integrated into core functions of the institution are supposed to enhance the internationalisation of the teaching, research and the third mission. It is argued that given the lack of resources of the universities in the periphery and the low appeal of these institutions for academic mobility, higher education institutions in the periphery need to pay particular attention to such cross-cutting internationalisation functions as international cooperation and profiling (Klemenčič, 2015).

This study argues that contextualisation at a regional, rather than a national level, is important in order to obtain a better understanding of internationalisation in Russian universities. Drawing upon Klemenčič’s (2017) argument that internationalisation imperatives ‘exist for all universities, but are magnified in the case of institutions in peripheral locations’ (2017, p. 100), this study investigates the internationalisation process in universities located in Siberia and the Far East regions that are considered to be peripheral at the national level. By doing so, the study seeks to provide insights into factors influencing higher education internationalisation in a less explored regional context.

1.2.1 Research setting

The study examines the internationalisation process in seven leading Russian universities located in the Eastern territories of Russia, more specifically Siberia and the Russian Far East. The universities in this study include one federal and four national research universities in Siberia and two federal universities in the Russian Far East. The universities in this study are part of the group of 10 federal universities and 29 national research universities, that the Russian government identified as leading national universities and provided additional financial support for their strategic development. The implementation of the strategic development plans, approved by the Russian Ministry of

Education and Science3, is designed to enhance the internationalisation and international recognition of these universities.

Five out of seven universities included in the study were also selected to participate in the Russian Academic Excellence Project aimed at maximising ‘the competitive position of a group of leading Russian universities in the global research and education market’ (Russian Academic Excellence Project, n.d.). This project is also referred to as Project 5- 100, as its initial goal is to bring five Russian universities to the top 100 in the global institutional rankings by year 2020. Thus, given that internationalisation of higher education in Russia has only recently become prominent on the state and institutional agenda, the study is focusing on seven universities that are seen by the state government as the most capable to advance their status internationally.

1.2.2 Terminology and definitions

Over the past decades internationalisation of higher education has been the subject of much analysis and various conceptualisations have entered the discourse about this phenomenon including its definitions. One of the most commonly used definitions of internationalisation is the one proposed by Knight in 1993 and revised in 2003. According to Knight (2003) internationalisation is ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post- secondary education’ (p. 2). Knight’s (2003) definition highlights the transformation of higher education internationalisation from sporadic and unsystematic activities to a strategic process. Although some authors have pointed out various limitations of Knight’s definition (discussed in Chapter Two), it has become a ‘classic’ definition of internationalisation (Egron-Polak & Marmolejo, 2017, p. 15) and is often used as a guide for the emerging interpretations of the internationalisation process (e.g. De Wit & Hunter, 2015). Knight’s (2003) definition of internationalisation is used as a working definition in this study. This definition highlights the transformation of higher education

3 Based on Government Decree in May 2018 the Ministry of Education and Science was split into the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

12 internationalisation from sporadic and unsystematic activities to a strategic process.

More recently Hudzik (2011) proposed the concept of comprehensive internationalisation, which he defines as:

a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (Hudzik, 2011, p. 6)

The interpretation of comprehensive internationalisation appears similar to Knight’s (2003) definition of higher education internationalisation. However, the definition of comprehensive internationalisation focuses on the importance of the commitment of individual stakeholders within an institution including institutional leadership, academics, students and professional staff in academic service and support units, to engage in the internationalisation process. While Knight’s (2003) definition of internationalisation is used as a working definition in this study, the commitment aspect of Hudzik’s (2011) interpretation of comprehensive internationalisation is also of particular relevance to this study, as a supportive institutional environment is a necessary component of the internationalisation of higher education institutions. Therefore, Hudzik’s (2011) definition of comprehensive internationalisation is also given consideration in the analysis.

1.2.3 Scope and limits

The study investigates the internationalisation process at seven leading Russian universities located in Siberia and the Far East. It is worth noting that the intention of this study is not to measure the extent to which these universities are internationalised but to contribute towards enhancing our understanding of the internationalisation drivers and challenges in these regional universities. The scope of this study is limited to a specific sub-national region within Russia. While the findings from the study cannot be generalised to all universities in the region or country, they can provide valuable insights

13 into the state of internationalisation of universities in peripheral regions, and internationalisation of higher education in Russia more broadly.

The study focuses on the perspectives of administrative leaders who are responsible for various international dimensions of their institution. The perspective of academic staff and students are not included in the scope of this study. Furthermore, as participation in the study is voluntary the data collection is also limited by the willingness of key informants to be interviewed.

1.3 Structure of thesis

This thesis consists of eight chapters. The following two chapters provide a conceptual framework and context for the study. Chapter Two explores the phenomenon of higher education internationalisation, more specifically the different national and institutional rationales driving this process, frameworks for strategic institutional internationalisation. This chapter highlights the centre-periphery dynamics in the global academe, exploring risks and opportunities of higher education internationalisation in peripheral universities in detail. Chapter Three provides an overview of the higher education in Russia with an emphasis on the recent higher education reforms and developments in the area of internationalisation. This chapter also introduces Siberia and the Russian Far East as the specific context of this study. Despite being mainly descriptive, Chapter Three is important for the analysis of the interviews as the administrators’ understandings of the internationalisation phenomenon are ‘structured historically in the traditions, prejudices and institutional practices’ (Taylor, 1993, p. 59).

Chapter Four outlines the rationales for the selection and implementation of the research methods and elaborates on the processes of data collection and analysis. Following the Methodology Chapter, the next two chapters discuss the results of the data analysis. Chapter Five presents the findings from the examination of strategic development plans and mission statements of 39 leading universities in Russia. Chapter Six analyses the data obtained from semi-structured interviews with university leaders in charge of institutional international engagement. This is followed by Chapter Seven which

14 synthesises the findings from the two phases of this study in relation to the literature and draws on Klemenčič’s integrated approach to the internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery to discuss the opportunities for universities in the region to advance internationalisation. The final chapter presents a reflection on the key findings and implications for policy and practice. It concludes by outlining the limitations of the study and proposing directions for future research.

CHAPTER 2. Internationalisation of higher education in an uneven world

Brave new common global world is a world that is cut across by many fault zones, such as those which delimit the famous ‘World Class Universities’ from unknown ‘local’ colleges or higher education ‘centres’ from higher education ‘peripheries,’ etc. These fault zones do not only delimit developed and developing countries; they are fault zones also within them. (Zgaga et al., 2014, p. 5)

The internationalisation of higher education has undergone several decades of development. While often seen as mainstream, this process has been unevenly implemented in different parts of the world and its interpretations vary depending on local realities and their current phases of strategic internationalisation. This chapter explores the various conceptualisations of internationalisation proposed in the literature with the aim of building a conceptual framework for investigating the core research questions of this study.

The chapter begins by examining national and institutional motives to internationalise. This is followed by a review of institutional internationalisation models and strategies. The discussion then focuses on the diversity of contexts within which internationalisation is taking place, including a growing tension between centres and peripheries and the increasing importance of the regional dimension of internationalisation.

Given that the focus of this study is on peripheral universities, the last section of this chapter discusses approaches to internationalisation for higher education institutions located on the academic periphery in more detail. It introduces Klemenčič’s (2015) integrated approach to higher education internationalisation. The conceptual framework proposed by Klemenčič (2015) incorporates some key elements of various models for institutional internationalisation proposed by other scholars, while seeking to provide guidance for internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery.

2.1 Understanding higher education internationalisation

In the Article 26(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the purpose of education is seen as promoting ‘understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups’ (United Nations, 1948). This description reflects some of the early interpretations of the role of international education, such as advocating a ‘good-will, friendship, brotherhood, peace and so on – among the peoples of the world’ (Kandel, 1956, p. 2). Similarly, Harari (1989) emphasised that international education should among other things encompass ‘distinct commitment, attitudes, global awareness, an orientation and dimension which transcends the entire institution and shapes its ethos’ (p. 2). The role of international education has been, thus, mostly regarded as a means for cultivating students’ global awareness and international understanding.

The term internationalisation became widely used in the early 1980s (Knight, 2013). The internationalisation of higher education was mainly conceptualised in terms of activities, programs and services (Arum & Van de Water, 1992, p. 202) and specific policy initiatives (Altbach, 2002). The most quoted definition of internationalisation proposed by Knight in early 1993 and revised in 2003 describes internationalisation as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education’ (Knight, 2003, p. 2). In Knight’s definition, internationalisation is described as a deliberate process rather than ad hoc activities. To make this definition more objective and suitable to address the internationalisation process at national and sector levels (where policy making and fund distribution take place), as well as at an institutional level (where the actual internationalisation practices take place), Knight purposefully left its rationales and desired outcomes unspecified.

Knight (2004) argued that including internationalisation rationales in the definition may affect its applicability. For this reason, she critiqued the definition proposed by Soderqvist (2002) who defined higher education internationalisation as a change process from a national to an international institution that involves ‘the inclusion of an international dimension in all aspects of its holistic management in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to achieve the desired competencies’ (2002, p. 29). However,

Knight’s generic definition leaves many aspects of the internationalisation process subject to institutional interpretation and for this reason it was critiqued by some scholars for being too general (e.g. Enequist, 2005) and failing to offer practical advice for internationalisation (e.g. Liddicoat, 2003).

A number of scholars, on the contrary, found Knight’s definition focusing on the integration of the international dimension into an existing institutional setting ‘too narrow’, arguing that it failed to ‘capture the essence of a process whose ultimate goal should be to integrate the institution into the emerging global knowledge and learning network’ (Hawawani, 2011, p. 5). Beck (2012), for example, argues that Knight’s approach based as it is on a simple infusion of intercultural and international content into the teaching, research, and service functions of a university, ‘implies a one-way flow (bringing into the university)’, and fails to consider ‘diverse interaction with various elements of the cultural, social, political, and economic dimensions relating to internationalization’ (2012, p. 142). According to Sanderson (2008), the definition of internationalisation, on the one hand, should go beyond the national level to include regional and global dimensions, and on the other hand should look within the institutions itself by considering the levels of the faculty or department and individual staff members. He suggests expanding the depth dimensions of the reach of internationalisation by including supranational levels, as well as levels within the institutions themselves, as illustrated in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 The actual extent of the depth and breadth dimensions of the reach of internationalization Source: Sanderson (2008)

Continuing debate about the definition of higher education internationalisation has led to new concepts being introduced by the scholars in the field. One such concept is comprehensive internationalisation introduced and described by Hudzik (2011) as:

…a commitment, confirmed through action, to infuse international and comparative perspectives throughout the teaching, research, and service missions of higher education. It shapes institutional ethos and values and touches the entire higher education enterprise. It is essential that it be embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units. It is an institutional imperative, not just a desirable possibility. (p. 6)

Similar to the earlier interpretations of international education (e.g. Harari, 1989), comprehensive internationalisation is understood as a commitment rather than a

19 process. Hudzik (2011) views comprehensive internationalisation as an institutional imperative and points out the importance of it being ‘embraced by institutional leadership, governance, faculty, students, and all academic service and support units’ (2011, p. 6).

To better understand the internationalisation process at an institutional level, Knight (2004) developed a framework examining the different ways internationalisation is conceptualised and implemented within higher education institutions. Knight’s framework is based on several different, but not mutually exclusive approaches: activity, outcomes, rationales, processes, at home and abroad. The approaches to internationalisation vary and depend on institutional priorities and resources, as well as historical and socio-cultural contexts. Knight’s framework allows for a better understanding of the internationalisation of higher education institutions by reflecting ‘the values, priorities, and actions that are exhibited during the work toward implementing internationalisation’ (2004, p. 18).

One of the common approaches to describe internationalisation is through a set of various activities, for example, ‘study abroad, curriculum and academic programs, institutional linkages and networks, development projects, and branch campuses’ (Knight, 2004, p. 20). However, de Wit (2011b) argues that having ‘predominantly activity-oriented or even an instrumental approach towards internationalisation’ (p. 10), may result in one of the widespread misconceptions about higher education internationalisation, such as the assumption that large numbers of international students can make higher education more internationalised (Knight & de Wit, 2011). As a result of this misconception, international student mobility became a goal of internationalisation for many higher education institutions and international student flows – a central focus of discussion around higher education internationalisation. Furthermore, a reduction in the State funding of higher education in many countries and an increase in the commercialisation of education has led some higher education institutions to pursue international student recruitment as an alternate source of income generation (Healey, 2008).

There has been a recent shift in the focus of internationalisation away from international activities to those who engage in them. Scholars argued that students should be seen as the main beneficiaries of internationalisation efforts and their experiences should be at the heart of the concept (Arkoudis, Baik, Marginson, & Cassidy, 2012). In this context, internationalisation was seen as a tool to equip students with skills to be fully functional in a global economy (Yemini, 2015). Student global competencies, such as intercultural competence and the ability to understand global social and economic issues, moved to the centre of attention of a number of higher education institutions as a key outcome of the internationalisation process. This was a ‘fundamental conceptual shift in international education, from a narrow focus on mobility for some, to a broader vision of internationalised learning for all – whether they are at home or abroad’ (Green & Whitsed, 2015, p. 4). Internationalisation at Home has been developed within the internationalisation discourse as an approach advocating for internationalisation available to all students and staff on campus.

Internationalisation at Home is defined as ‘any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and staff mobility’ (Crowther et al. 2001, p. 8). In Knight’s institutional approaches to internationalisation, Internationalisation at Home is described as the ‘creation of a culture or climate on campus that promotes and supports international/intercultural understanding and focuses on campus-based activities’ (2004, p. 20). Building on this definition and with more studies conducted around this concept in recent years, Internationalisation at Home has evolved to become the ‘purposeful integration of international and intercultural dimensions into the formal and informal curriculum for all students within domestic learning environments’ (Beelen & Jones, 2015, p. 69). This definition is similar to the interpretation of another concept evolved around international institutional engagement – Internationalisation of the curriculum. Internationalisation of the curriculum was defined by Leask (2009) as ‘the incorporation of an international and intercultural dimension into the preparation, delivery and outcomes of a program of study’ (p. 209). This definition was expanded in her later work to include various support services of a program of study beyond the formally assessed curriculum (Leask, 2015). The internationalised curriculum is important as it can provide

21 an opportunity for non-mobile students to experience international education on campus (Nilsson, 2000) and prepare them for living and working in an international environment (Bremer and Van der Wende, 1995).

In summary, a review of the various conceptualisations that have entered the higher education internationalisation discourse illustrates the increasing scope of this process and the complexity of its dimensions. Over time the focus of definition of higher education internationalisation has shifted from sporadic and unsystematic activities to a strategic process integrated in all aspects of an institution. There has also been an increased focus on inclusiveness of internationalisation through incorporating it in the curriculum, as well as on bringing ethical values of internationalisation to the agenda. These changes in the understanding of higher education internationalisation are reflected in the revised version of Knight’s definition of internationalisation proposed by de Wit and Hunter (2015):

[Internationalisation is] the intentional process of integrating an international intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions and delivery of post-secondary education in order to enhance the quality of education and research for all students and staff, and to make a meaningful contribution to society. (p. 3)

This definition specifies the rationale for internationalisation, which according to the authors need to be underpinned by enhancing the quality of education and making a social contribution, rather than primarily considering economic gains.

The challenge of developing a clear and shared understanding of what internationalisation entails can be explained not only by the variety of approaches to its interpretation, but also by the multiple stakeholders and their different motives to engage in the internationalisation process.

2.1.1 National and institutional motives to internationalise

From the preceding sections, it is clear that there is no ‘simple, unique or all- encompassing definition of internationalisation’ (Yang, 2002, p. 71). Similarly, there is not a single motive for internationalising, but rather a complex mixture of various and

22 sometimes conflicting motivations. Scholars have offered multiple classifications of internationalisation drivers. One of the well-known classifications is a set of generic internationalisation rationales proposed by Knight and de Wit (1997), which includes political, economic, academic, and social-cultural rationales.

An historical analysis conducted by de Wit (2002) demonstrated the changing nature of national drivers to actively engage in international education activities. According to this analysis, political rationales, such as national security, peace and mutual understanding, seem to have been the dominant motives for internationalisation until recently. After World War I the international dimension of higher education evolved under the flag of altruistic ideas of peace and mutual understanding. It is important to note that at that time international higher education was advanced only by a few developed nations that funded various initiatives to support and promote international higher education engagement, such as the Institute of International Education (1919), the German Academic Exchange Service (1925), and the British Council (1934). The attention given to international higher education intensified when governments turned to non-military ways of gaining political influence in a post-World War II world. While still promoting peace and mutual understanding (Marginson & Sawir, 2011; Brandenburg, 2009), international education initiatives at that time were grounded in ideological and geopolitical objectives and were used as a tool to project soft power4. During the Cold War the United States and Soviet Union were among the global academic centres, providing education aid and scholarships to students from countries in need of assistance5, as a strategy to promote one of the competing ideologies and gain the support of the future elites (Tsvetkova, 2008). After the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical and ideological tension was relieved, and the political drive toward international education became less important.

4 Nye (2003) defines soft power as the ability to achieve your goals by persuading others to support you.

5 For example, the Fulbright Program (1946) in the United States and the People’s Friendship University in Moscow in Russia (1960).

Globalisation introduced such trends as commercialisation and commodification to higher education, and the orientation of internationalisation activities became more competition- and market-driven (Teichler, 2004; Knight, 2011; Brandenburg & de Wit, 2011). The rationales of international education shifted from academic and cultural exchange toward profit making (Kälvermark & van der Wende, 1997). Some scholars described this, as a shift ‘from aid to trade’ (Smart & Ang, 1993; de Wit & Merkx, 2012, Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

Globalisation and the rise of the knowledge economy forced national governments to search for international comparative advantages, that came ‘less and less from abundant natural resources or cheap labor and increasingly from technical innovations and the competitive use of knowledge’ (World Bank, 2002, p. 8). In this context, higher education institutions were recognised as one of the core institutions necessary for building a knowledge-based economy (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). The knowledge nature of economic competitiveness stimulated the special attention to education from nation- states (Marginson and van der Wende, 2009; Altbach, 2004) and became a new driver for internationalisation. Internationally, governments have launched various initiatives and provided additional funds to selected universities in order for them to gain more global recognition and have thus shifted their priorities from serving national and local needs to competing internationally (Klemenčič, 2016).

In her later work, Knight (2004) recognised that the differences between the internationalisation rationales had become blurred and proposed to examine them from either national or institutional perspective. According to her, human resource development, strategic alliances, commercial trade, nation building, and social/cultural development became rationales of emerging importance on a national level.

At an institutional level, internationalisation became a strategically driven process in higher education institutions in the 1980s (de Wit & Merkx, 2012). Prior to this it was considered that universities were a priori international institutions as their purpose was to produce global knowledge (Kerr, 1994). Therefore, the academic, as well as social and cultural, rationales of internationalisation were often assumed. Globalisation intensified

24 the process of internationalisation in higher education institutions through improved technology and increased mobility. The special role of higher education in building the knowledge economy put an additional pressure on universities from the government. They had to look for ways to adjust to the rapidly changing global context in which they operate, as well as to a significant reduction in State funding, by becoming more entrepreneurial and competitive. With the introduction of the international ranking systems universities also had to pay special attention to the development of their international profile and status. Knight (2004) pointed out international branding and profile, income generation, student and staff development, strategic alliances and knowledge production as emerging institutional drivers to internationalise.

In de Wit’s (2002) framework of existing internationalisation rationales institution building, profile and status fall into the category of academic rationales. Knight (2004) argues, however, that given the drive for international recognition and profile, more importance is now given to institutional branding for the purpose of competing domestically and internationally. While this may be true for some developed countries, where internationalisation has become largely driven by commercial interests, for universities in peripheral locations internationalisation is often seen as a means of modernisation, quality enhancement and institutional capacity building (Klemenčič & Zgaga, 2013). While peripheral higher education institutions also seek to earn profit by attracting foreign students, they see internationalisation as an opportunity to enhance their reputation and the quality and cultural composition of their student population (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

Knight’s (2004) framework of emerging internationalisation rationales is seen to progress her earlier work in acknowledging the differences among various stakeholders. Its limitation is that it does not consider the values and interests of individual stakeholders within institutions (Sanderson, 2008). International drivers and motivations of university administrators, teaching staff, and students may vary from those of institutional leadership or national government. To achieve comprehensive institutional internationalisation, it is essential that it is embraced by all faculty, students, and staff

(Hudzik, 2011). Therefore, it is important to understand the range of motives underpinning the commitment and motivation of these groups for international engagement.

2.1.2 Strategic institutional internationalisation

Higher education institutions approach internationalisation in different ways, often prioritising only certain strategies based on the institutional conditions within which they operate. Since internationalisation had become a strategic process in higher education institutions in the 1980s, various organisational internationalisation models and strategies have been proposed by scholars in the field (Neave, 1992; Rudzki, 1998; van Dijk and Meijer, 1997; Knight, 1993; de Wit, 2002; Söderqvist, 2002).

Davies (1992) proposed a useful model for assessing the approaches to the internationalisation process in universities. In his model Davies suggests two parameters to describe the way higher education institutions may approach internationalisation. One parameter considers the extent to which international dimensions are an important part of the institutional function and whether they occupy central or marginal place on the institutional agenda. Another parameter examines whether international practices are implemented at the university in a sporadic or systematic manner. Based on this model four different approaches to the internationalisation process that can be found in universities are: ad hoc-marginal (quadrant A), systematic-marginal (quadrant B), ad hoc- central (quadrant C), or central-systematic (quadrant D) (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 Institutionalisation of approaches to internationalisation in universities Source: Davies (1992)

Despite a recent push towards internationalisation, only a relatively small number of universities integrate multiple institutional and program strategies into a systemic commitment of comprehensive internationalisation. According to Davies (1992), while universities aspire to achieve the central-systematic strategy of internationalisation, their approach to the internationalisation is most likely to be ad hoc and marginal at first. The institutions then may transition through the marginal-systematic or ad hoc-central phases first before achieving the central-systematic approach to internationalisation.

Davies (1992) also proposed a conceptual framework for the development of international institutional strategy, which is based on the interplay of internal and external factors (Figure 2.3). This framework describes that, in order for universities to develop an international strategy they need to consider their institutional self-image and leadership structure and evaluate their human and financial resources, as well as the quality of academic programs. However, according to Davies (1992) emphasises that internationalisation strategy requires careful evaluation of the external institutional image and the assessment of the competitive situation and opportunities in the international market place.

Figure 2.3 Elements in the development of international strategy in universities Source: Davies (1992)

Based on an understanding of internationalisation as a continuing cyclical rather than linear process, Knight (1994) developed a cyclical organisational model of internationalisation. Knight’s internationalisation cycle consists of six phases, including awareness, commitment, planning, operationalisation, review and reinforcement. Knight (1994) also emphasises the supportive institutional culture, as an important foundation for integrating international dimension into the systems and values of an institution. de Wit (2002) pointed out some limitations of Knight’s cyclical institutional internationalisation model, in particular its failure to consider the internal and external context of a higher education institution, the implementation of the internationalisation goals and strategies, and the effects of this implementation on the teaching, research and service function of the institution. de Wit modified Knight’s internationalisation cycle to include three additional phases: an analysis of context, implementation and the integration effect (Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4 Modified version of the internationalisation cycle Source: de Wit (2002) de Wit’s modified version of the internationalisation cycle suggests conducting an analysis of external and internal contexts as a useful starting point for higher education institutions to understand the overall need and benefit of internationalisation and to identify key institutional international priorities and strategies. This phase of institutional internationalisation is considered in the design of this study as a better understanding of the specific conditions within which higher education institutions function, can help to explain the perceived motivations and challenges of the internationalisation process and shed some light on the research questions posed.

A better understanding of an institutional internationalisation strategy can be achieved through the analysis of institutional documents such as mission statements and strategic development plans. A growing number of higher education institutions have an

29 internationalisation strategy as a distinct document. The results of the Global Survey on Internationalization of Higher Education conducted by the International Association of Universities (IAU) in 2014 showed that 75% of the respondents either had or were in the process of developing an institutional internationalisation policy or strategy, while 16% had international dimensions included in the overall institutional strategy (Egron-Polak & Hudson, 2014). It is argued that ‘written policy (statements) is what stimulates and informs practice. It provides direction, expresses institutional commitment, and may define the particular goals of internationalisation for an institution’ (Knight, 1994, p. 8).

Based on an analysis of the internationalisation plans of 31 higher education institutions in the United States, Childress (2009) distinguished four different ways internationalisation or international education strategies tend to be expressed. These subcategories are comprised of ‘infused,’ ‘bullet,’ ‘section’ and ‘under development’. According to Childress (2009), higher education institutions can allocate a distinct section devoted to internationalisation or infuse international references throughout the institutional strategic plan, without having a separate section. Findings from the study conducted by Childress (2009) suggest the importance of having internationalisation strategies included in an institutional development plan, as a means of defining internationalisation and its goals, building an internationalisation roadmap, as well as for engaging key stakeholders and developing collaborations.

Higher education institutions across the world use different strategies to internationalise. Knight and de Wit (1995) grouped such strategies into two broad categories: program strategies and organisational strategies. Both categories are seen as necessary for the successful internationalisation of a higher education institution. In her later work, Knight (2004) identified subcategories in each of the groups (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1 Institutional internationalisation strategies

Institutional level strategies Strategy type Program strategies Academic programs Research and scholarly collaboration External relations and services Extracurricular Organisation strategies Governance Operations Support services Human Resources

Source: Knight (2004)

The focus of the programme strategies is on the core institutional functions: teaching, research and the third mission. With regards to teaching, institutional program strategies focus on academic programs, such as student and staff mobility programs, foreign language and cross-cultural training and joint-degree programs. Research strategies include participation in joint research projects, international conferences and seminars, and publications in international journals. Finally, external relations and services and extracurricular program strategies support the third mission of the institution. Institutional level organisational strategies include internationalisation activities within the areas of university governance, operations, support services, and human resource. According to Knight (2004), organisational strategies are an important characteristic of the process approach to internationalisation, as they emphasise the need for the international dimension to be institutionalised and integrated into the 'institution’s mission statement, planning and review systems, policies and procedures, hiring and promotion systems’ (p. 25).

From the literature review, it is clear that institutional policy documents can provide valuable insight into the overall course of international development in higher education institutions. Having international strategies as part of policy documentation reinforces priority international activities within the institution and outlines an agenda for future international engagement. However, as noted by de Wit (2002), different rationales and approaches to internationalisation lead to different program and organisational

31 strategies. Given that higher education institutions have different starting points in the internationalisation process and operate in different contexts, it is necessary for them to carefully select their own priority strategies, rather than adopting a specific set of strategies as a new paradigm.

2.2 Internationalisation contexts

Internationalisation is a multidimensional process where higher education institutions operate in several different contexts simultaneously. On the one hand, globalisation forces pressure on higher education institutions to go beyond their national scope to gain more prominence internationally; on the other hand, they are expected to maintain their local engagement (OECD, 2007). Thus, globalisation is taking place in a parallel with localisation (Zgaga et al., 2014), creating a ‘glocalisation’ process as described by Robertson (1995). Given the importance of the national context, scholars have further distinguished global, national and local, as three parallel and intersecting environments influencing higher education institutions, that in combination present a ‘glonacal’ framework (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002; Marginson & van der Wende, 2009). These frameworks suggest that, despite the influences of globalisation, higher education institutions are still strongly embedded in their national and local context. Thus, the international status of a country, either ‘central’ or ‘peripheral’, influences their position within the global academic landscape and consequently the internationalisation process.

Beyond the global, national and local contexts of ‘glonacal’, the regional environment is also having a growing impact on internationalisation. Regional cooperation is viewed as a ‘promising ideal’ for higher education institutions in the emerging economies, as they can combine their resources in building an academic and intellectual infrastructure (Altbach, 2016). Considering the importance of establishing regional institutional cooperation for peripheral higher education institutions, the regional dimension of internationalisation is further explored in this section.

2.2.1 The regional dimension of internationalisation

Different interpretations of the concept of ‘region’ exist in the literature across a range of disciplines. Traditionally, there has been a territorial conceptualisation of region as either pertaining to a group of countries or territorial entity below the level of the nation- state (Keating & Loughlin, 1997). In this study, the regional dimension of higher education internationalisation is discussed in the context of two types of regions: macro-regions and micro-regions (Figure 2.5) Macro-regions are defined as ‘large territorial units or subsystems, between the ‘state’ and the ‘global’ level’ (Söderbaum, 2005, p. 87), such the European Union or Asia-Pacific. Micro-regions are territorial entities that exist ‘between the ‘national’ and the ‘local’ (municipal) level and are either sub-national or cross-border’ (Söderbaum, 2005, p. 87).

National

Regional Regional micro-region macro-region

Local Global Figure 2.5 Regional dimensions of action of higher education institutions

Historically, regions emerged naturally, based on certain common characteristics, such as geographic proximity, language and culture. In the past decades, however, national governments and supranational organisations have pursued deliberate regional cooperation. There are various motivations behind the trend towards regional integration, including security, economic, and political concerns. Some scholars see regionalisation as a response to globalisation, more specifically the perceived negative effects of this process (Hettne & Soderbaum, 2000).

Regional collaboration, often driven by security rationales and market forces, has expanded to non-economic activities including higher education. The phenomenon of regionalisation entered the higher education discourse as a ‘specific aspect of both the

33 internationalisation of higher education and globalisation’ (de Wit, 2001, p. 137). Higher education regionalisation is understood as ‘the process of intentionally building connections and relationships among higher education actors, structure and systems within a region’ (Knight, 2013, p. 113).

While higher education regionalisation initiatives may appear similar across the world, the process varies depending on the governance structures and available resources in each region, as well as the broader regional context (Verger & Hermo, 2010). Knight (2013) identified three inter-related but not mutually exclusive approaches to regionalisation: functional, organisational and political (Figure 2.6). The functional approach constitutes of collaborative programs between higher education institutions and strategies to align higher education systems to support these programs. The organisational approach brings regionalisation to a more structured level with the involvement of regional networks and organisations. Finally, the political approach, which is the most formal, brings higher education regionalisation initiatives to the political agenda.

Figure 2.6 The Functional, Organizational and Political Approaches (FOPA) Regionalisation Model Source: Knight (2013)

Given that regionalisation initiatives are generally facilitated by supranational organisations that often have the core objectives of external security and economic development, regional collaboration in higher education is often a consequence of the

34 broader political processes of regionalisation. Some scholars describe it as a cross- sectoral ‘spill-over’6 where ‘the cooperation had its roots in security issues and economic development but also spilled over to other sectors of society in later stages’ (Beerkens, 2004, p. 31). The Bologna process in Europe is by far the most advanced example of regionalisation spill-over, where education became an important dimension in the Europeanisation process that had already been taking place through economic and political integration. Similar initiatives to promote the integration of higher education have also been launched by other regional clusters like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Mercado Comun del Sur (MERCOSUR) in South America. Where regionalisation of higher education is not directly managed by the sector, it has more of a top-down approach. In such cases the higher education sector plays a reactive role and the impact of regionalisation can vary across countries and higher education institutions.

There is a general view that regionalisation has an overall positive impact on higher education development and regional cooperation. It is argued that ‘regionalisation could contribute substantially to internationalisation, if a variety of factors were combined properly’ (Yang, 2012, p. 488) and that regionalism could provide a vector to promote higher education internationalisation (Perrotta, 2014). Furthermore, according to Verger & Hermo (2010), internationalisation can have a more important and concrete impact on a regional level. The members of a single region often share common historical and cultural backgrounds that can lead to a better understanding of the local needs. They also engage in regionalisation voluntarily. As mentioned earlier, regional cooperation is often initiated as an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of globalisation that are perceived as an imposition of values from wealthy and more advanced countries or international economic organisations.

6 Lindberg (1963) defined ‘spill-over’ phenomenon as ‘a situation in which a given action, related to a specific goal, creates a situation in which the original goal can be assured only by taking further actions, which in turn create a further condition and a need for more action, and so forth’ (p. 9).

However, due to the unequal distribution of resources among countries within a region, regionalisation can also widen the asymmetries in higher education development between the member states. Some representatives of ASEAN countries have raised concerns that greater international competition within the region could undermine their national development strategies (Ziguras, 2014). Countries with more advanced higher education systems are usually the main contributors to the development of regional policies, while the rest act as policy-takers. Some scholars observe that in EHEA ‘the universities of the central and south-eastern European countries have become mere sub- contractors of the more developed universities’ (Marhl, Rebolj & Kraljić, 2011, p.137). Therefore, there is another concern that regionalisation may cause an unintended ‘standardization and homogenization’ of higher education systems (Knight, 2009), forcing countries to adopt the features of more dominant and mature higher education systems.

While States drive regionalisation, it is the institutions within them that ‘contribute to the formation of a (‘real’) transnational regional economy and civil society’ (Hettne & Söderbaum, 2002, p. 46). The active engagement of higher education institutions in international collaboration within a region has the potential to mitigate the negative consequences of ‘top-down’ regionalisation. Cases of functional regionalisation although smaller in scale, can be more effective, as they develop more naturally. For example, Yang (2012) observes ‘quiet achievers’ – higher education institutions in disadvantaged areas of China that built a regional community with ASEAN member countries through their common regional focus. There are also cases of international collaboration on a smaller regional scale in Europe, for example in the Alps-Adriatic and Danube regions, which have significantly influenced the development of their universities (Marhl, Rebolj & Kraljić, 2011).

These examples of functional regionalisation not only show that international collaboration between higher education institutions plays a key role in building an integrated regional higher education space, but that it can also be successful on a micro level. Higher education regionalisation does not necessarily entail co-operation between entire nation-states, as ‘regions do not need to be based on boundaries anymore; the

36 connections and interactions among key actors are of greater importance than the defining perimeter’ (Knight, 2013, p. 112). However, while there have been a number of studies examining higher education regionalisation on a macro-level, there is still a lack of knowledge on sub-national and cross-border micro-regionalisation, especially in the geographic periphery, where higher education institutions face regional development challenges and fierce competition for talent.

2.2.2 The ‘centre’ versus the ‘periphery’

The ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ dichotomy was first introduced to the studies of society by Shils (1975). According to Shils, the ‘centre’ represents the values and beliefs propounded by the elites through the various activities within the network of economic, political and cultural institutions. He argues that, when a population lives outside of the society and has its own value system, the remoteness from the centre is not very evident. However, when ‘the central institutional system becomes more comprehensive and inclusive so that a larger proportion of the life of the population comes within its scope, the tension between the centre and the periphery, as well as the consensus, tends to increase’ (Shils, 1975, p. 105). Similar relationships can be found within a global higher education space. The process of globalisation is blurring national borders and higher education institutions across the world are being compared with each another through global institutional rankings. The more the higher education sector becomes inclusive the more evident the existing centre-periphery disparities become. Higher education systems with long academic traditions usually situated in developed countries appear to be in the centre of the global higher education academe, while higher education in the emerging economies has been pushed to the periphery.

Global higher education is a relational landscape constituted by the pattern of horizontal and vertical differences between nations and institutions and the cross-border flows of people, knowledge, and capital between them (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Vertical differences, such as the level of capacities, resources and status, create global relations of power in higher education and influence the global flows. Higher education institutions that generate and disseminate knowledge globally are mainly located in

37 wealthy Anglophone countries with long academic traditions (Altbach, 2016). According to Marginson and van der Wende (2009), higher education capacity in the global environment is ‘positively correlated to national wealth, the quality and quantity of constructive government support for higher education institutions, system size and competence in English’ (p. 46). In addition, favourable living and working conditions make these countries attractive to talented students and scholars. A combination of these factors creates a perception of these countries as ‘centres’ of ‘civilizational and economic attraction’ (Klemenčič, 2015). Emerging and transitioning economies, on the other hand, are often considered the ‘periphery’. For these countries ‘global brain circulation becomes a brain drain transferring long-term academic capacity to the strong nations’ (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007, p. 18). Given the inherited advantage of the national context, higher education institutions situated within centres often find themselves in a better starting position to internationalise. It is important to note, however, that centre- periphery relationships exist not only between nations. Similar relationships can be formed within countries themselves, including developed nations, in particular those with significantly stratified higher education systems, for example, the United States (Egron-Polak & Marmolejo, 2017).

Scholars often refer to the centre-periphery dichotomy as a framework to explore the nature of the inequality in higher education and factors that contribute to the uneven status of higher education institutions in the international knowledge system. Altbach (2016) argues that the roots of the inequality can be traced to the colonial period, when colonial powers changed the nature of international higher education through their education policies, curriculum and language. Today industrialised countries continue to dominate the higher education landscape. They possess the infrastructure and financial and human resources needed to produce most of the scientific research. Furthermore, they control the communication channels through which research and knowledge are disseminated, such as scholarly journals, libraries and internet databases. This, as argued by Altbach (1998), results in those higher education institutions peripheral in the international knowledge system mainly copying developments from abroad and producing little original knowledge.

However, Nguyen (2010) critiques the centre-periphery framework for focusing primarily on knowledge transfer between Western and non-Western nations and a failure to address the agency of local actors. According to her, this approach undermines the local agency, on the one hand, and exaggerates the centre hegemony, on the other hand. Nguyen (2010) points out that recent higher education developments in South-East Asia have challenged the existing centre-periphery framework and argues that there is a need to explore ‘the more horizontal links in knowledge transfer between developing countries as well as the diverse local agendas in educational reforms that emerged during and after the colonial era’ (p. 26).

Silova, Millei, and Piattoeva (2017) point to another example of the existing coloniality of knowledge production, which is located in post-socialist countries that are on the receiving side of knowledge transfer. These scholars argue that comparative studies of post-socialist education reforms have ‘largely focused on tracing the complicated trajectories of the Western reform paths (outcomes-based education, privatization, decentralization, child-friendly schools, etc.) as well as broader concepts circulating internationally (such as education for democracy, equality, or civil society)’ (Silova, Millei, & Piattoeva, 2017, p. 96). These studies therefore use Western reform as a ‘global’ norm and apply it to the post-socialist countries without paying enough attention to the local context (Silova, 2012).

Despite the fact that global potential of countries is to a large extent shaped by the available resources (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007, p. 28), there is still an opportunity for those on the periphery to move closer to the academic centre and benefit from internationalisation. Marginson and van der Wende (2007) distinguished six elements shaping the possible global trajectories of higher education systems and institutions that include:

. the geographic and economic position of nations and institutions; . national history, system organisation, regulation, policy and resourcing in higher education; . national positioning-taking strategies in the global setting; . institutional history, resources and academic and organisational cultures;

. the global capacities of institutions and of agents such as governmental personnel; . institutional positioning-taking (p. 28).

These elements suggest that the possibilities for higher education institutions to advance and benefit from global operations depend on the development of their institutional resources, nurturing supportive academic and organisational cultures and strategic institutional position-taking.

2.2.3 Possible risks of internationalisation in the periphery

While internationalisation is perceived as an opportunity to reduce the gap between academic centres and peripheries, it may also generate some unintended negative consequences for those higher education institutions on the periphery. Some of the possible risks include the imposition of foreign and inadequate models, the weakening of the domestic university system, and the loss of human and intellectual capital (Murphy, 2007). Elitism is another unintended consequence of internationalisation that is arguably more evident on the periphery (Knight, 2006).

As internationalisation has traditionally been facilitated by the academic centres, peripheries have been mainly ‘receivers’ of internationalisation practices. Internationalisation of higher education in peripheral institutions is often a part of a broader process of modernisation of the higher education system. It is seen as a means of catching-up with more advanced higher education institutions that set up a benchmark of higher education quality and excellence (Klemenčič, 2015). Therefore, it involves the adaptation of western models, scholarly standards and methodologies. As a result, in many emerging and transitioning economies, internationalisation is often perceived as ‘westernisation’. In Africa, for example, there is a concern that higher education internationalisation ‘may lead to forms of ‘higher education imperialism’ where weaker systems in developing countries give way to stronger ones from the industrialized countries, in terms of institutional set-ups and more importantly knowledge packages’ (Ogachi, 2009, p. 334).

Simple replication of western standards without considering specific local context can lead to the adaptation of inadequate models and the loss of local knowledge. Some scholars refer to the process of ‘reproducing learning experiences that do not fit the specific cultural and political environments in the East’ as Western re-colonization (Deem, Mok, & Lucas, 2008, p. 93). Marginson (1999, p. 19) echoes this point of view and argues that as the main function of internationalisation is the development of skills ‘required to operate in the global environment itself’, it is in itself a form of soft imperialism which imposes ‘Western’ ways of thinking, doing and acting on other countries. The flow of ideas in a globalised World is quite uneven and ‘curricula influences, like scientific research and the knowledge-distribution system, proceeds largely from north to south’ (Altbach, 2016, p. 94). The perspectives from emerging economies, on the other hand, appear to be mostly neglected in the curriculum of developed countries. A study of Australian universities showed that a School of Journalism and Communication had predominantly ‘western ideas, values and practices’ incorporated in its curriculum (Breit, Obijiofor, & Fitzgerald, 2013). The authors of the study suggested that internationalisation of the curriculum had to focus primarily on its de-westernisation.

Furthermore, English being the language of academia worldwide, affects the centre- periphery relationships within the global academic landscape. As noted in the literature, there is no doubt that English is moving increasingly to the centre leaving other languages on the periphery (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rubmbley, 2009). Major scientific journals and academic books are published in English. Thus, English language dominance offers an advantage to higher education institutions in the Anglophone countries and places extra challenges on the rest. For many higher education institutions located in non-English speaking countries English proficiency of the faculty and programs taught in English often become one of the main aspects of internationalisation.

Due to their location, higher education institutions on the periphery struggle to attract students and academic staff from overseas. Large numbers of international students are often erroneously considered to be an indicator of the level of internationalisation of a

41 higher education institution (de Wit, 2011a). This results in some higher education institutions willing to lower their entry requirements to accept foreign students, which may have strong implications on the overall quality of education at the institution. In addition to the challenges of international recruitment of students and staff, poor academic working conditions and salaries, as well as a lack of academic freedom, often lead to the migration of local academic talent, a phenomenon known as ‘brain drain’. Some countries like China and India have launched special initiatives to return expatriates by offering them special working conditions and salary packages. However, the loss of human and intellectual capital still presents a great challenge for peripheral countries or certain regions within these countries and higher education institutions located there.

Given the lack of resources, emerging economies are challenged to either support the quality of the entire higher education system or concentrate their resources on a few selected higher education institutions (van der Wende, 2001; Klemenčič, 2015). Many countries choose the latter and launch excellence initiatives to build world-class universities by investing in a group of leading higher education institutions. Some scholars have expressed concern that excellence projects promote greater institutional stratification (e.g. Altbach, 2015; Salmi, 2015). In the BRIC countries, for example, there is an ‘increased differentiation in cost per student between elite institutions—which China and Russia in particular are trying to build into ‘world-class’ universities — and the mass institutions that are attended by 80–90 percent of undergraduates’ (Carnoy, Loyalka, Froumin, 2013, p. 40). Furthermore, the priority in State investment is often given to large universities that are usually located in the capital cities or major metropolitan areas. For examples, universities sponsored by Project 985 in China are largely based on the East coast around Shanghai and Beijing and almost half (9 out of 21) of the universities participating in the Project 5-100 in Russia are located in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Such a concentration of leading universities supported by the government in large metropolitan areas can result in widening regional disparities and inequalities within countries, as well as an increase in interregional migration. Furthermore, as there is no commonly agreed understanding of what ‘world-class’ is

(Altbach, 2004), there is a risk that it is interpreted as ‘elite Western’ and ‘biased against the cultural traditions of tertiary education in non-Western countries’ (Salmi, 2009, p. 3).

Governments use international academic rankings to monitor the progress of the excellence initiatives they have instigated and the international competitiveness of their national higher education institutions. Despite international rankings often being critiqued for gaps in methodology and for being over prioritised by national governments and institutions, international rankings can bring certain positive developments to higher education in emerging economies. They draw attention to the quality in a higher education system (Maloo, Altbach, & Agarwal, 2016), introduce transparency and accountability, ‘healthy competition’ between higher education institutions, as well as provide some important information about institutions to the external community (Taradina & Yudkevich, 2017). Overall, international university rankings have drawn more attention to higher education in the State agenda (Hazelkorn, 2010). For example, some scholars explain the recent attention of the Russian government toward higher education as being a result of international institutional rankings revealing that Russian universities were not as internationally competitive as was perceived (Froumin & Povalko, 2014).

Scholars argue that ‘there are strong links between the central or peripheral status of a country or academic culture and the placement of the country’s universities in the ranking’ (Altbach, 2013, p. 136). Academic rankings are seen as ‘a wealth barometer— those on top of the list grasping a proportionally larger share of resources’ (Zhao, C-M., 2005, p. 196). Therefore, the current status quo with the top positions in the international league of tables occupied by the leading higher education institutions from the wealthy Anglophone nations is not likely to change in the near future. Recently, new academic rankings focused only on emerging economies have been established (e.g. QS University Rankings and THE), increasing the competition not only between centre and periphery, but within the periphery itself.

2.3 An integrated approach to internationalisation in the academic periphery

In his definition of comprehensive internationalisation Hudzik (2011) emphasises that internationalisation is no longer a desirable possibility but an imperative for all higher education institutions. However, for peripheral higher education institutions the imperative to internationalise is even higher, as the national or micro-regional context and realities of these institutions do not possess the inherited advantages enabling internationalisation (Klemenčič, 2015). Peripheral localities face greater challenges and risks associated with internationalisation and thus require a carefully designed development strategy with internationalisation being a central institutional priority systematically implemented through the combination of organisation and program strategies discussed in sections 2.1.2.

Klemenčič (2015 & 2017) proposes an integrated approach to the internationalisation of higher education institutions based on two main domains. The first domain is within the core institutional functions: teaching, research and the third mission. This domain correlates with the final phase added by de Wit to Knight’s internationalisation cycle – the integration effect. At this phase of their strategic internationalisation universities need to analyse the impact of internationalisation on teaching research and service function of the institution.

The second domain of the integrated internationalisation model comprises cross-cutting internationalisation functions, such as academic mobility, international recruitment of students and staff, international institutional cooperation, and international profiling. According to Klemenčič (2017), when cross-cutting internationalisation functions are integrated across institutional structures, processes and operations, they work as ‘gears’ that accelerate the internationalisation of the core institutional functions (see Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 The ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagement Source: Klemenčič (2015)

To achieve the effect of synergy, internationalisation gears need to be integrated across institutional internationalisation strategies. The effect of synergy will also require higher education system conditions and institutional culture and governance to be supportive and enabling of the internationalisation process. Furthermore, Klemenčič (2015) points out international institutional cooperation and international profiling as two cross-cutting internationalisation functions that are particularly important for peripheral higher education institutions, thus providing a useful framework for analysing internationalisation in the universities selected for this study.

2.3.1 Priority internationalisation gears

Klemenčič (2015) emphasises that higher education institutions on the periphery need to pay particular attention to the two cross-cutting internationalisation functions:

45 international institutional cooperation and international profiling. International profiling is described as a reorientation of existing resources and cooperation strategies to advance selected areas of teaching, research and the third mission where higher education institution has international competitive advantage (Klemenčič, 2017). Van Vught and Huisman (2013) point out that increasing State and society expectations from higher education institutions, diversification policies in higher education and growing global competitiveness are some of the factors underpinning the need for institutional profiling.

Given that limited resources and a lack of international visibility is a common challenge for peripheral locations, profiling is especially important for higher education institutions there (Klemenčič, 2015). Klemenčič (2015) emphasises that peripheral higher education institutions need to carefully analyse the current and desired international competitive advantages and areas of international visibility and strategically build on the internationalisation activities and existing international networks that can enhance international profile of the teaching, research and third mission. This echoes Davies’s (1992) framework for the internationalisation strategy development and de Wit’s (2002) modified version of the Internationalisation Circle discussed earlier in this chapter. Both models of institutional internationalisation point to the importance of the assessment of institutional strengths and weaknesses, as well as an analysis of the external and internal contexts of an institution.

Klemenčič (2016a) also notes that many higher education institutions do not have the capacity ‘to undertake institutional research functions for purposes of strategic planning and institutional positioning, such as analyses of trends and changes in the environment (‘external changes’), benchmarking and comparisons to other universities’ (p. 14). Thus, building the capacity to conduct institutional research functions is important if the higher education institution wants to engage in a more strategic positioning process (Klemenčič, 2016b).

Furthermore, Klemenčič (2015) proposes to question not only what higher education institutions can bring to the international higher education space, but how

46 internationalisation can benefit their local and national interests and purposes. Given that peripheral higher education institutions are challenged to balance international engagement with local priorities, taking into consideration the needs of the local context in establishing an international position of the institution is particularly important.

In addition to international profiling, international institutional collaboration is another cross-cutting internationalisation function important for peripheral higher education institutions. Klemenčič, (2017) defines international institutional cooperation as a ‘deliberate processes of collaboration, both informal and through formal association, which have been initiated to pursue common interests and achieve mutual benefits for all partner institutions’ (p. 104). It is important that peripheral higher education institutions strategically select their partner institutions and regularly review the scope and depth of partnerships. This can help to avoid one of the common misconceptions about internationalisation pointed out by Knight and de Wit (2011) that having many international partnerships or being a member of many international associations makes a higher education institution more internationalised. In addition, Klemenčič (2017) argues that peripheral higher education institutions need to focus on building regional cooperation, which she describes as cooperation with universities not only in neighbouring countries but also with universities within the same region within a country. According to her, this can potentially help strengthen ‘regional relevance of the partner institutions and their collective international status and visibility’ (Klemenčič, 2017, p. 105). Peripheral higher education institutions tend to seek capacity building through cooperation with universities in the centre that possess more resources and reputational capital. Such a strategy, however, is not always successful, as more advanced universities also seek certain benefits from engagement in a new collaboration. While international institutional cooperation may seem mutually beneficial, the asymmetries in resources of higher education institutions guide their motivations to cooperate.

Scholars suggest that regional cooperation has the potential to positively contribute to the development and internationalisation of higher education institutions in the academic periphery (Altbach, 2016; Yang, 2012, p. 488). These higher education

47 institutions can take either a functional or organisational approach to establishing collaboration with other institutions in the region. As discussed earlier in this chapter, the functional types of collaboration include university partnerships and networks and organisational types of collaboration are those established through the academic associations and consortia. The literature on internationalisation tends to focus on large scale organisational institutional cooperation, such as Bologna or ASEAN, while cooperation between higher education institutions in micro-regions, regions that exist within the countries themselves, is not given much attention.

2.3.2 The importance of a supportive environment

An institution’s external and internal environments have the capacity to enable or inhibit the internationalisation process. Therefore, in addition to the cross-cutting internationalisation functions discussed above, the ‘gear effect’ of integrated internationalisation requires institutional culture and governance and overall national higher education system enabling of internationalisation (Klemenčič, 2017).

The internal institutional environment is, among other things, shaped by an institution’s internationalisation mission and strategy, budget for implementation and clear monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. The presence of adequate facilities, an international office and support services also have an enabling effect on internationalisation. More importantly, however, is the overall supportive institutional culture and attitude toward internationalisation. The importance of a supportive environment to integrate internationalisation within the institution was pointed out as a crucial part in Hudzik’s (2011) comprehensive internationalisation. According to the scholar, comprehensive internationalisation can neither be achieved through the top- down pressures, nor through the initiatives of staff without leadership support. Instead, it needs to be based on ‘a campus-wide discussion and understanding of the rationale, motivations, and options to engage internationalisation’ (Hudzik, 2011, p. 34).

On a national level, policy and financial frameworks can have either an enabling or inhibiting effect on institutional behaviour in terms of internationalisation (Klemenčič,

2017). This goes beyond the uneven distribution of financial support provided by governments where most of the resources are allocated to a few selected higher education institutions identified as the most promising. Policy frameworks around immigration and ability of foreign students to work while on a student visa also have a significant effect on internationalisation.

Klemenčič (2017) argues that the institutional strategy for an integrated approach to internationalisation should be developed with the involvement of not only national governments, but also city and regional authorities. Universities together with city and regional partners need to work collaboratively towards enhancing internationalisation. One of the areas where universities and regional authorities can share responsibilities is the arrangement of a safe and multicultural environment for incoming international students (Vashurina, Evdokimova & Krylov, 2017). In advanced economies, universities are already seeking greater engagement with their regions, in addition to their core institutional functions of teaching and research (OECD, 2007). In emerging economies and peripheral localities this type of engagement requires more attention and strategic planning.

2.4 Summary

This chapter has presented a number of key concepts that are foundational in developing the conceptual framework that will be adopted in the study to examine the internationalisation process in universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia. The internationalisation of higher education is a complex and multidimensional concept ‘driven by a dynamic and constantly evolving combination of political, economic, sociocultural and academic rationales’ (de Wit et al., 2015, p. 273). Its meanings and approaches largely depend on the immediate environment within which higher education institutions operate. Thus, ‘one size does not fit all’ and each higher education institution needs to take an individual approach to internationalisation based on its needs (Knight, 2012).

While higher education institutions are increasingly under pressure to internationalise, they remain rooted in their local, micro-regional and national contexts. Thus, they face the challenge of balancing the diverse priorities of the internationalisation process and their embeddedness into the local environment. The influence of the local context and the imperative to internationalise appear to be more evident in higher education institutions situated on the periphery. While the internationalisation of higher education is often perceived as a ‘win-win’ for all stakeholders (Knight, 2007), this may not be the case in centre-periphery context and tension associated with it. Thus, without a critical analysis ‘internationalisation risks extending the perennial role of education in sustaining unequal power structures’ (Lumby & Foskett, 2016, p. 96).

Having provided the key conceptual elements, the following chapter will discuss the Russian higher education context. Considering that the current internationalisation trends can be better understood within a historical perspective, this chapter will provide an overview of the past and present developments in Russian higher education. More focus will be given to the recent higher education reforms and internationalisation. The chapter will conclude by introducing Siberia and the Russian Far East, as the focus of this study.

CHAPTER 3. The internationalisation of higher education in Russia

Internationalisation is promoting a dramatic reformation of the Russian university structure, one of the major – if not the most principal – changes in the history of Russian academia. (Kuraev, 2014, p. 26)

To analyse the internationalisation process in Russian universities, it is important to first discuss the context in which these institutions operate and develop their internationalisation strategies. This chapter provides an overview of the specific conditions leading to and accompanying international developments in Russian higher education. It begins by providing a brief overview of the historical transformation of higher education in Russia during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods moving on to an examination of some recent higher education modernisation reforms. The chapter then explores some State-led initiatives to internationalise Russian higher education, including an Academic Excellence Project or Project 5-100, and the regions where Russia has been proactively engaging in international higher education activities, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States7 (CIS) and Europe. Finally, the last section of the chapter draws attention to the main context of this study, Siberia and the Russian Far East.

3.1 Historical perspectives on Russian higher education

Higher Education in Russia emerged with the establishment of the Russian Academy of Science in 1724. According to some scholars, it was established to catch up with European achievements and in continuous competition for European royal superiority (Kuraev, 2014). Despite the fact that higher education was introduced to Russia by transferring the already existing European models, the higher education system quickly developed unique characteristics and became complex. The structure of the Russian Academy

7 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is a confederation of several former Soviet Republics established after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. CIS include Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Moldova, Russia (Georgia withdrew in 2008; Ukraine withdrew in 2018).

51 differed from its European equivalent, in that it included a university (Saint Petersburg University) and a gymnasium, which prepared students for university. The development of higher education in Russia in its early stages was complicated by the lack of local academics. Professors from Europe were invited to work in the Academy, but their recruitment was hindered by a lack of academic freedom and the very low status of academics in the society at that time8. Recruiting students was also problematic due to a poorly developed secondary education system and the popularity of a military career (Avrus, 2001). Thus, while the idea of a higher education establishment as a special education institution came to Russia from Europe, in particular Germany, it was adapted to and challenged by Russian realities.

Having emerged as a government initiative, appears to have set the stage for the future development of the whole Russian higher education sector, in that it has remained closely controlled by the State. When the Communist Party came to power in 1917 it was with a determination to transform the bourgeois educational system developed during the imperial rule into an open access education system based on Marxist-Leninist theories. The period from the Bolshevik Revolution until the dissolution of the Soviet Union is marked by active and radical education reforms and is, therefore, often described as ‘experimental’ (Nearing, 1926; Holmes, Read & Voskresenskaya, 1995). Higher education reforms in Russia continued after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and in the last two decades the Russian education sector ‘has undergone some of the most abrupt—and ambitious—attempted policy changes of any major system in the world’ (Johnson, 2015, p. 291).

This section provides an outline of some of the reforms that set a unique trajectory of higher education development in Soviet Russia and played a critical role in shaping the sector into its current form during the post-Soviet transition period. After providing some historical context, recent higher education reforms are discussed.

8 The academic profession was not specified in the table of ranks that existed in Imperial Russia.

3.1.1 Soviet higher education

Soviet higher education has been described as ‘one big experiment’ (Nearing , 1926) or a ‘grand project’ (Froumin & Povalko, 2014) conducted by the Communist Party. The change in the social system freed the government to create a new and unique system of education and research that operated to fulfil the economic and political goals of the new social order. With State support and massive public investment, Russian higher education underwent a rapid and impressive quantitative and institutional growth (Yelyutin, 1959). Some unique characteristics of the Soviet higher education system were its accessibility, its deep scientific level of instruction, and links to real life (Prokofiev, Chilikin, & Tulpanov, 1961). Other important characteristics of the Soviet higher education that left a long legacy included:

The separation of research and education, the State-ownership of all assets in the sphere of science and education, the over-centralized system of State planning, and the excessive standardization of teaching programs and methods. (Saltykov, 2008, p. 8)

The expansion of access to education was one of the major accomplishments of Soviet education. Free public education from primary school through to higher education was offered to everyone. High school graduates from working class families, as well as those living in remote areas, were encouraged to study and given priority admission to universities, as well as scholarships and places in student dormitories. Scientific knowledge was supposed to inform policy and be the essential foundation of a new social order (Holmes et al., 1995; Rabkin & Mirskaya, 2014). A combination of a high level of public spending on research and a cohort of elite scientists employed at research institutes and academies allowed the Soviet Union, and Russia in particular, to advance in such research and development areas as physics, chemistry, mathematics, earth science and space research (Watkins, 2003, p. 7).

The goal of the Soviet higher education system was to align the enrolment numbers for each specialisation with the needs of the economic sector (Carnoy et al., 2013). Many universities were restructured into polytechnics or institutes, which were affiliated with

53 specialised industrial ministries (e.g. medical institutes, institutes for railway engineers, agricultural institutes). The instruction at these institutions was linked to the industries and students were prepared so they could be employed in the field straight after their graduation.

Most higher education international activities in Soviet Russia were politicised and used as a tool to promote State ideology. After World War II the Soviet leadership started the process of the Sovietisation of the liberated countries of the Eastern Bloc and South-East Asia that became Soviet allies in the late 1940s. This process also included an academic dimension. Academic Sovietisation was met with resistance in European countries with long-existing and well-developed national academic systems. In the economically underdeveloped countries of South-East Asia where the level of literacy was low at that time, the same process was received with a generally positive disposition from the local population and, as noted by some scholars, was considered the ‘generous provision of the great and powerful Soviet Union’ (Kuraev, 2014, pp. 155–156).

During the Cold War political rationale was the main driver of international activities in higher education. Both, the Soviet Union and the United States, worked to attract international students from developing nations in order to reinforce their political influence in those countries. Scholarships were provided to the children of the political elite in certain developing countries as an attempt to gain their geo-political support (Healey, 2008). According to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, between 1950 and 1990, the number of international students in the Soviet Union increased more than 20 times and reached 126,500 students, making it the third largest number of inbound international students worldwide after the United States and France over this period9. The major reason for this growth of international students in the Soviet Union was the foundation of the People’s Friendship University in Moscow that provided education free of charge for students from developing countries. The United States also used its higher

9 Retrieved from http://www.russia.edu.ru/information/analit/1300/

54 education as a foreign policy strategy especially through the Fulbright Program and exchange partnerships between universities (Wit & Merkx, 2012).

The last decade of the Soviet Union, including the periods known as ‘perestroika’ (restructuring) 1986-1990 and ‘glasnost’ (openness) 1985-1991, is characterised by the political reforms of democratisation and decentralisation. These reforms included the structural reorganisation of the Russian higher education model so that it was in line with the move to state democratisation and the transition to a market economy. Bain (2003) pointed out several characteristics of Russian higher education that did not fit the new trajectory of State development. For example, the domination of engineering over other programs, necessary to accommodate the needs of the Soviet centrally-planned economy and rapid industrialisation, hindered the transition of universities, especially those whose industry weakened, to the realities of a market economy.

The separation of research from universities in the Academy of Sciences and the Industrial Research and Development Centers presented another challenge to post- Soviet higher education, where many universities had very limited research capacity. The high level of regulations from the centre, and a single source of higher education funding from the Federal Budget, were also a part of the centralised Soviet higher education system legacy. Furthermore, the existing centre-periphery disparities were reinforced by the disproportionate location of universities in central Russia in comparison with other regions (Bain, 2003).

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the beginning of a new stage in educational development in Russia. Despite some great achievements occurring in the time of Soviet higher education, the sector was not prepared to respond to the rapidly changing realities. The years of operating under close bureaucratic control and catering for a planned economy, where number of students and specialisations for higher education institutions was planned in accordance with the forecasted needs of certain industries (Froumin, Kouzminov, & Semyonov, 2014), resulted in the inability of most institutions to smoothly transition to a new market economy. Some of the strengths of Soviet higher education turned out to be its weaknesses in post-Soviet Russia (Gustafson,

1980; Johnson, 2008).

3.1.2 Higher education in post-Soviet Russia

The Russian higher education system underwent multiple reforms during the first decade of the post-Soviet period. Education reforms targeted the organisational structure of higher education, such as ‘diversification of types and levels of education; introduction of new forms of organization and funding of research; developing regional higher education systems’ (Bain, 2003, p. 8). The classification of higher education institutions introduced in 1993 included universities, academies and institutes. Many Soviet polytechnics and specialised institutes broadened their programmes to receive the status of a university10. However, national educational standards were introduced at the same period in order to unify the content of educational programs across higher education institutions (Karavayeva & Kovtun, 2013).

In the process of decentralisation, the state government granted more autonomy and responsibility for higher education to the regional authorities and individual higher education institutions. However, regional governments were reluctant to accept funding responsibility given their inability to fully support higher education institutions due to other priorities in public funding. Furthermore, their role in the decision-making with regard to higher education institutions was not clear or absent (Bain, 2003). Individual higher education institutions, on the other hand, sought to gain greater autonomy while maintaining the financial support from the academic ‘centre’ in Moscow (Bain, 2003).

The Law on Education adopted in 1992 lessened State control over education, so that higher education institutions could meet the needs of the regions in their transition to a market-driven economy. For example, in addition to the government regulated number of State-funded places higher education institutions were authorised to allocate a portion

10 As a result, Russian universities include universities that specialise in a particular field or related fields such as Universities for Humanities and Sciences; Pedagogical Universities (former Pedagogical Institutes); Medical Universities (former Medical Institutes); Agricultural Universities (former Agricultural Institutes); Technical Universities (former Polytechnic and Specialised Institutes).

56 of their places to fee-paying students. This allowed them to gain access to an additional source of income in a time when the budget for education was drastically cut. This happened as social demand for higher education in Russia peaked. In the context of higher education liberalisation, a reduction of funding and the growth in social demand for higher education, higher education institutions initiated rapid regional expansion. By the 2008/2009 academic year each higher education institution had on average of 1.5 branches (Nikolaev & Chugunov, 2012). The liberalisation of higher education also allowed for the emergence of private universities that had previously been banned by the government. Overall, the expansion in the number of higher education institutions between 1995 and 2007 resulted in a total growth in enrolment in public and private higher education institutions combined of 2.8 times (Carnoy et al, 2013).

By establishing regional branches, higher education institutions could increase their enrolments not only in response to the high public demand for higher education, but also as a source of additional income through fee-based placements in popular programs like management and law. Having lost the links with the State economy, higher education institutions sought to sustain themselves by accepting large numbers of fee-paying students in popular specialisations that had restricted access in the past, such as economics, management, law and humanities (Froumin et al., 2014). This created an imbalance between the supply of professionals from the education system and the demand of the labour market. Research shows that 75% of university graduates in Russia were employed outside of their fields of study (Galkin, 2005).

Underfunding and inflation affected the salaries of university staff and research infrastructure. The liberalisation of prices and the privatisation policies caused an increase in the cost of research and laboratory equipment that gradually became outdated. In addition to low salaries, academic jobs declined in prestige in comparison to the Soviet times. The government no longer needed science as an ideological support (Rabkin & Mirskaya, 2014). These conditions forced many talented professors and researchers to relocate to other countries, creating a large ‘brain drain’. It was estimated that nearly two-thirds of all researchers either migrated or left the academic profession

57 between the 1980s and 1990s (Ushkalov & Malakha, 2000). In addition to the brain drain, the ageing academic population and the recruitment of younger generation academics that was hindered by low salaries and prestige of academic profession presented another challenge for Russian higher education (Kuraev-Maxah, 2004; Smolentseva, 2007).

The unstable economic situation in post-Soviet Russia resulted in a declining birth rate. In 1992 death rates exceeded the birth rate level, a trend called the ‘Russian cross.’ The implications of this demographic trend are now being felt by Russian higher education, as there are fewer school graduates competing for higher education placements. The lowest expected number of high school graduates was anticipated in 2016, as the absolute minimum birth rate in Russia was recorded in 1999, (Druzhilov, 2013). Surprisingly, despite the shrinking student demography, the Russian higher education attainment level has continued to grow. According to an OECD (2013) review of education, 53% of the Russian population attained tertiary education in 2011, which was the largest percentage among the OECD and G20 countries. Rapid expansion of the number of higher education institutions and a decline in the numbers of high school graduates has led to higher education institutions lowering their academic entrance requirements in order to increase their enrolment rate, leading to a decline in the overall quality of higher education. As explained by Mau (2013), the Rector of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, the fact that college admissions exceed 100%, while realistically Russia could provide only about 30- 40% of school graduates with a high-quality education, shows a decline in the quality of higher education in Russia.

Overall, higher education in post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s could be characterised by contradictory transformations. While regional decentralisation and empowerment created a local environment for the higher education institutions where they could exercise more autonomy and control over the trajectory of their development, ‘the opportunities of a new environment for higher education institutions were clearly limited, and they varied from region to region’ (Bain, 2003, p. 86). While higher education institutions gained more autonomy, they were unable to quickly adjust to their new role

58 in a market economy (Johnson, 2008). The expansion of the number of higher education institutions, the lack of investment in the higher education infrastructure, the decline of the academic profession in post-Soviet Russia (Smolentseva, 2003), as well as the inability of the higher education sector to accommodate industry needs, resulted in an inevitable deterioration of higher education quality. The financial crisis in 1998 worsened the situation, moving the higher education sector into a period of stagnation.

3.1.3 Recent higher education reforms

In 2005, education was declared one of the National Priority Projects in Russia. In the Concept of Long-Term Socio-Economic Development of the Russian Federation until 2020, presented in 2007 by the Ministry for Economic Development, a long-term economic development model based on innovation and knowledge was outlined as more desirable than a model based on generating income from energy or raw materials. These announcements brought a new wave of reforms dedicated to the modernisation of the national higher education sector. A summary of the key recent higher education reforms is illustrated in Figure 3.3 and will be further discussed in the following sections.

Figure 3.1 Timeline of key higher education reforms in Russia, 1991–2015 Source: Platonova & Semyonov (2018)

The attention to higher education can be explained to some extent as stemming from the publication of the first international institutional rankings leading to the realisation by the Russian government that Russian universities were not as internationally competitive as had been perceived (Froumin & Povalko, 2014). As pointed out by some Russian scholars, the issue of competitiveness of Russian higher education, including the reasons behind its decline and the possibilities of further development, had become one of the most discussed topics in conferences and publications (Arzhanova, 2012).

A complex discussion has evolved in the Russian academic community around the issue of higher education modernisation. On the one hand, the legacy of Soviet higher education with ‘universal secondary education, free high-quality pre-school mass education; industry-oriented vocational education and differentiated higher education system’ (Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 47) is still highly regarded in Russia. Given the uncertainty of the modern world and the struggles of recent graduates to find employment in their field of study, it is not surprising that Soviet academic nostalgia still exists to a certain extent (Saltykov, 2008; Yudkevich, 2014). In this context, the modernisation of higher education is often perceived by some members of the Russian academic community as the implementation of Western models and standards and the relinquishing of the unique Russian tradition and system of education. The importance of the preservation of the national academic tradition is, therefore, often emphasised in discussions of the higher education modernisation process in Russia (Maslennikova, 2017; Starygina, 2017).

On the other hand, the Soviet higher education system was based on the economic and political order of that time and had failed in the new Russian socio-economic context creating many challenges for higher education institutions. It is argued that in the process of transition from an industrialised to a knowledge-based economy Soviet higher education would not be an asset or a resource that can help to achieve the set goals and improve the global competitiveness of Russian higher education institutions (Saltykov, 2008). Thus, the question of whether successful foreign practices are transplantable to the Russian higher education sector, given its specific institutional mechanisms design

60 and the diversity of the higher education institutions, remains unanswered (Yudkevich, 2014). Slobodchikov et al. (2018) argue that Russian education requires ‘a transformation of its entire essence’ not ‘a cosmetic ‘European-style’ renovation’ (2018, p. 442). These scholars believe that Russia should develop its own, unique and fundamentally new education system that incorporates traditions of Russian education including ‘the ascetic, brotherly, and communal education of medieval Russia; the classical education of the Russian Empire; and the fundamental education of the Soviet period’ (p. 460). However, the current developments in Russian higher education, such as institutional mergers and excellence projects, are not unique to Russia and have taken place in other countries (e.g. Australia, China, France).

The Russian modernisation strategy is ‘focused on the measures to consolidate and modernize existing higher education institutions’ (Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 49). The consolidation measures were undertaken through identifying underperforming universities and either merging or closing ‘as many as 20% of Russia’s 600 universities’ (ICEF Monitor, 2012). This government initiative once again divided the Russian academic community, as observed by Froumin and Kouzminov (2015): some experts believed that drastic action was long overdue, and purification of higher education system was essential for its future development. Other groups actively protested and accused the government of destroying a great Soviet legacy (p. 121). Despite much criticism of the methodology used to establish the indicators of effectiveness for universities and of institutional mergers in general within the Russian academic community, a recent study showed that universities that had been merged actually improved their performance indicators during the period 2010-2015 (Zinkovsky & Derkachev, 2018, p. 415).

In addition to the government reducing the total number of higher education institutions, it also took measures to increase the role of universities in research and innovation. A number of the most promising universities formed a group of Russian leading universities and received additional resources from the State government for their strategic development. As mentioned in the previous chapter, peripheral countries with limited resources are challenged to either support the quality of the entire higher education

61 system or concentrate their resources on a few selected higher education institutions (van der Wende, 2001). The Russian government identified a group of 41 leading universities and provided funding to support their strategic development with the aim of increasing their international competitiveness and to make them a quality benchmark for other higher education institutions in the country (Carnoy at al., 2013).

This group of leading Russian universities is presented in Table 3.1; it consists of two special status universities, 10 federal universities and 29 national research universities. It is important to note that the Soviet higher education system already had a group of high quality elite universities (technical and classical) that continued to train specialists at a very high level after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, while the rest of the Soviet higher education institutions (in particular provincial) provided a sufficient, but lower quality education (Saltykov, 2008, pp. 6–7). It was mainly the high quality elite universities that were selected as leading national universities by the state.

Table 3.1 The group of Russian leading universities11

Special Status Universities – 2 1. Lomonosov Moscow State University 2. Saint Petersburg State University National Research Universities – 29 1. National Research Nuclear University 2. National University of Science and Technology ‘MISIS’ 1st selection round 200912 3. Kazan State Technical University of A.N.Tupolev 4. Moscow Aviation Institution (state technical university) 5. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (state university) 6. Moscow State Technical University of N.E.Bauman 7. Nizhniy Novgorod State University of N.I.Lobachevsky 8. Novosibirsk State University 9. Perm State Technical University 10. Saint Petersburg State Mining Institute of G.V.Plekhanov (technical university)

11 The new typology of Russian universities also includes 33 flagship universities established between 2015 and 2017. The main objective of flagship universities is to become the regional science and innovation centres that attract talent and form regional elite. Flagship universities have an important role in the transformation of the urban and regional environment.

12 110 -> 12 The first contest selection of development programs for universities Aug 2009 (2009-2018).

11. Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics 12. Samara State Aerospace University of Academic S.P.Korolev 13. State University - Higher School of Economics 14. Tomsk Polytechnic University 2nd selection round 201013 15. Belgorod State University 16. Institution of the Russian Academy of sciences – Saint Petersburg Academic University - Scientific-Educational Centre of Nanotechnologies of the RAS 17. Irkutsk State Technical University 18. Kazan State Technological University 19. Mordovian State University of N.P.Ogarev 20. Moscow Power Engineering Institute (technical university) 21. Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology 22. Moscow State University of Civil Engineering (MGSU) 23. Perm State University 24. Russian State Medical University of the Federal Agency of Public Health and Social Development 25. Russian State University of Oil and Gas of I.M.Gubkin 26. Saint Petersburg State Polytechnic University 27. Saratov State University of N.G.Chernyshevsky 28. South Ural State University 29. Tomsk State University Federal Universities – 10 1. Far Eastern Federal University (2009) 2. Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (2010) 3. Kazan (Volga region) Federal University (2009) 4. North Caucasian Federal University (2011) 5. Northern (Arctic) Federal University (2009) 6. Northern-Eastern Federal University (2009) 7. Siberian Federal University (2006) 8. Southern Federal University (2006) 9. Ural Federal University (2009) 10. V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University (2015)

Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University are the oldest universities in Russia and are considered national treasures. These universities were granted special status by presidential decree and were allocated separate funding in the federal budget.

The establishment of new types of universities, such as the National Research and Federal

13 128 -> 32 -> 15 The second contest selection of development programs for universities Feb 2010.

University, was a step toward increasing the level of research activity in Russian universities. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the separation of universities from the research sector is often seen as one of the main institutional weaknesses of post-Soviet higher education. Previous attempts by the Russian government to shift these historically formed trends did not receive much support from either the Academy of Sciences and research institutes that favoured the Soviet system where they had monopoly on the research activities, or from universities that had already adjusted to the new realities (Froumin & Povalko, 2014). As noted by Johnsons (2015) the aim of the establishment of the national research universities ‘was to decisively overcome the Soviet-era separation between research and education’ and the goal of the federal university project ‘was to overcome the Soviet-era legacies of institutional hyperspecialization and bureaucratic parallelism’ (p. 305).

The status of a National Research University was granted to a selected 29 universities, including 18 technical universities and 11 state (classical) universities for a period of 10 years. This status was granted on a competitive basis to universities ‘that provide training for the priority areas of development of science, technology, technology, industries, social sphere, as well as developing and introducing high technologies into production’ (Decree 550, 10 February 2009).

Federal universities were established in each federal district of the country usually through the merging of several higher education institutions. As this move was initiated by the Russian Government rather than the universities themselves, such amalgamations of higher education institutions into federal universities are sometime described as involuntary (Romanenko & Lisyutkin, 2018, p. 66). The purpose of this optimisation of regional educational structures was to develop a new system of professional higher education that could strengthen the links between universities and the socioeconomic sphere of the federal districts. The mission of federal universities is ‘the formation and development of competitive human capital in federal districts by creating and implementing innovative education services and scientific researches’ (Nikolaev & Chugunov, 2012, p. 56). In 5-6 years after their establishment these universities were

64 supposed to become a part of top 10 leading Russian universities and by 2020 a part of top 100 best universities in the world.

Froumin and Povalko (2014) critique some elements of the policy for the establishment of the federal and national research universities. The scholars argue that the implementation of the projects was rushed and neither universities nor the government did a careful analysis of the external and internal contexts, one of the important steps in strategy development (see Section 2.1.2). Furthermore, the strategic development plans were designed for a period of 10 years not allowing much flexibility in the time required for the universities to make the necessary adjustments:

in line with the changing social, economic and technological development priorities in the regions and industries that would ensure they correspond to newly adopted programs and legislation in the fields of education and science, at both the national and sub-national levels (Froumin and Povalko, 2014, p. 60).

Froumin and Povalko (2014) also point out the lack of adequate funding and flexibility in how the allocated funds could be used by universities, as well as unrealistic timeframes to achieve the program goals. This open critical examination of the State initiatives is important as it provides a more realistic picture and points to the gaps that could be prevented in the future. The authors emphasise that transparency in institutional development, a focus on achieving specific results and the courage to make significant changes are especially important elements for the advancement of federal and national research universities.

3.2 Internationalisation of higher education in Russia

The importance of having a higher education system compatible with international standards and higher education institutions competitive in the global education arena for the well-being of the whole country is acknowledged by Russian leaders. Altbach (2014) argues that ‘governance and internationalisation— are both absolutely necessary if Russian higher education is to improve’ (p.7).

Internationalisation is not a new concept for Russia. With 126,500 foreign students in 1990 (Arefiev & Sheregi, 2014), the Soviet Union was the third most attractive study abroad destination hosting 11% of total mobile students. The majority of international students received a scholarship to study in Russia, as international education was serving political goals and used as a soft power. In Soviet Russia the government had centralised control over the international higher education agreements. It is not until the Education Act of 1992 that higher education institutions were granted permission to independently establish collaboration with foreign institutions and to charge foreign students tuition fees.

As such, many universities have only recently taken control over their own internationalisation. Despite being a positive development, this has introduced a range of new responsibilities to higher education institutions, which they have not been prepared to address given the lack of organisational structures, such as offices for international affairs, trained personnel and necessary funding (Kuraev, 2014, p. 208). In this context, higher education institutions have taken different approaches to how they engage in international activities. Three common approaches used by Russian universities to engage in international collaboration were identified in the OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education (Ministry of Education and Science and State University – Higher School of Economics, 2007): firstly, large and old higher education institutions use previously established relations to form new partnerships and models of cooperation; secondly, new institutions actively develop international cooperation, using the best foreign models and practices; finally, higher education institutions with no clear institutional policy of internationalisation are to a large degree passively led.

Although considerable progress has been achieved by the first two groups of universities motioned above, the level and quality of international engagement in many Russian universities have not been sufficiently developed. Various factors impeding the expansion of internationalisation in Russia were identified in the literature and summarised in the report Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education: the English language dimension by Frumina and West (2012) (see Table 3.2).

Table 3.2 Factors limiting internationalisation in Russian universities

Factors Lazarev Smolentseva Arefyev Telegina & (n.d.) (2004) (2010) Schwengel (2012) Geographical space & distance X - - x Bologna Process: alignment & X x - x recognition of Russian qualifications Quality assurance X x - x Infrastructure – classroom & X x x x living conditions Bureaucracy X - - x Visas & work permits X x x x Limited opportunities for - - x workplace practice in Russian companies and enterprises Educational management & X x x x marketing Government policy on X (x) x x international education Language (x) x - x

Source: Frumina & West (2012)

As can be seen in Table 3.2, the studies showed agreement on some common factors inhibiting internationalisation in Russian universities. Some of them are related to visas and work permits, in particular the work restrictions for international students in Russia and the high level of bureaucracy around skill migration visas for foreign academics wishing to work in Russia (Agranovich, 2010).

The lack of marketing skills and services necessary for the recruitment of international students and staff is also seen as an obstacle to internationalisation. As mentioned in the previous chapter, international profiling is especially important for the internationalisation of higher education institutions on the periphery. However, the improvement of the educational marketing of Russian universities requires the necessary training of staff and financial resources (Frumina & West 2012; Smolentseva, 2004). In addition, it is argued that the national government could provide more centralised support for international student recruitment, similar to those services provided by

German DAAD or EduFrance (Agranovich, 2010).

Without active competition at a national level, many universities have not developed the necessary skills to attract talent, which is reflected in ‘the absence of information on education in Russia for prospective students, the inability of most Russian universities to compete on the international market, and the lack of marketing skills’ (Smolentseva, 2004, p. 20). The growing competition at national and international levels, is now challenging universities not only to attract international students, but also recruit and retain local talent.

Another common barrier for internationalisation in Russian universities is a low level of foreign language knowledge. The findings of a recent empirical study conducted in Kazan National Research Technological University revealed, on the one hand, an overall positive attitude of students and staff to internationalisation but, on the other hand, low level self-directed development towards international education (Osipov & Ziyatdinova, 2017). This is especially evident in the low level of foreign language command. For example, while most of the students pointed out studying overseas as a key dimension of internationalisation, about 60% of 1004 students participating in the study considered their level of foreign language command as low and, while almost 90% aspired to improve their language skills, only a small proportion took the initiative to study a foreign language. Similarly, while academic staff aspired to be fluent in a foreign language, based on the survey results only about 14% were actually studying one (Osipov & Ziyatdinova, 2017).

Interestingly, geographical distance and space were not identified as major factors limiting internationalisation in Russian universities. According to Frumina and West (2012), the ‘size of the country could also be an advantage, enabling universities to recruit from and form regional partnerships with various neighbouring countries, reducing the risk of over-reliance on a few sources of students’ (p. 25). The authors of the report did mention, however, that during the in-depth visits to the six universities across Russia conducted as a part of their study, the challenges of geographic remoteness were brought up by staff at the Siberian Federal University. Geographic location was seen as

68 an obstacle to the international recruitment of staff and students, placing Siberian Federal University at a disadvantage in comparison to the universities in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. This will be further discussed in Chapter Six.

3.2.1 Project 5-100

In 2012 the Russian government launched an Academic Excellence Project, also known as Project 5-100. The goal of this initiative is to enable a group of leading Russian universities to enhance their global competitiveness and positions in the global research and education market, so that at least five of them reaches the first 100 in the international university rankings by 2020.

To select universities for Project 5-100 the Council on Competitiveness Enhancement of Leading Russian Universities among Global Research and Education Centers was established in 2013. The Council is comprised of Russian and international members, including university leaders and academic experts from China, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom and the United States. According to Altbach (2014), who was invited as one of the Council members, it is especially important for Russian higher education to engage foreign experts in the process of internationalisation, as they can provide an objective perspective. One of the obvious, but perhaps common, limitations of the Council, is a lack of gender balance with only one woman among 12 members of the Council.

Fifteen out of 54 universities were selected by the Council in 2013, and 14 of these universities have been already granted the status of federal or national research university. Universities had to develop a Programme for Promoting the Competitiveness, also called a ‘roadmap’, describing specific action plans and key performance metrics, to provide annual reports on the progress of the project and to publish other information, relevant to the implementation of the project. The implementation of the roadmaps is split into several stages: in the initial stage universities were supposed to build commitment from students, faculty and staff; during the second stage universities were to generate high capacity growth; and the final step focused on the improvement of rankings and university reputation (Alekseev, 2014). In addition to the roadmaps,

69 universities had to introduce supervisory boards into their governance system. The Council is supposed to regularly review the progress of the universities based on the proposed roadmaps and initially the universities that were not performing were supposed to be gradually expelled. However, in 2015 six more universities were added to the Project. A list of the universities participating in Project 5-100 is presented in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Universities selected for Project 5-100

2013 1. B.N. Yeltsin Urals Federal University 2. Far Eastern Federal University 3. Kazan (Volga) Federal University 4. Korolyov Samara State Aerospace University 5. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology 6. N.I. Lobachevsky Nizhni Novgorod State University 7. National Research and Technical University MISIS (Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys) 8. National Research Nuclear University MEPhI (Moscow Institute of Physics Engineers) 9. National Research University-Higher School of Economics 10. Novosibirsk State University 11. Saint Petersburg National Research University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics ITMO 12. Saint Petersburg State Electrotechnical University LETI 13. Saint Petersburg State Polytechnics University 14. Tomsk Polytechnics University 15. Tomsk State University 2015 16. Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University 17. Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia 18. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University 19. Siberian Federal University 20. South Ural State University 21. University of Tyumen

Such excellence initiatives for identifying and heavily financing certain universities to boost their international reputation are not unique to Russia. Similar strategies have been implemented in China, India, South Korea, Brazil, Japan, Germany, and other countries. For large education systems like Russia, it is difficult to support the entire higher

70 education system equally, therefore focusing on leading universities and merging smaller ones to create centres of research and excellence is often a viable alternative. These State initiatives, however, are often criticised by scholars in international education for their overall negative effect on higher education systems and their focus on rankings (e.g. Altbach & Hazelkorn, 2017). de Wit (2016) pointed that there is already a fierce competition among the leading universities at the top, but ‘emerging societies think they have no other solution than trying to get there too, despite the very high price and the very unlikely chance of success’ (n.p.).

University rankings are a new phenomenon in Russia. Even though the development of the first national university ranking system was initiated by the Russian Ministry of Education and Science in 2001, in light of the optimisation and modernisation of higher education in Russia rankings were only recently brought to the centre of attention. National university ranking systems allowed better public access to the information about universities. Given the rise of corruption, this exposure was necessary to shake up the status quo of the Russian higher education system. Altbach (2014) criticised Russia’s growing obsession with rankings and emphasised the inability of rankings to reflect all dimensions of the quality of education and research.

In addition to Project 5-100, efforts have been made to recruit more international students to study in Russian universities. In 2013 the Russian government increased the quota of State budgeted places for foreign students from 10 to 15 thousand, and in 2016 this number of scholarships for foreign students was increased to 20 thousand. In addition, the Global Education Program was launched in 2013 under the decree entitled Measures to develop the Human Resource Potential of the Russian Federation to provide financial support to Russian students to study in 288 leading universities across 32 different countries. The priority study areas include science, engineering, medicine, education and management in social sphere. Students are expected to return to Russia upon completion of their post-graduate degrees and to obtain employment for a period of at least three years. The Russian government also launched initiatives to reverse the brain drain and attract leading international scientists to Russian universities under the

71 decree on Measures to Attract Leading Scientists to Russian Educational Institutions. Grant proposals for the development of world-class laboratories at Russian universities and inviting leading international scholars to conduct research in priority scientific fields in these laboratories were accepted in 2010 and 2011 (Government of the Russian Federation, 2010). Seventy-nine winners, most of which were from the group of 39 leading universities, were identified by the Grants Council of the Government of the Russian Federation and received funding. According to Russian scholars, ‘this measure enabled not only the growth of research quality, but also stimulated openness of Russian universities to international knowledge circulation’ (Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 49).

3.2.2 Regional dimensions of higher education internationalisation

Russia, stretched across two continents, has an opportunity for multiple trajectories for regional integration of its higher education system. The historical relationships with countries that now constitute the Commonwealth of Independent States are important for Russia and have a major influence on the numbers and origin of international students in the country. The proximity of the Russian economic and political capital to Europe explains the government’s interest in adopting the European model of higher education development and integrating Russian higher education into the European Higher Education Area. However, as more than 60% of the Russian territory is located in Asia, a region experiencing rapid economic growth, the Russian government understands the importance of being involved with developments in Asia-Pacific higher education. The following section provides a brief overview of the international cooperation developments between Russia and the neighbouring regions.

European Higher Education Area

Russian interest to look West in search of the best models of higher education is unsurprising, given the idea of higher education itself was brought to Russia from Europe during imperial rule. The proximity of the Russian economic and political capital to Europe and the aspirations of State leaders for closer integration with the region explains the pursuit to integrate with the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Thus, it can be

72 argued that higher education regionalisation between Russia and the European Union (EU) was driven by a predominantly political approach (see Knight, 2013) which was expressed through the official joining EHEA and signing the Bologna Declaration on Higher Education in 2003.

Multiple rationales behind participating in the Bologna process can be identified. According to Tomusk (2006), the Bologna Process is being driven by interests of political groups and European economic agendas, rather than education. It is argued that, in some eastern countries, the implementation of Bologna is perceived as a mechanism to become EU members (Leisyte, 2009). While Russia perhaps was not trying to gain EU membership, the government appeared to pursue a closer collaboration with Europe through participation in the Bologna Process. As observed by Lukichev (2004):

This project, in the event that it succeeds, can serve as a source of experience for Europe-wide co-operation in other areas. This reveals another important meaning of our participation in the Bologna Process: Europe-wide educational space can become a bridge for further European integration (p. 18).

In a study on The Bologna Process and Its Implications in Russia Pursiainen and Medvedev (2005) suggest that such international trends as academic mobility, exchange and standardisation, emergence of the knowledge economy and the growing importance of ‘soft-power’ influenced the Russian decision to enter the ‘Europe of knowledge’. Others view the reason for Russia’s interest to join the Bologna process in the development of a pan-European cultural and social dialogue through such common heritage as European education (Telegina and Schwengel, 2012).

There have been many challenges in the translation of the European models, in particular a converging degree structure, into the Russian higher education sector. The establishment of a two-level bachelor-master degree program required splitting a commonly used specialist degree into a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree, as well as aligning the ‘candidate nauk’ (candidate of science) with the doctoral degree. There have been attempts to introduce a two-level degree structure system in Russia in the Law on Education (1992), but ‘persistent rejection of the first cycle of this education by

73 employers has hampered its introduction’ (Below, 2005, p. 48). Despite the fact that two- cycle bachelor-master degree programs were officially recognised in 2007, in the 2007/08 academic year the enrolment in these programs were only 9.4% of all students (RFNR, 2008). The absence of EU membership limits Russia’s participation in programs such as Erasmus and Socrates that are designed only for EU countries. Bilateral agreements with third countries are not considered to be a priority for the EU and, as a result, are usually underfunded.

It is not clear whether the Bologna system, designed to meet the needs of European higher education institutions, can be effective in those in post-communist countries challenged by the ‘autocratic and centralized management, ineffective bureaucratic practices, and massive corruption’ (Ohanyan, 2011, p. 2). Consensus about the value of the Bologna process for Russian higher education was never achieved in the Russian academic community. Some consider Russia to be a European country and find it necessary to engage with Europe in the process of developing its higher education system (Gladkov, 2005). Others are concerned with the risk of westernisation and the necessity for preservation of the unique Russian academic tradition (Sadovnichii, 2004). The national academic community also raised concerns of a possible brain drain. It is argued that the Bologna Process facilitates the outflow of the qualified personnel from Russia and, therefore, weakens the country’s intellectual elite (Slobodchikov et al., 2018, p. 447). Despite the concerns and criticism of joining the Bologna Process, the decision was made by the State government and the implementation of Bologna in Russia took a top-down political approach.

The Commonwealth of Independent States

Cooperation with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is recognised as a priority in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation (2013) and education is an important part of this. Thus, despite the fact that Russia seeks greater international recognition in the European higher education space, the CIS is one of the most important regions for internationalisation of Russian higher education (Smolentseva, 2007). The term ‘near abroad’ is often used to describe the

Commonwealth of Independent States. Since the early 1990s, citizens of the CIS, in particular Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine, continue to represent the overwhelming majority of international students in Russia. This can be explained by the fact that a large proportion of the population in these countries speaks Russian. According to 2014 data, in Belarus where Russian is the second official language, 97% of population speak it; in Moldova, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and also Georgia, which is no longer a member of the CIS, 70% of the population speak Russian. In addition, about 80% of the population of the Baltic States and Ukraine speak Russian (Tishkov, 2008). This trend of international student flows, however, is not unique to Russia. Higher education institutions in France, for example, receive most of their international students from francophone countries in Africa, such as Alger or Senegal (Hugo, 2009).

However, the advantage of a common language is often hindered by the negative aspects of shared history. Even though the Russian language still maintains a strong presence in the ‘near abroad’, its status is slowly decreasing partly due to the mass-scale closure of Russian schools followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union and also because of the negative association of the language with Soviet oppression. In order to stop its elimination from the sphere of education in the CIS, the Russian government launched the Federal Target Program Russian Language for the period of 2011-2015 and 2016- 2020 with the aim of supporting and promoting Russian language in the CIS.

Many Russian universities are involved in cooperation with the ‘near abroad’ countries through various university organisations. In 1989 Moscow State Lomonosov University, supported by 20 major universities from the CIS, initiated the establishment of the Universities Association of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). In 1992 the Association was reorganised into the Eurasian Association of Universities (EAU). EAU has a long history and includes more than 100 participating universities sharing the outcomes of their cooperation. Some issues addressed by the Association include development of cooperation among the universities, preservation of common educational space and ensuring the equivalence of university degrees among CIS, (The Eurasian Universities Association, n.d.). There are also more recent cooperation initiatives with the CIS. For

75 example, following the European initiatives of academic integration, the Russian Peoples' Friendship University developed a program similar to the Erasmus Mundus within the educational space of the CIS member states. The CIS Network Open University was established in 2009 to improve the quality of higher education and strengthen academic cooperation between the CIS. The Open University offers joint master's degree programs and joint research at the PhD level.

Overall, Russian universities remain most closely engaged with CIS member states due to common cultural and educational tradition, as well as geographical proximity. Russian State policy on higher education internationalisation has a special focus on cooperation with the country’s closest neighbours as it allows to project ‘soft power’ and support economic and political integration processes with the CIS member states. In recent years there has been some progress in the sphere of economic cooperation among the CIS, for example, the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union14 in 2015. Some scholars argue that this may lead to greater cooperation between higher education institutions in the member-states and potential regionalisation of higher education (Yepes, 2006).

3.3 Siberia and the Russian Far East

For the purpose of this study Siberia and the Russian Far East are described as the Siberian Federal District (SFD) and the Far Eastern Federal Districts (FEFD). Federal districts are not the constituent regions of Russia, they were created by Presidential Decree in 2000 to enhance the governance by federal government agencies. There are eight federal districts15 in Russia and each of them includes several federal subjects16.

14 The member states of the Eurasian Economic Union include the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation.

15 Russian federal districts: Northwest, Central, Volga, South, North Caucasus, Ural, Siberia and Far East.

16 The administrative-territorial structures of the Russian Federation include 6 types of federal subjects: 22 republics, 9 krais, 46 oblasts, 3 federal cities, 1 autonomous oblast, and 4 autonomous okrugs.

Siberia and the Far East are the two most Eastern federal districts of Russia. Occupying more than 60% of the country’s landmass, they host less than 20% of Russia’s total population. A brief overview of Siberian and Far Eastern Federal Districts is provided in Table 3.4 and Table 3.5. Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2 show the locations of the Federal Districts and their top 10 largest cities according to the 2010 Census.

Table 3.4 Brief overview of the Siberian Federal District

Siberian Federal District (SFD) Area 5,145,000 km2 30% of the total land area of Russia Population (as of January 2018) 19,287,500 13,13% of the Russian total Federal subjects 12

Administrative centre Novosibirsk aprox. 2,800km from Moscow Number of universities 96 69 public and 27 private

Figure 3.2 The largest cities of Siberia Source: Karaganov et al (2012)

Universities in this study are located in the following cities: Irkutsk (Irkutsk State Technical University), Krasnoyarsk (Siberian Federal University), Novosibirsk (Novosibirsk State University) and Tomsk (Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University).

Table 3.5 Brief overview of the Far Eastern Federal District

Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD) Area 6,215,900 km2 36,4% of the total land area of Russia Population (as of January 2018) 6,293,100 4,9% of the Russian total Federal subjects 9

Administrative centre Vladivostok aprox. 6,400km from Moscow Number of universities 35 29 public and 6 private

Figure 3.3 The largest cities of the Far East Source: Karaganov et al (2012)

Universities in this study are located in Vladivostok (Far Eastern Federal University) and Yakutsk (North-Eastern Federal University). Yakutsk is not shown on Figure 3.2 as it is located outside of the presented area of the Far Eastern Federal District. The population of Yakutsk in 2010 was approximately 270,000 people making it the third largest city in the Far Eastern Federal District.

The Russian government often capitalised on these regions’ various natural resources such as, for example, coal, natural gas, and drinking water in Siberia (Strategy of Socio- economic Development of Siberia through 2020, 2010) and diamonds, copper and other metals in the Far East (Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the Far East and the Baikal Region until 2025, 2009). Natural resources made these regions valuable for Russia. However, due to the nature of economic development, largely based on the extraction of natural resources, Siberia and the Far East are perceived by the Russian political elite mainly as a resource base and the regions are often used as Russia’s economic colony (Zhdanov, 1995). Thus, despite the abundance of various natural resources, Siberia and the Far East depend on federal subsidies from the Russian government, lag behind in terms of economic development, transport system and social infrastructure (Karaganov & Bordachev, 2018).

Russia is a capital-centric country with its political and economic centre located in Moscow. A strong legacy of a ‘capital cities centrism’ explained by Latova and Latov (2013, p. 62) as ‘the hypertrophied concentration of social advantages in the capital city regions’ creates strong centre-periphery relationships between Moscow, as well as Saint Petersburg, and the other regions in Russia. In this context, regions located away from the centre, like Siberia and the Far East, are often regarded as peripheral. The centre- periphery imbalance affects regions in different ways. For example, it encourages an internal inter-regional migration flow from the eastern territories to the European part of Russia, a phenomenon often referred to as ‘Western drift’17. The big city environment,

17 ‘‘Western drift’ – population movement from the east of the country to the centre, Volga region and the south, which reflects Far East residents’ desire to resettle in the European part of the country – is the main

79 with better work and educational opportunities, makes Moscow very attractive and, for many Russians and residents of former Soviet countries, ‘migration to the capital presents an alternative to moving abroad, because Moscow serves the role of “domestic abroad”’ (Zaionchkovskaya, Mkrtchian, & Tyuryukanova, 2014, p. 234). While Siberia can to some extent compensate for this inter-regional migration to the West of the country by way of arrivals from the Far East and some former Soviet countries that are part of the Commonwealth of Independent States, due to its location in the geographic centre of the country and several relatively large urban areas (see Table 3.4), its population is also slowly declining.

Interestingly, Siberia and the Far East are sometimes compared with Australia. Similarly to Siberia and the Far East, Australia has legacy as a place of exile (Andrews, 2015). In addition to having similar sizes and populations, both territories are geographically remote and sparsely populated. Both possess vast natural resources. Despite these similarities Australia has been able to achieve more progress in a shorter period of time, as Dibb (2014) notes, ‘Australia’s more favorable climate and attitudes to foreign investment have allowed it to support almost 25 million people and develop the world’s 12th largest economy with one of the world’s highest standards of living’ (n.p.). However, it is not only the severe climate and lack of foreign investment that hinder the development of Siberia and the Far East. The underdevelopment of the regions is also linked to persistent Soviet perception of ‘the Far East as an outpost, and Siberia as a home front’ (Barabanov & Bordachev, 2012, p. 12) and the overall Russian Eurocentrism. As truthfully noted by Karaganov and Bordachev, ‘the country that looks to the West may only see Siberia and the Far East with the back of its head’ (2018, p. 11). Some experts express aspirations that in the next twenty years there is a possibility that the government will ‘stop viewing the eastern regions of the country as a colonial appendage of the

vector of interregional migration during the post-Soviet period’ (Zaionchkovskaya, Mkrtchian, & Tyuryukanova, 2014, p.232).

European centre and will focus on developing this space as an intellectual, ecologically clean and high-tech economic system’ (Larin, 2017, n.p.).

While Siberia and the Far East are often seen as ‘the quintessence of Russia’s Eurasian status and a natural bridge between Europe and Asia’ (Vodichev & Lamin, 2008, p. 127), the advantage of this strategically valuable geographic position has not yet been developed to its full capacity. One of the main obstacles to the weak Russian presence in the East lies in the underdevelopment of Russian Siberia and the Far East (Karaganov, Barabanov, & Bordachev, 2012). The rise of the East and Russia’s growing interest in engaging with Asia and the Asia-Pacific have brought regional development in Siberia and the Far East to the national agenda. In his annual Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly in 2013, Putin announced the development of Siberia and the Far East as a national priority for the entire 21st century (Putin, 2013). Russia’s regional priorities outlined in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation included:

Strengthening Russia's presence in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) is becoming increasingly important since Russia is an integral part of this fastest- developing geopolitical zone, toward which the center of world economy and politics is gradually shifting. Russia is interested in participating actively in APR integration processes, using the possibilities offered by the APR to implement programs meant to boost Siberian and Far Eastern economy, creating a transparent and equitable security architecture in the APR and cooperation on a collective basis. (Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, 2013, n.p.)

This reorientation of foreign policy towards greater cooperation with countries in the Asia-Pacific region may also initiate a reassessment of the historically formed perceptions of the importance and value of Siberia and the Far East for Russia.

3.3.1 Russia’s turn to the East

The shift in focus from the conventional Western oriented foreign policy model to more engagement with the East and investment in the development of Siberia and the Far East can potentially open up some opportunities for leading universities in Siberia and the Far East. As mentioned in the previous chapter, regional cooperation initiated around

81 economic development can create cross-sectoral ‘spill-over’ to other areas (Beerkens, 2004) and, therefore, has the potential to increase collaboration within the education sector. Two lines of inquiry in relation to influences between the region and higher education are proposed by Knight (2012) and are of particular interest in this context: the impact of regionalism on higher education and higher education as an instrument for regional integration.

On the one hand, Russia’s turn towards Asia generates growth in a number of various joint projects in areas such as agriculture, processing of fossil fuel, fish farming, waste management and energy usage (Karaganov, 2014). These joint projects will require the training of highly skilled specialists, which may potentially increase collaboration between universities within the region. Russia already hosts large numbers of international students from Asia. Among the countries sending more than a thousand students to study in Russia each year are China, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Mongolia and Myanmar. Some Asian countries, such as China and Vietnam, similarly to Russia had followed the Soviet higher education system model in the past. Surprisingly, Russian engagement with the Asia-Pacific region in the sphere of higher education is rather limited. As Sumsky, Koldunova and Kanaev note: ‘with its tangible experience in international cooperation with European and US universities, Russia is only insignificantly involved into direct scientific and educational cooperation with the APR and APEC members’ (2012, p. 22). Thus, more focus on Asia from the Russian government can positively impact higher education collaboration within the region.

On the other hand, higher education can also be used as an instrument for regional integration. During the Russian APEC presidency in 2012 the agenda of the 20th annual summit, held on the new campus of the Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, was for the first time broadened to include higher education and the APEC Economic Leaders' Declaration included a section on strengthening cross-border education collaboration cooperation, which highlights an interest in adopting higher education integration schemes across the region (Ziguras, 2014). Such terms as ‘cooperation,’ ‘collaboration’ and ‘network’ used in the Annex D of the APEC Economic Leaders'

Declaration illustrate ‘an open, voluntary and perhaps informal type of relationship among actors’ (Knight, p. 116).

While Russia’s ‘turn to the East’ highlights the growing importance of Asia to Russian diplomacy and a shift in Russia’s international policy, some scholars argue the country remains mainly Western-centric in its mentality (Lo, 2014). As noted by Huasheng (2016) ‘in implementation, Russian diplomacy did not actually turn to the East; again, its core was still in Europe and the West, with Asia remaining secondary’ (2014, p. 107). Some Russian scholars argue for a need to invest in the development of Siberia and to formulate a long-term comprehensive strategy that will enable Russia to become a more active participant of the integration within the regions and jump on the so called ‘Asian economic locomotive’ and to modernise its economy (Karaganov, Barabanov, & Bordachev, 2012). Otherwise, the ‘turn to the East’ may risk remaining a declarative state policy. In 2017 the Russian president reinstated the development of Siberia and the Far East as a national priority of the 21st century for Russia. He noted that special attention needs to be paid to:

…integrating Russia’s Siberian and Far Eastern territories into the network of APR economic ties. These efforts include a whole range of measures to enhance the investment appeal of our regions, and to integrate Russian enterprises into international production chains. For Russia, the development of our Far East is a national priority for the 21st century. We are talking about creating territories of advanced economic growth in that region, pursuing large-scale development of natural resources, and supporting advanced high- tech industries as well as investing in human capital, education, and healthcare, and forming competitive research centres. (Putin, 2017, n.p.)

Although education and research in this statement appear to be secondary to the development of natural resources in the region, it is important that they are included in the agenda of the national government. Given the potential of leading universities in Siberia and the Far East to contribute to regional development and enhance the engagement of Russia in Asia through the sphere of education, it is important to gain a better understanding of the factors influencing the higher education internationalisation process in these universities.

3.3.2 Leading universities in Siberia and the Far East

Seven universities in Siberia and the Far East were identified by the Russian government as the leading universities in these regions. This group includes two of the oldest universities in Siberia: Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University. Higher education reached the regions to the east of Ural Mountains more than 150 years after the Russian Academy of Sciences was established in Saint Petersburg. The first university, opened during the imperial rule in 1888, was Tomsk State University. As the Trans- Siberian Railway hadn’t yet reached Siberia, the books for the university’s library donated by a European Russian nobleman, were transported on sleds. Twelve years later the first and for a long time the only technical institute in the Asian part of Russia was opened in the same city. Tomsk Polytechnic Institute was granted the status of a university in 1991. The internationally renowned Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev was directly involved in the organisation of both universities. Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University are included in the list of Particularly Valuable Objects of the Cultural Heritage of the Peoples of the Russian Federation due to this history.

Novosibirsk State University was established as a part of the largest Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The university is based in Akademgorodok, which means ‘city of science’ or ‘academy town’. The construction of Akademgorodok began in 1958 just outside of Novosibirsk, the third largest city in Russia. Initially envisioned as a defence project strategically located in the middle of the country, the national government was convinced by Akademgorodok’s founders to prioritise non-military research (Kupershtokh & Apolonskiy, 2014). Away from the capital and the strict control of the communist party Novosibirsk Akademgorodok became a place of uniquely Siberian science, Siberian in terms of personnel, research approaches and consciousness, as described by Josephson (1997).

In addition to the three universities described above, the other leading universities in Siberia include the Siberian Federal University and Irkutsk State Technical University. Irkutsk State Technical University was founded in 1930 when Irkutsk became a centre of the Siberian gold industry. The Siberian Federal University, the youngest university in this

84 group, was established through the amalgamation of four universities in 2006 and one additional institution in 2012 with the purpose of optimising regional educational structures. As the other Russian federal universities, the aim of Siberian Federal University is to strengthen the link between university and the economic and social sphere of the region.

The North-Eastern Federal University and Far Eastern Federal University are the two federal universities established in the Russian Far East. Despite being located in the same federal district, these universities are very different. North-Eastern Federal University was established on the basis of M. K. Ammosov Yakutsk State University to become a:

strategic center for the formation of a common cultural, scientific and educational space, based on the values of indigenous culture of the peoples of the northeast of Russia, providing quality personal education in a multiethnic environment. (North-Eastern Federal University, n.d.)

The focus on indigenous culture is underpinned by the location of the university in Yakutsk, the capital of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), which is a home to many minority groups indigenous to the North, such as Evens, Evenks, Chukchis and Yukaghirs.

Although the Far Eastern Federal University was established by merging four universities in the Far East in 2010, its history can be traced to the opening of the Oriental Institute in Vladivostok in 1899. One of main features of the university is its new campus on the Russkiy Island that was officially opened on the last day of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in 2012.

The universities described above were identified by the Russian government as the most promising universities in Siberia and the Far East. In addition, five of these seven universities are also participating in the Project 5-100, discussed earlier in this Chapter. Based on the 2018 QS BRICS University Rankings, Tomsk State University, Tomsk Polytechnic University and Novosibirsk State University are in the top 10 universities in Russia along with six universities located in Moscow and one in Saint Petersburg. Despite the prestige of these universities in the region and top position in rankings on a national level, they are yet to gain international recognition.

The peripheral location challenges the pursuit of internationalisation in Siberian and Far Eastern universities. As Bain (2003) points out, ‘Russia appears to be an extreme case of inherited-from-the-past center-periphery tensions’ (p. 17) that is reflected in the asymmetrical federalism of the Russian Federation. This fosters many tense relationships between Moscow and the other regions, including policy issues in the higher education domain. Continuous reforms of higher education under the pressure of the changing social, political and economic landscape in the country often have even greater influence on regional universities, such as those in Siberia and the Russian Far East.

3.4 Summary

This chapter has provided an overview of the historical developments and recent transformation in Russian higher education. An overview of broad context of Russian higher education highlights that, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, universities have been operating under two decades of continuing education reforms. Recent ambitious goals of the Russian government to revive former prestige of the national higher education brought another wave of reforms to integrate a group of most promising universities into the global academic space and improve their positions in the international institutional rankings.

This chapter also underlines the issues of the inter-regional disparities and centre- periphery relations within Russia. By reviewing the status of Siberia and the Far East this chapter points to the complexities of regional factors and the local realities that influence how state uniform education policy and state reform initiatives play out in the universities in this region. The literature on the internationalisation of higher education in Russian reveals limited attention to the region-specific factors influencing internationalisation in universities across the country and universities are often presented as a homogenous group. Therefore, this study was designed to shed light on the factors influencing the internationalisation process in universities in Siberia and the Far East.

CHAPTER 4. Methodology

The preceding chapters have provided an overview of the conceptual framework and the context for this study. This chapter lays out the general research strategy employed in this study and explains the rationale for the selected research design. The chapter begins by explaining why the proposed methodological framework is best suited to address the research aim and answer the core research question. It then describes the methods of data collection and analysis supporting this investigation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the trustworthiness and limitations of the study.

4.1 Research aim and question

The review of literature on higher education internationalisation highlighted the uneven nature of the global academe that shapes the internationalisation process in universities across the world. It was argued that there is little understanding of internationalisation in emerging economies where internationalisation has recently moved to the forefront. This study aims to address the existing knowledge gap by investigating the factors influencing internationalisation in regional universities in the Eastern part of Russia, more specifically Siberia and the Far East. To do this, the study explores the drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process perceived by administrative leaders directly engaged in institutional international activities in Siberian and the Far Eastern universities. Given that there is little known about the internationalisation process in this region, the core research question posed in this study is open-ended and exploratory in nature:

What are the factors influencing the internationalisation process in Russian regional universities in Siberia and the Far East?

To examine the principal research question in more detail, four subsidiary questions are explored. To gain a better understanding of the context in which universities under investigation function, the study asks:

How is internationalisation articulated in institutions’ policy documents, namely mission statements and strategic development plans of leading Russian universities?

The study also explores the following sub-questions:

What are the motives of leading universities in Siberia and the Far East to internationalise?

What are the challenges of internationalisation for these leading universities?

What conditions are needed to advance internationalisation in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East?

4.2 Methodological framework

Given the open ended and exploratory nature of the research question a qualitative approach was chosen for this study. Qualitative research approach is an empirical and exploratory approach (Creswell 2009) that seeks to understand ‘the process by which phenomena take place’ (Maxwell, 1996, p. 59). It focuses on descriptive, interpretative, verification, and evaluative types of analysis (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). Many aspects of internationalisation process are qualitative in nature and require careful interpretation, rather than simple quantification (Krause, Coates, & James, 2005). Qualitative methods of data analysis meet the purpose of the study to gain an insight into the current state of internationalisation in selected universities. In addition, qualitative research methods are appropriate for this study as they allow for a deeper understanding of the perspectives of administrative leaders about the rationales and challenges of internationalisation in their universities.

The research design of this study is underpinned by its positioning in the interpretive research paradigm. This research paradigm is based on the assumption that ‘people create and associate their own subjective and intersubjective meanings as they interact with the world around them’ (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991, p. 5). The role of the researcher is to construct the knowledge through investigations of multiple individual meanings or views of reality, that are typically ‘formed through interaction with others and through historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives’ (Creswell, 2013, p. 25).

The interpretive research is inductive and idiographic, in a sense that it provides a detailed description and ‘symbolic representation’ of the phenomenon (Neuman, 2006, p. 91). It seeks to gain a better understanding of the phenomenon through the perspective of the participants and within it specific cultural and contextual setting (Creswell, 2009). An interpretative research approach, therefore, fits the aim of this study to explore factors influencing internationalisation in Russian regional universities from the perspectives of the administrative leaders working in these universities.

Adaptive Theory was also chosen as a methodological approach for this study. According to Layder (1998), Adaptive Theory ‘is an organic entity which is constantly developing and reformulating itself as a result of the interchange and dialogue between emergent (data- embedded) theory and prior theory (models, concepts, frameworks)’ (p. 156). As discussed in Chapter Two, most conceptual frameworks available in the literature present the perspectives of scholars from developed Anglophone countries and therefore often fail to recognise the specific context of transitioning economies like Russia. An Adaptive Theory approach enables a conceptual framework to be continuously developed and elaborated on in conjunction with the collection and analysis of data (Layder, 2013).

Applying an Adaptive Theory approach to the processes for empirical data collection and analysis, allows the different phases of research to merge into one another if that is required by the evolving circumstances of the study (Layder, 2013). Thus, the literature review guided the document analysis of the institutional public statements, such as strategic development plans and mission statements. Findings from the document analysis helped to formulate the interview questions and informed the analysis of interviews. This adaptive response to the changes in the research process creates a dynamic synergy among the research strategies, while also providing ‘a systematic alternative to the approaches it draws upon’ (Layder, 1998, p. 147).

4.3 Overall research design

This qualitative examination aimed to explore the factors influencing internationalisation in Russian regional universities and was conducted in two phases. The research process

89 and analysis of this study was guided by the core research question and research sub- questions. Table 4.1 outlines the overall research design employed in this study including the methods of data collection and analysis.

Table 4.1 Research design overview

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 To examine whether universities To reveal the motives and identify their commitment to the challenges of internationalising Aim internationalisation process. And if universities in Siberia and the so, what dimensions are prioritised. Russian Far East. Document analysis of institutional Face-to-face semi-structured Method strategic plans, mission statements, interviews. and web-pages. 39 leading Russian universities Administrative leaders from all identified by the Russian seven leading universities located in Sample government. Siberia and the Russian Far East engaged in international activities at the university. Coding and thematic analysis. Transcription, translation and Broad coding was derived from the thematic coding. literature on internationalisation of Analysis higher education; further coding was formulated during the exploration of the documents.

To provide the understanding of the phenomenon, qualitative research makes use of rich and contextual data (Mason, 2002). The data for this study were collected over two phases using two complementary methods: document analysis and semi-structured interviews. In the first phase, websites and publicly available institutional documents and statements, including mission statements and strategic development plans, were examined. The aim was to gain a broad understanding of internationalisation of higher education across Russia at the institutional level. In the second phase, semi-structured interviews with a range of administrative leaders engaged in various international dimensions in Siberian and the Far Eastern universities were conducted with the aim of eliciting the information about their understanding of the internationalisation and their perceptions of drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process in their institutions.

Using more than one data gathering technique helped to gain a fuller picture and more in depth understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The data from one source complemented the findings from another sources, allowing the findings to be analysed from different angles (Denscombe, 2010; Neuman, 2006, Lacey & Luff, 2001). It also allowed for crosschecking of the findings assisting in strengthening their overall trustworthiness. Further details of each phase of data collection are provided in the following sections.

4.4 Selection of participants and research sites

In line with an interpretive paradigm, research sites were purposefully selected based on their specific characteristics making them suited for the study. The study focused on all seven leading universities identified by the government located in Siberia and the Far East. As noted in the Introduction, for the purpose of this research, Siberia and the Russian Far East describe Siberian Federal District (SFD) and the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD). Universities in this study included one Federal and four National Research Universities in Siberian Federal District and two Federal Universities in the Far Eastern Federal District (see Table 4.2). Figure 4.1 shows the map of Russian federal districts and indicates the locations of the leading universities identified by the government in Siberian and the Far Eastern federal districts.

Table 4.2 Leading Russian universities in Siberian and the Far Eastern federal districts

Federal university National research university SFD Siberian Federal University (SibFU) Tomsk State University (TSU) Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU) Irkutsk State Technical University (ISTU) Novosibirsk State University (NSU)

FEFD Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU) North-Eastern Federal University (NEFU)

Figure. 4.1 Location of the leading Russian universities in Siberia and the Far East

The selection of the universities as a setting for this study was based on two main factors. First, as the focus of the study was on the Eastern territories of Russia, the geographic location was one of the factors for selection of the universities. Second, seven selected universities are the only leading universities located in Siberia and the Russian Far East. As discussed in previous chapter, 39 universities were identified by the Russian government as leading national universities. By investing in the development of key universities the State’s goal is to increase their international competitiveness and to make them a quality benchmark for other universities in Russia (Carnoy at al., 2013). Therefore, these universities are now actively trying to integrate in the global higher education space and internationalise. A brief summary of the institutional profiles presented in the Table 4.3 shows that seven universities selected for this study present a diverse group with regards to the institutional history, student number and composition, as well as the breadth of offered specialisations.

Table 4.3 University profiles18

Year of Total International Faculties/ foundation students students Departments Tomsk State 1878 16000 2 179 21/151 University Tomsk Polytechnic 1896 18196 3 725 10/77 University Far Eastern Federal 189919 23000 3 100 9/124 University Irkutsk State 1930 12938 751 9 Technical University20 North-Eastern 195622 18000 190 19 Federal University21 Novosibirsk State 1959 7200 1200 9/112 University Siberian Federal 2006 33046 481 19/182 University

Given that research within the interpretive research paradigm is context specific, the selection of participants was based on purposive sampling from the selected research sites (Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2003). Participants were selected based on the requirements of ‘good informants’ (Spradley, 1979), such as the experience or knowledge about the internationalisation process in their institution, willingness to participate in the interviews, and the ability to reflect on the topic. The participants invited to participate in the interviews included university administrative staff who were responsible for or

18 University profiles are mainly based on the information retrieved from the StudyInRussia (http://studyinrussia.ru), a website designed to attract foreigners to Russian universities and provide the information about studying in Russia’s best higher education institutions.

19 Far Eastern Federal University was established in 2008 through amalgamation of four leading universities in the Far East (Far Eastern State Technical University (FESTU), Pacific State Economic University (PSUE) and Ussuriysk State Pedagogical Institute (USPI) on the basis of the Far Eastern National University (established in 1899 as the Eastern Institute).

20 Information retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/irkutsk-state-technical- university

21 Information retrieved from https://www.s-vfu.ru/en/university/ff/

22 North-Eastern Federal University was established in 2010 on the basis of M. K. Ammosov Yakutsk State University (1956).

93 involved in institutional international activities within their work responsibilities. Due to the lack of the existing contacts at the universities selected for this study, the list of potential interviewees was initially produced from the analysis of the institutional websites.

After receiving ethics approval from the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, the Vice-Rectors International and Directors/Heads of International Office were invited to participate in an interview (refer to appendices 1 to 3 for Plain Language Statement, Interview Question, and Consent form). Further interview participants were then identified using the snowball sampling technique. The interviewed senior administrative leaders were asked to permit and recommend other relevant staff to be interviewed for this study. However, the snowball sampling technique was not successful in all universities. For example, the Head of International Department in one university advised not to interview the rest of the staff as, according to the interviewee, they were not well- placed to provide a broad picture of the institutional internationalisation process. In several other cases, less senior administrators were not comfortable to participate in the interview and share their perspectives on the internationalisation process in their universities. Given the constraints related to the recruitment of participants, only 17 administrators were interviewed in this study.

In a qualitative study, however, the richness of the obtained data is more important than the overall sample size. The total number of 17 interviews conducted in this study falls within standard range of 5 to 25 interviews required for the qualitative study (Kvale, 1996). Overall, interview participants provided frank responses, often elaborated on the questions, showing their critical reflection on the process of internationalisation in their institutions.

Interview participants in this study included staff members occupying the following positions:

. Head/Director of the Department for International Cooperation / International Office (5 interview participants); . Vice-Rector for International Cooperation / International Affairs (3 interview participants); . Deputy vice-rectors for international cooperation (2 interview participants); . Coordinator of Exchange Programs (1 interview participant); . Deputy Dean for Master's Degree Studies (1 interview participant); . Director of International Recruitment Centre (1 interview participant); . Foreign Student Adviser (1 interview participant); . Head of the Unit, International Office (1 interview participant) . International Student Coordinator (1 interview participant); . Marketing and Student Recruitment Manager (1 interview participant).

4.5 Data collection and analysis

The investigation gathered data by means of document analysis and semi-structured interviews.

4.5.1 Document analysis

The aim of the first phase of this study was to provide a broad context of the current state of higher education internationalisation in Russian at the institutional level. In order to do this, the study began by looking at the content of strategic development plans and mission statements of 39 leading universities in Russia. As noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), documents are ‘a natural part of the research setting and do not intrude upon or alter the setting in the ways that the presence of the investigator might when conducting interviews or observations’ (p. 162). Document analysis is used to explain the status of a phenomenon through description and thematic development (Best & Kahn, 1998). In the context of this study, the document analysis sought to examine how internationalisation is articulated in institutions’ mission statements and strategic development plans of leading Russian universities.

The documents were obtained either from the university web-sites or from the web-site of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. Russian and

English language versions of the university web-sites were examined. The overall structure of the strategic development plans was consistent among most institutions. Each development plan, designed for a period of nine years, included the mission, main goals and system of projects planned to be implemented to achieve the proposed set of goals. In some strategic development plans these projects were listed separately, while in others they were categorised into groups. Development plans of all participating universities had annexes describing the Financial Plan and Target Indicators, federal universities had an additional annex unpacking the time schedule of the project implementation.

Strategic development plans and mission statements were transferred and coded using NVivo, a software designed ‘for rapid coding, thorough exploration, and rigorous management and analysis’ (Creswell, 2012, p. 243). The coding involved segmenting and labelling document text to form descriptions and broad themes in the data (Creswell, 2012, p. 243). Then, a systematic document analysis was conducted in several stages and several conceptual frameworks were applied.

The analysis of the mission statements was performed by looking at the occurrence of the references of the university’s commitment to international or global education and the internationalisation process. The identified references were grouped in categories based on existing political, economic, academic, and social/cultural rationales for internationalisation (Knight & de Wit, 1997) and Knight’s (2006) internationalisation rationales of emerging importance discussed in Chapter Two.

The initial themes for the analysis of the institutional strategic development plans were drawn on Knight’s definition of internationalisation. As outlined in Chapter One, Knight defines internationalisation as ‘the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post- secondary education’ (Knight, 2003, p. 2). In this definition Knight purposefully used a triad of such terms as ‘international’, ‘intercultural’ and ‘global’. According to Knight, these terms ‘complement each other and together depict the richness in the breadth and depth of internationalisation’ (2004, p. 11) and the term global ‘provides the sense of ‘worldwide

96 scope’ (2004, p. 11).

The first stage of the document analysis was a useful tool to determine the extent to which internationalisation was identified as an explicit objective in the institutional strategic development of universities. In the next stage, the document analysis was extended beyond word counts to identify the context in which these terms have been used in the institutional development plans. The coding categories were drawn from Klemenčič’s (2015) framework for an integrated approach to internationalisation, more specifically the cross-cutting internationalisation functions within the institution, comprised of international academic mobility, institutional cooperation, recruitment and profiling. As explained in Chapter Two, Klemenčič’s framework is based on two main domains: cross-cutting internationalisation functions and the core institutional functions, such as teaching, research and third mission.

Document analysis, being one of the key techniques for data collection in qualitative research (Yin, 2009), allowed for the identification of some meaningful themes in the institutional documents. However, it is important to note some of the limitations of this research method. For example, while document analysis can uncover the existence of certain themes in the text, it ‘cannot interpret the content’s significance’ (Neuman, 2006, p. 324). Combining documentary evidence with the data from interviews allowed the researcher to obtain richer data and validate the research findings.

Possible limitations of document analysis could also include insufficient details, low retrievability and biased selectivity (Bowen, 2009). The fact that leading Russian universities were required to produce their strategic development plans and make them publicly available mitigated the risk of documents not being available or easily accessible. However, only 30 of the 39 universities had their mission statement available on their website. For this study it was particularly important to carefully consider “the original purpose of each document, the context in which it was produced, and the intended audience” (Bowen, 2009, p. 38). Taking into account the potential language bias helped to achieve more objectivity in interpreting data contained in documents. In addition, using more than one data collection instrument helped to minimise bias and establish

97 credibility. Applying an adaptive theory approach allowed the researcher to use findings from the document analysis as a useful guide for analysis of data from the interviews conducted in the second phase of this study.

4.5.2 Interviews

In the second phase of the study, a series of semi-structured interviews were conducted with administrative leaders involved in international activities in universities in Siberia and the Far East. The purpose of the interviews was to better understand administrators’ perspectives on the factors influencing the internationalisation of higher education in the region. The explorative nature of the study explains the choice to conduct semi- structured interviews. The open-ended interview questions were intended to allow key informants to freely express their knowledge and understanding of a phenomenon under investigation. A list of proposed interview questions was circulated to the researcher’s supervisors and colleagues. Conducting a pilot or pre-test of the survey instrument is important strategy to enhance its validity (Maxwell, 1996). The draft interview questions were refined based on the feedback received about various aspects of the questions, including their suitability and clarity.

The prepared questions provided structure and guided the interview, while allowing participants to provide meaningful insight about the topic and for unexpected themes to emerge (Yin, 2003). As such, depending on how the interview unfolded not all the questions were used in each interview, the order and the wording of the questions were occasionally slightly varied, and the researchers elaborated with additional probes when it was necessary (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) and in line with Adaptive Theory. The interview questions focused on several key areas. First, the administrators’ understanding of internationalisation process, its importance and key dimensions were explored by asking the following questions:

. What does internationalisation mean for your university? . What are the key dimensions of internationalisation in your university? . In your view, how important is internationalisation of higher education for the development of your university? Why?

The administrators were also asked to reflect on main drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process.

. What are the main drivers of internationalisation at your university? . What are the challenges of the internationalisation process at your university?

A series of questions sought to gain some insights into the internationalisation strategy in the universities and gauge the administrators’ perspectives on factors shaping the institutional strategic directions:

. How has the internationalisation agenda at your university changed since it became one of the leading (federal/national research) universities in Russia? . In terms of your university’s internationalisation strategy, are there any particular countries or regions your university is focusing on? . Does being a regional university affect your strategy? If yes, in what way? . To what extent does your geographical location influence your internationalisation strategy?

In accordance with the University of Melbourne research policy and procedures, interview participants were approached after receiving ethics approval. All interview participants were contacted in advance via email to request a face-to-face interview. A list of interview questions, plain language statement and brief explanation of the research project were supplied to each participant in the email. Most of the interviews were conducted in person during the campus visits in the summer of 2014. Additional interviews were conducted in 2016 during XVII Project 5-100 Conference in Novosibirsk. One interview was conducted via email in 2018, as the interviewee felt uncomfortable to be recorded and requested to answer the questions in writing instead. All interviews were conducted by the same interviewer in Russian language at a place convenient for the interviewees. Prior to the interview, participants were asked to sign the informed consent form. The interviews lasted, on average about thirty minutes and were audio-recorded with the participants’ permission.

The analysis of the interviews sought to explore the drivers and challenges of the internationalisation as perceived by the administrators involved in the international activities in these institutions. A thematic and interpretive approach was used to analyse

99 the data obtained through the interviews in order to yield more in-depth information about key factors influencing the internationalisation of education in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East and to gain additional insight into the internationalisation process there.

The first steps of the interview analysis included preparation of data such as transcription, translation, and open coding of the recorded interviews. The final transcripts and recordings were uploaded to NVivo. Then meaning units, described as ‘parts of the data that even if standing out of the context, would communicate sufficient information to provide a piece of meaning to the reader’ (Elliott & Timulak, 2005, p. 153), were identified in the interview transcripts and categorised in NVivo using nodes. Initial themes were informed by the research questions and conceptual framework developed in the literature review, further themes were formulated during the analysis of transcripts (Layder, 1998).

In the second stage of data analysis initial codes were reviewed to ‘identify the axis of key concepts in analysis’ (Neuman, 2006, p. 462). During axial coding links were made between open coded themes and key areas of interest in this study, such as administrators’ understanding of internationalisation process and their perceptions on its main drivers and challenges, as well as key dimensions and strategic directions of the internationalisation process. Axial coding allowed to highlight major themes in collected data and to identify additional themes and questions that had emerged during this stage of data analysis.

It is important to acknowledge certain limitations to interviews as a research tool. For example, participant responses can be influenced “by the questions they are asked; the conventions about what can be spoken about” (Hammersley & Gomm, 2008, p. 100). In addition, by interviewing participants only once the researcher captures participant's views at a specific point in time. Thus, on the one hand, interviewees may not reveal all the details in their responses, and, on the other hand, their responses may reflect views and perceptions subjective to circumstances that may change over time. To mitigate the drawbacks of using single interviews in this study, the researcher occasionally slightly

100 varied the questions to ensure “that later interviews cover probing questions that address theoretical issues explicitly” (Charmaz, 2003, p. 318). Using document analysis to complement the interviews allowed to reach more accurate data and strengthen the data credibility.

As the factors that influence the internationalisation process in Siberian and the Far Eastern universities can be hidden in various layers of social reality, in its final stage the analysis of data drew on the context of Russian higher education to move beyond the observable reality and to reflect on the complex combination of factors that influenced the administrators’ perspectives. Using the multi-dimensional character of an Adaptive Theory approach allowed to identify some of these factors through an investigation of ‘the ties between agency and structure in social life and the connections between macro and micro levels of analysis’ (Layder, 1998, p. 27). The discussion of this analysis is presented in Chapter Seven.

4.6 Trustworthiness

According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), establishing trustworthiness is key to ensuring the credibility of a qualitative study. Several strategies were adopted to enhance credibility of this study. Drawing on analysis of data collected from two sources, such as semi- structured interviews and institutional strategic development plans and mission statements, helped to compensate for the limitations of each of the methods of data collection and analysis (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). In addition, interviewing participants from seven different institutions mitigated the risk of findings being specific to a particular institution. Triangulation of the research sites allowed to achieve a greater credibility by identifying factors influencing internationalisation of higher education similar across the institutions.

Given the nature of the qualitative research, the credibility of the researcher is particularly important for data collection and analysis (Patton, 2002). My personal background and the ability to conduct the interviews in Russian language enabled me to establish a good rapport with the participants in the study, which is considered to be one

101 of the important aspects of data collection and validation in a qualitative study (Adler & Adler, 2002; Kvale, 1996). Most of the interviewed administrators appeared to express their opinions and perspectives in an open and frank manner.

Another threat to trustworthiness is the risk for the interpretation of qualitative data to be influenced by researcher’s own beliefs (Lichtman, 2013). However, it is common for every study that researcher is challenged to ‘navigate complex and multi-faceted insider- outsider issues’ (DeLyser, 2001, p. 442). In the context of this study, being born in Siberia and having received my higher education degree from university in the region allowed me to build on some existing ‘insider’ experience and knowledge about the context within which institutions in this region have emerged. Conducting this research in an Australian university and being immersed in a different higher education system allowed me to take an objective look at the higher education developments in Russia from the ‘outsider’ perspective.

4.7 Limitations of the study

Conducted within an interpretive research paradigm, this study focused on the internationalisation process within a specific context of seven leading universities located in Siberia and the Far East. As such, the findings of the study need to be interpreted with caution, as they might not be representative of other universities in Siberia and the Russian Far East that were not granted special status as a leading university and that did not receive additional financial support from the government.

This study employed two methods of data collection: document analysis and semi- structured interviews. The researcher recognises the potential limitations inherent to each of the selected research methods. Making the use of two data sources allowed the researcher to mitigate some of these limitations and strengthen the trustworthiness of this qualitative study.

Only administrators directly involved in international engagement of the universities were invited to participate in the interviews. This presents a limitation, as the experience

102 and professional background of the administrators might have influenced their perspectives. However, such participant selection was intentional, given that the internationalisation of higher education only recently became central to the agendas of Russian universities and the interviewed administrators had the most knowledge in this area.

Another limitation of this study was a small sample size of interview participants. As the participation in the study was voluntary the data collection was limited by the willingness of the key informants to be interviewed. Having neither any personal contacts at selected universities, nor referees who could introduce me to the key informants, made the recruitment of interviewees in the second phase of the study more challenging. In addition, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, the snowball technique used to recruit study participants was not very successful. However, despite the small number of the conducted interviews, administrators who agreed to participate in the study provided some meaningful insights that helped to further the understanding of the core research question.

4.8 Summary

This chapter explained the rationale for methods used to design and carry out the study, including selection of research participants and sites and processes of collection and analysis of data. In order to examine factors influencing the internationalisation in Russian regional universities this study employed an interpretive research design. The research approach was based on qualitative methods of data collection and analysis involving document analysis of institutional missions and strategic development plans and a series of face-to-face semi-structured interviews. Document analysis of the institutional strategic development plans and mission statements in this study sought to gain a general understanding of the extent to which internationalisation of higher education is a part of the institutional agenda of the leading universities in Russia. The purpose of the interviews was to explore perspectives of the administrators about the drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process. Key findings from the two phases of this study are presented in the following chapters.

103

CHAPTER 5. To what extent is internationalisation on the agenda of leading Russian universities?

This chapter is the first of two findings chapters presenting the key findings from the analysis of the policy documents of leading universities identified by the Russian government as part of the state initiatives to modernise national higher education sector, as discussed in Chapter Three. While there is a clear push from the government to modernise and internationalise higher education in Russia, little research has been undertaken that investigates how internationalisation is framed at the institutional level across the country in response to government policy.

By examining how internationalisation is acknowledged in institutional policy documents and statements of leading Russia universities the chapter aims to provide a broad picture of the institutions’ commitment to internationalisation across the county. As Knight (2004) notes, the recognition of the international dimension in institutional mission statements and policy documents show that internationalisation is a part of the institutional strategy. Given that Russian universities have been autonomously engaging in international activities only for the last two decades and is a less explored context of research on higher education internationalisation, providing a broader national context is important for deeper understanding of the internationalisation in regional universities.

The second part of this chapter focuses on the leading universities located in Siberia and the Far East of Russia and discusses how international dimensions are articulated as part of their vision, values, and priority objectives. It will also present the analysis of the Competitiveness Enhancement Programs or ‘Roadmaps’ of four Siberian and one Far Eastern university participating in Project 5-100.

5.1 Mission statements

This section presents the findings from an analysis of the websites of 39 leading Russian universities. Websites were analysed because they provide a public image of the universities and situate them locally and globally (Altbach et al., 2009). The purpose of

104 this analysis conducted in August 2017 was to examine how international dimensions are articulated as part of the institutions’ mission statements publicly available on the institutional websites. Russian-language websites were used as a primary source of data collection due to still quite low level of English-language content on the websites of Russian universities (Timofeev, Makhmutov, Teslya, Chimiris, & Kuznetsova, 2016, p. 34). Thirty of the 39 universities had a mission statement publicly available on their website. It is important to note, that in some cases the mission statement on the English-language website was slightly different from the one presented on the Russian-language version of the website.

An analysis of institutional mission statements is an important starting point for this study. The mission statement is an essential component of institutional identity, as well as the image that universities seek to project internationally. It helps institutions to establish their uniqueness (Morphew & Hartley, 2006) and differentiate themselves from competitors (Finley, Rogers and Galloway, 2001). The analysis of 30 mission statements reveals that only nine universities make an explicit reference to internationalisation by using such terms as international, global, world or internationalisation in their mission statements. This suggest a rather limited commitment to internationalisation in institutional mission statements across leading universities in Russia.

The only university that mentioned the term internationalisation in its mission statement is the National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University located in Siberia. The university sees internationalisation as an element necessary for achieving Russia’s competitiveness. Its mission adopted by the University Academic Board in 2011 is:

to enhance the competitiveness of the country by providing internationalization and integration of research, education and training applied in the process of educating engineering elite, generating new knowledge and innovative ideas, developing resource-efficient technologies. (National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University, 2011)

Seven out of nine universities that recognised the international dimension in an institution’s mission statements are participants of Project 5-100. As discussed in Chapter Two, this is a state funded project dedicated to enhancing international excellence of the

105 selected Russian universities. Therefore, it is not surprising that the international dimension and outlook are of particular importance to the mission and self-image of those universities that have a specific agenda to internationalise as a part of Project 5- 100.

The analysis revealed that references to the international dimension in the mission statement were predominantly linked to the social and community development and economic growth and competitiveness, which would appear to fall into the existing socio- cultural and economic rationales for internationalisation (Knight & de Wit, 1997). Four universities outlined their responsibility for social and community development in their mission statements. This was expressed through the institution’s commitment to improve people’s lives in Russia and globally and to prepare leaders who can ‘make a positive contribution to the development of the country and the world’ (The North- Caucasus Federal University, n.d.), ‘energize and improve people’s lives in Russia and globally’ (National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, n.d.) and solve ‘the sustainable global development’ (South Ural State University) or ‘scientific and technological’ (The National University of Science and Technology MISiS, n.d.) problems for the benefit of all mankind. Thus, despite the growing concerns that the social mission of internationalisation is being neglected in the pursuit of status and profit (e.g. Knight, 2011), these findings suggest that where the international dimension was evident in the mission statements of Russian universities, it often related to the universities’ aspirations to make a social contribution beyond the nation state.

While a commitment to increasing international competitiveness was mentioned in the institutional mission statements of four universities, its focus was largely on the competitiveness of the micro-region and the country, rather than the international competitiveness of the institution itself. And while Peter the Great Saint Petersburg Polytechnic University sees its overall mission as ‘ensuring its continued competitive advantage in the domestic and foreign markets of educational services’, it also aspires to reinforce the economic power and international presence of Russia. According to Knight’s (2004) typology of the internationalisation rationales of emerging importance, nation

106 building is a national rather than institutional level rationale for internationalising. However, the analysis indicates enhancing the national competitiveness globally is one of the institutional goals stated in mission statements of Russian universities. Given that mission statements ‘usually relates most closely to the original terms of its founding and both the historical and ongoing setting of the institution’ (Heyl, p. 23), the emphases of the mission statements on the national rather than international role of the institution can possibly be explained by the historical rudiments of the Soviet legacy or currently existing dependence of universities on financial support from the government.

Beyond the socio-cultural and economic rationales, references to international dimensions were made in relation to institutional profile and status building. The National University of Science and Technology MISiS in its mission statement expressed an aspiration to become a global centre of research and education in a specific field of engineering. While profile and status building was initially categorised as an academic rationale driving internationalisation (Knight & de Wit, 1997), in her later work Knight (2004) pointed out a shift in understanding of international profile from an academic quality to a more commercial perspective. She argued that a growing number of higher education institutions use their international profile to compete domestically and internationally. However, while this argument may be relevant to the higher education institutions located in developed countries that are in the centre of higher education academic world, the findings from the policy document analysis show that this may not always be applicable to the universities in emerging economies like Russia that only recently commenced active international engagement. For example, in the institutional vision provided on the English version of its website, the National University of Science and Technology MISiS emphasises the importance of international collaboration:

Our institutional vision recognizes the seeming paradox that in the world of competition it is international cooperation that has the potential of creating an environment uniquely conducive to the attainment of the university’s goals and continued evolution.

Building networks and strategic alliances is considered to be an internationalisation rationale of emerging importance at the institutional level (Knight, 2004). One of the

107 national research universities located in Moscow, the Higher School of Economics, in its mission statement positioned itself as a part of the global academic community and emphasised the importance of engagement in global university cooperation as the key element of the institutional development. The Higher School of Economics is a fairly new university. As mentioned in Chapter Three, universities established in post-Soviet Russia did not inherit Soviet institutional legacy and their academic and research activities were usually developed based on international cooperation and foreign models, which is reflected in the mission statement of the Higher School of Economics.

Overall, the analysis of the mission statements reveals that with a few exceptions, the majority of the leading Russian universities remain largely inward looking. Statements like ‘raising new generations of scientists, academics and engineers capable of putting and keeping the Russian industry in a world market orbit’ (Kazan Technical University n.a. Tupolev) or ‘training of highly skilled graduates capable of making an effective contribution to Russia's progressive development’ (The University of Nizhniy Novgorod) were common in the missions of the universities. This, to some extent, can be explained by the national and historical contexts of Russian universities. For many Russian universities mission statements are quite a new phenomenon. universities have only started developing their unique mission statements after gaining more autonomy in the 1990s. Established during the Soviet time, universities developed as elements of the uniform system of professional education that had a shared mission of producing qualified specialists for the Soviet economy. This has influenced the current positioning of many universities as primarily national or regional higher education institutions, which see their mission in producing graduates capable of contributing to the development of the country.

Universities that referred to international dimensions in their mission statements were mainly participants of the Project 5-100. While information on when exactly the mission statements of these universities were adopted was rarely provided, it can be reasonably assumed that international dimension was included when the universities gained a status of national research or federal university or joined the Project 5-100. The fact that many

108 references to the international dimensions are underlined by the national rather than institutional rationales of emerging importance suggests that the Soviet legacy and the current dependence on the state government funding and policy appear to be an important contextual factor affecting the mission statements of leading Russian universities.

5.2 Strategic development plans

In contrast to the mission statements that are aspirational and generic in nature, strategic development plans outline specific goal and provide direction for institution’s development. Having international dimensions as part of policy documentation assists higher education institutions in designing strategies for international engagement (Knight, 1994; Childress, 2009). Thus, analysing universities’ strategic development plans can reveal a more detailed picture of the level of commitment of leading Russian universities to internationalisation at the institutional level and an indication of which international dimensions are common across the development strategies of these institutions. As such, this section discusses the findings from the document analysis of the development plans of 39 leading universities developed in line with the new status of these institutions as either a national research or federal university. Their development plans were designed in accordance with the specific government-prescribed format to address performance indicators set up by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

In the strategic development plans of leading Russian universities terms such as internationalisation, international, intercultural, global or worldwide were used throughout (Table 5.1). According to Knight, these terms complement each other and describe the ‘breadth and depth’ of internationalisation (2004, p. 11).

109

Table 5.1 International dimensions in the institutional development plans

English term Russian term Number of development plans internationalisation интернацион* 4 international международн* 38 global глобальн* 21 intercultural межкультурн* 6 worldwide миров* 39

As can be seen from the Table 5.1, all universities made refences to such terms as international and/or worldwide in their strategic development plans. Having these terms included in the institutions’ strategic developments highlights a shift from inward national focus of Russian universities to a broader international orientation. Only four universities directly mentioned the term internationalisation in their strategic development plans. This perhaps can be explained by the fact that the majority of staff in Russian universities may not yet necessarily have a clear understanding of the meaning of the term internationalisation that has been recently introduced. Furthermore, the interpretation of internationalisation in Russian higher education is mainly borrowed from the West, however, as pointed out in Chapter Two, even among Western scholars there is still a lack of shared understanding of the concept of internationalisation.

The analysis also indicates that the intercultural dimension of internationalisation does not appear to be a priority for most universities. The term intercultural was mentioned in the development plans of only six universities. Previous studies suggest that one of the common misconceptions regarding the internationalisation of higher education is the assumption that students acquire intercultural and international competencies naturally through their international experience (de Wit, 2011). In the case of Russia, which itself is a multicultural and multi-ethnic country, the intercultural understanding of local students is often assumed. Given that most of the foreign students in Russia come from former Soviet countries and largely study in Russian, they are generally treated as local students and are not provided much cultural adaptation. The universities that did mention the intercultural dimension of internationalisation in their development plans

110 were mainly federal universities located in very multi-ethnic regions. This is not surprising, given federal universities were established to play a strong role in the socio- cultural development of the region.

Internationalisation is seen as a two-way-flow: on the one hand, the integration of the international dimension into the functions of the university and, on the other hand, integration of the university into global academe (see Beck, 2012). Despite the fact that Russian government openly stated its aspirations for the universities to not only integrate but become competitive in the international higher education space, only five universities identified the integration of their institution into the international scientific and educational space as their strategic goal. However, the analysis shows that the majority of the universities included strategies to integrate certain international dimension into some core functions of the institution, in particular research and teaching.

As mentioned in Chapter Two, international education strategies can be expressed in institutional strategic plans in a variety of ways, for example, international references can be infused throughout the institutional strategic plan or presented in a separate section (see Childress, 2009). The analysis of the development plans of the leading Russian universities shows that references to the international dimensions were mainly infused in the document. Only 15 universities indicated them as a distinct strategic activity and four as a separate set of activities.

Strategic activities in the institutional development plans were presented in sections dedicated to certain priority development objective outlined by the government, such as:

1. modernisation of the content and organisation of the educational process; 2. modernisation of the research process and innovation; 3. development of human resources and the formation of a quality contingent of students; 4. modernisation of the university infrastructure; 5. improving the organisational structure of the university and improving management efficiency.

Given that international dimensions were infused in strategic activities, it is highly likely that international dimensions commonly shared by Russian leading universities are

111 related to some extent to these priorities. These dimensions are discussed in more details in the next section.

5.2.1 Internationalisation gears

A number of themes emerged during the analysis of the context within which the terms internationalisation, international, intercultural, global or worldwide were referenced in the development plans of the 39 leading Russian institutions. The analysis demonstrates that such cross-cutting internationalisation functions or, as Klemenčič refers to them, internationalisation gears as international mobility and recruitment of students and staff appear to be firmly embedded in the strategies of most universities. As discussed in Chapter Two, Klemenčič’s (2015) framework is based on four cross-cutting internationalisation functions, such as international academic mobility, institutional cooperation, recruitment and profiling. Table 5.2 below shows the number of development plans where references to each of these internationalisation gears were identified.

Table. 5.2 Klemenčič’s internationalisation gears in the institutional development plans

Internationalisation gears Number of development plans Mobility of students and staff 30 – staff / 15 – students International recruitment of students and staff 20 – staff / 6 – students International institutional cooperation 9 International profiling 3

As can be seen from Table 5.2, the most common international dimension in the development plans among the leading Russian universities is international academic mobility of students and staff. Academic mobility was considered an important component of professional development of academic, as well as professional staff, and listed in the planned activities of almost all universities. It is worth noting, that in many cases academic mobility included work not only in the foreign universities, but also in other Russian universities, which has not been a common practice in Russia. The second most frequently-mentioned international dimension is international recruitment of students and staff, which was identified in 26 sources. Attracting foreign professors and

112 researchers to work, lecture, or supervise students were pointed out by 20 universities. It is worth noting that universities emphasised not only the recruitment of foreign academics, but also qualified Russian specialists with experience of teaching and working overseas.

The fact that international recruitment of students and academic staff are common in the strategic documents of leading Russian universities can be a reflection of the influence of the performance indicators set by the government and the understanding that ongoing financial support from the government depends on how well they perform on these indicators. The performance indicators of internationalisation and international recognition included two main criteria: the ratio of international students in bachelor, specialist, and master programs in the university to the total number of students and the number of foreign leading professors, teachers, and researchers working in the university for more than one semester. Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous sections, the development of human resources and high-quality student body were both highlighted as priority objectives by the government.

However, the findings do not support the concerns raised by some scholars about the institutional focus on international student recruitment for profit making purposes discussed in Chapter Two. While it was clear from the strategic development plans that universities considered it important to attract high achieving students for the development of a high-quality student body, only six universities specifically mentioned the recruitment of international students as a strategic priority. In fact, contrary to the expressed concerns, the findings show that mobility and recruitment of academic and professional staff was more commonly referred to by the universities than student recruitment.

Thus, the analysis of the development plans suggests a strong focus on human resource development through providing opportunities for academic mobility to existing staff and the recruitment of foreign academics or academics with international experience. This can be explained by some current challenges of the Russian academic profession. Many scholars left Russia during the decline of the academic profession following the

113 dissolution of the Soviet Union. Attracting younger academics to Russian universities is complicated by various factors including low salaries and prospects for career advancement (Smolentseva, 2003). Therefore, establishing a strong cohort of early career academics with some degree of international experience came up strongly as an institutional priority in the institutional strategic plans. For example, Novosibirsk State University states that its development program, among other things, aims to solve issues that face Russia’s higher education system such as unfavourable demographic trends in staffing. In addition to this, the University aims to address region-specific issues such as ‘disproportion of natural and human resources in Siberia’. As discussed in Chapter Three, while Siberia and the Far East are rich in natural resources, a combination of local factors, including poor infrastructure and harsh climate, affect inter-regional migration from these regions to the Western part of Russia.

Despite the importance of having an international profile for universities situated in the periphery of the global academe (Klemenčič, 2017), enhancing the institutional profile was not commonly identified as a strategy in the institutional development plans. Only three universities directly stated that ‘formation and development of the brand and external positioning of the university’, ‘formation of the image of the university and its leading divisions, and also the advancement and professional management of the university's reputation’ or ‘positioning and promotion of the university's brand for targeted audiences’ was their strategic activity. This indicates that despite the state push to increase the international status of the universities, building international profile has not yet taken central place on the institutional agendas of leading Russian universities.

Strategic alliances can be seen as both a rationale and a means to achieve internationalisation (Knight, 2007). The findings suggest that in the case of Russian universities, building international collaborations seems to be a strategic activity to become more internationalised. Nine universities emphasised the development of international institutional cooperation and partnership in their development plans. Through international partnerships universities appear to aspire to internationalise such core institutional functions as teaching and research. For example, one of the national

114 research universities in the set of activities dedicated to the institutional integration in the international education and research space stated that:

The activity is aimed at a significant increase in the number of international agreements providing for mutual exchanges of academics and scientists, the creation of international research teams for conducting research; work in international university networks, etc. (Belgorod State University)

Some universities’ strategic plans mentioned the development of training programs in such areas as international cooperation in education and international competitiveness analysis as an institutional strategy to improve staff competencies in international collaboration (e.g. National Research Nuclear University MEPhI).

The analysis of the development plans indicates that a limited number of leading universities has developed goals associated to international dimensions of teaching and research. Table 5.3 shows that on a program level, international strategies of the universities focus on development of joint courses and degrees, research collaboration and publishing in international journals.

Table 5.3 Number of development plans where the international strategy was related to the core institutional functions of teaching and research

Core institutional functions Number of development plans Teaching Joint courses and degrees 13 Courses in foreign languages 8 Foreign language teaching 5 Internationalised curricula 1 Research Publishing in international journals and/or with foreign 12 collaborators International research collaboration 9 Shared facilities 4 International funding 1

As can be seen in Table 5.3, the high number of references to research related international dimensions are linked to publishing in international journals. A number of publications in the academic journals and number of the citations of these publications

115 in other academic papers are among performance indicators of the international institutional rankings. Thus, the high number of references to publications in international journals highlights the government’s agenda passed on to the leading Russian universities to increase their position in the international institutional rankings. Furthermore, nine universities referred to international collaboration in relation to their research activities and four of these universities emphasised the importance of investing in the establishment of shared research centres and laboratories that would allow work on international projects with the foreign partners.

The findings show that with regards to teaching strategies, universities were mainly seeking to develop joint or double degree programs. This was stressed in the strategic development plans of 13 universities. The development of such programs is a way for the institution to build more capacity, which is especially important for universities in the initial stages of the internationalisation process. It allows for access to curriculum and expertise of the partner university and has the potential to produce ‘a deeper, more sustainable type of relationship than other internationalization program strategies’ (Knight, 2011, p. 307).

The development of programs in a foreign language were listed in the strategies of eight universities. As discussed in Chapter Two, English is becoming increasingly dominant, moving other languages to the periphery (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rubmbley, 2009, p. 11). In the context where universities that use English as a medium of instruction dominate the academic community, universities located in non-English-speaking environments emphasise developing courses and academic programs in English as a part of their internationalisation strategies. Foreign language training aimed at improving linguistic skills for students and staff was among the strategies of five universities. In some cases, this included the establishment of specific centres of language training. As mentioned in previous chapters, the lack of foreign language skills of students and academics is seen as a major obstacle for comprehensive internationalisation of Russian universities. Several universities also mentioned the importance of creating programs and promoting Russian language studies.

116

The findings show that leading Russian universities do not seem to prioritise integration of international or global content to the curriculum of their programs. Only one university mentioned internationalisation of the curriculum in its strategic development plan. The institution’s goal was to improve its graduate courses through ‘familiarisation with foreign achievements in the areas relevant to the master's program’ (Perm State University, 2010, p. 15). As discussed in Chapter Two, internationalisation of the curriculum as well as Internationalisation at Home place the student learning experience at its core; they move away from the activity-oriented approach to understanding of the higher education internationalisation. Being relatively new trends in the development of the higher education internationalisation, they perhaps have not yet moved to the forefront of the agenda of universities in Russia.

Overall, the evidence from the document analysis suggests that such cross-cutting internationalisation functions of Klemenčič’s model of integrated internationalisation as international mobility and recruitment, as well as to some extent international institutional cooperation, appear to be firmly imbedded in the development plans of most leading Russian universities. However, there is little link between the identified cross-cutting internationalisation functions and the core institutional functions, such as teaching, research and especially the third mission. Cross-cutting internationalisation functions appear to support only a few core functions of the institution in research and teaching. In teaching, these are the joint courses and courses in foreign language and in research the focus is on international research collaboration and publishing in international journals. This indicates that overall internationalisation in leading Russian universities is still rather marginal. This contradicts statements in the literature that the internationalisation process ‘has become one of the key aims of the NRUs [National Research Universities] strategic plans’ (Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 59).

Beyond the international dimensions identified as cross-cutting internationalisation functions in Klemenčič’s framework for an integrated internationalisation, more than half of the universities (20) emphasised the importance of achieving international standards and accreditation. Universities mentioned their intention to develop educational

117 standards in accordance with those internationally accepted, more importantly they expressed interest in engaging international experts in the process of developing new educational standards. Similar initiatives have taken place on a national level, for example, the Council appointed by the Russian government to oversee the progress of Project 5-100 include international experts representing academic community and public officials. Furthermore, universities participating in excellence initiatives are often encouraged by the government to establish an international advisory council at the institutional level (Altbach, Mihut & Salmi, 2016). This shows progress towards more openness of the Russian higher education system and universities that for many years were functioning in academic isolation.

The findings show that universities perceive international certification and accreditation as a tool for improving the quality of education and institutional management. Being internationally accredited is important for many Russian universities, which have been previously subjected to an internal accreditation only. In addition to the accreditation of the academic programs, institutions also mentioned the importance of accreditation of research and institutional management. This suggests that in leading Russian universities that have only recently started proactively pursuing international strategies, these strategies are driven by academic rationales, such as enhancement of quality and achieving international academic standards. These findings differ from the assumption of some international scholars that internationalisation had become mainly profit oriented and that academic standards are being mainly used for branding purposes (Knight, 2013).

The analysis of the development plans showed frequent references to international dimensions were related to access to global information resources, electronic libraries and databases. This reveals some fundamental challenges of Russian universities since the reduction in government funding for education following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As mentioned in Chapter Two, developed countries, the global academic centres often control communication channels through which research and knowledge are disseminated, such as scholarly journals, libraries and internet databases. Gaining access to information resources can be challenging for those universities peripheral in the global

118 academic space due to the high cost associated with it. With the majority of research on internationalisation conducted by authors from developed countries, such a fundamental precondition for internationalisation as access to information resources is rarely given sufficient attention in the literature on internationalisation.

From the analysis of the institutional development plans of the leading universities identified by the Russian government it appears that universities are still at the beginning of their internationalisation journey. Driven by state initiatives, the international dimensions in the strategic development plans of these institutions are shaped by the priority objectives and performance indicators set up by the government. As a result, in their development plans universities commonly refer to the increase of the number of international students and foreign leading professors studying and working at the university. Only a third of the institutions have their strategic international dimensions linked to the core institutional functions of teaching and research. Despite the government’s ambitious goal to modernise and internationalise higher education in Russia, the analysis points to various challenges faced by leading Russian universities in their pursuit to internationalise, including limited infrastructure and lack of experienced staff.

5.3 Universities in Siberia and the Far East

The document analysis of the development plans of Russian leading universities did not reveal any significant differences in how international dimensions are articulated in institutional policy documents of the leading universities across different regions. Overall, universities appear to emphasise the international academic mobility and recruitment of students and staff, as well as the development of institutional partnerships. To some extent this can be explained by the State’s influence on the development of these strategic documents and the fact that international dimensions still appear to be quite marginal and emerging on the strategic agendas of the majority of universities. The analysis of the mission statements also suggests no region-specific patterns in the institutional commitment to internationalisation.

119

This section focuses on Siberia and the Far East. It examines more in depth the extent to which leading universities in Siberia and the Far East express their commitment to the internationalisation and position themselves within a global higher education landscape. To do so it examines how international dimensions are expressed in the vision, values, and priority objectives of seven leading universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia23, publicly available on the institutional websites and the Competitiveness Enhancement Programs of five universities participating in Project 5-100, that directly reference the internationally-focused goals and targets of the universities.

5.3.1 Vision, values and priority objectives

Despite a lack of references to internationalisation process in the mission statements of all but one leading universities in Siberia and the Far East, international dimensions were acknowledged in the institutional vision, values, and priority objectives. For instance, Tomsk State University as one of its priority objectives aspires ‘to adequately represent the universities of Russia in the international scientific and educational arena’. Furthermore, the university states that:

University staff are actively developing modern approaches and techniques in all areas of activity, faithful to the traditions of their predecessors and enhancing the University’s status in the contemporary Russian and international scientific and educational environment.

The importance of university staff having a supportive attitude for effective implementation of internationalisation in an institution has been emphasised by various scholars (Hudzik, 2011; Klemenčič, 2017). Therefore, including international dimensions in the espoused values of a university may contribute to establishing an overall culture of support for internationalisation and secure the commitment of staff to this process.

Overall, similar to the institutional development plans, international dimensions in vision, values, and priority objectives of the universities in Siberia and the Far East were made in

23 Tomsk State University (TSU), Tomsk Polytechnic University (TPU), Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU), Irkutsk State Technical University (ISTU), North-Eastern Federal University (NEFU), Novosibirsk State University (NSU), Siberian Federal University (SibFU).

120 relation to the human resource development. For example, National Research Irkutsk Technical University in its value statement recognises the importance of providing professional development training for its research and teaching staff to support their participation in research projects and internships at leading institutions in Russia and abroad and publication in leading national and international journals. Similarly, Far Eastern Federal University (n.d.) sees ‘improving the quality of education and faculty through their professional development in the best institutions, conferences and expeditions in Russia and abroad’ as one of its objectives.

Among other objectives of the Far Eastern Federal University that are worth noting is creating ‘a unique environment for young people from all countries, to prepare them for successful careers and leadership in the most dynamically developing region of Russia’. This is a rather contradictory objective, as on the one hand, it implies that the university views itself as an international institution for students from all countries. On the other hand, the university prepares these students for careers in the Far Eastern region of Russia. This highlights one of the key challenges of peripheral universities, discussed in Chapter Two, which lies in finding a balance between the institutional international and local priorities. In the case of Far Eastern Federal University, it appears to be a pressure of becoming more international while fulfilling the needs of the regional development. In comparison, the vision of the Irkutsk State Technical University is to become a prestigious and innovative universities ‘capable to train highly qualified specialists in demand on labor markets in Russia and abroad’.

Analysis of the institutional visions, values, and priority objectives points to the fact that location of institutional activity goes beyond the national context and provides insights into the desired global positioning of universities. As summarised in Table 5.4, while all universities recognise the importance of their national status, most of them also position themselves within the larger macro-region and some aspire to achieve international recognition. This highlights the influence of the contextual factors of the institutions on their positioning. For example, the three federal universities (Far Eastern Federal University, Siberian Federal University and North-Eastern Federal University) in the

121 group, in addition to their national focus, emphasise their micro-regional status. This is not surprising, as federal universities were established to play a significant role in the development of their region. Irkutsk State Technical University is the only national research university with a micro-regional focus, which to some extent can be explained by the fact that it is a less prestigious university in comparison with the other national research universities in the group. Given that Novosibirsk State University, Tomsk Polytechnic University and Tomsk State University are in the top 10 universities in Russia, they see the location of their activity primarily on national level and aspire to achieve more international presence.

Table 5.4 Espoused positioning of the universities

Positioning Micro-regional National Macro-regional International Far Eastern x x Asia-Pacific Federal University Siberian x x Asia-Pacific x Federal University North-Eastern North East of x x Federal Russia

University Irkutsk State x x Asian Technical continent

University Novosibirsk x Central & State North Asia and University Eastern Europe24 Tomsk x x Polytechnic University Tomsk State x x University

24 Based on the Project 5-100 roadmap.

122

Regional collaboration can guide internationalisation towards more concrete results and greater impact (Verger & Hermo, 2010; Perrotta, 2014). The geographic location of the universities and Russia’s recent political and economic turn to the East, seem to facilitate some focus on the Asian region. International positioning within this region has been identified by three universities. As discussed in Chapter Three, Russian universities have the opportunity to build a more functional cooperation with the peer universities in the Asia-Pacific, that have been successful in their pursuit to internationalise, rather than pursuing partnerships with the elite Western universities.

Due to its location in the Far East of Russia, an area that is sometimes considered to be a part of the Asia-Pacific region itself, the Far Eastern Federal University places strong emphasis on its cooperation with institutions of Russia and the other Asia-Pacific countries. This can be seen in two of its main objectives:

In cooperation with the best scientific, educational, and innovative institutions of Russia and the other Asia-Pacific countries, to develop research and increase the intellectual and economic potential of the region;

To facilitate integration of FEFU students and alumni into research, business and other professional endeavours of Russia and other Asia-Pacific countries for the best utilization of the knowledge and skills gained in the University.

The University sees its mission as fostering ‘mutual understanding and cooperation in Asia-Pacific countries, to ensure their social and cultural prosperity and to shape talents of young people’. Although Siberian Federal University is not located in such a close geographic proximity to the Asia-Pacific region as Far Eastern Federal University, in its vision25 the university states its dedication to establish itself as a world-class university, to raise its teaching and research international profile and ‘to enable leading industries in Russia and Siberia to compete internationally and to strengthen the Russian contribution to the economic development of the Asian-Pacific region’.

25 Retrieved from ‘our vision’ and ‘our mission’ (a bullet point list, not a statement) sections on the English version of the website.

123

In summary, while the analysis of the institutional mission statements suggests only limited reference to the international dimensions, in-depth analysis of institutional vision statements, values, and priority objectives reveals more focus on the international dimensions. It also shows that the desired public image and positioning of the universities in Siberia and the Far East go beyond the national context, with some universities positioning themselves strongly within Asian region.

5.3.2 Project 5-100 Roadmaps

This section presents an analysis of the roadmaps developed for the first period26 of the Project 5-100 program by the leading universities in Siberia and the Far East. Five universities located in Siberia and the Far East of Russia were selected to participate in Russian Academic Excellence Project or Project 5-100. These are: Tomsk State University, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Novosibirsk State University, Far Eastern Federal University and Siberian Federal University. As part of the Project 5-100 these universities developed action plans, also referred to as roadmaps, on the implementation of the Program for Promoting the Competitiveness for up to year 2020 which were divided into stages of two to three years.

Similar to the institutional development plans, Project 5-100 roadmaps address a set of specific indicators. These indicators were determined by the International Council established to oversee the selection and progress of the universities participating in the Project and included: 1. The university position in the rankings; 2. Number of articles in Web of Science and Scopus databases per 1 member of research and teaching staff number; 3. Average citation index per 1 member of research and teaching staff calculated per totality of articles registered in Web of Science and Scopus databases number;

26 Far Eastern Federal University, period II, 2015-2016 (section 1 of the Roadmap was not available for the first period of the program); Novosibirsk State University, period I, 2013-2014; Siberian Federal University, period I, 2016-2018 (joined Project 5-100 in 2016); Tomsk State University, period I, 2013- 2014; Tomsk Polytechnic University; period I, 2013-2014.

124

4. Percentage of international professors, teachers and researchers among research and teaching staff, including Russian citizens - foreign universities PhD holders; 5. Percentage of international students enrolled in main educational programmes (including the students from Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries; 6. Average Unified State Exam score for the university full-time students enrolled in bachelor degree and specialists training programmes funded by Federal Budget; 7. Percentage of income from nonbudgetary sources in the revenue structure of the university.

The first performance indicator clearly sets up the purpose of the Project 5-100, which is to improve the position of selected universities in international university rankings. The next four indicators, such as the number of publications in international academic journals, the citation index of academic staff and ratio of international faculty and students, are also closely aligned with those used in international institutional rankings. As mentioned in Chapter One, only two Russian universities were listed in international university rankings published in 2000, which according to some scholars set the state agenda towards modernisation and internationalisation of Russian universities (see Froumin & Povalko, 2014, p. 8).

Some performance indicators in the above list are specific to the Russian context; for example, Indicator 6 on the average Unified State Exam 27 score of the university applicants. This indicator reflects the need for universities to increase admissions standards, that deteriorated after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Indicator 7 relates to institutional nonbudgetary sources of income and highlights government expectations that the leading universities become more entrepreneurial and less dependent on government funding. In addition, certain universities also had some other performance indicators, such as position in Webometrics and the h-index of academic staff.

The analysis of the roadmaps shows that elements of Davies’s (1992) model for the development of an international institutional strategy such as the formulation of an

27 Unified State Exam (Edinyi Gosudarstvennyi Eksamen) is an exam that as of 2009 serves as both a school final examination and score used for university application.

125 external image and identity and assessment of institutional weaknesses are highlighted. In the first section of their roadmap the universities outlined their target model, identified the desired international image and identity, which were underpinning the proposed marketing and branding strategy of the university. In contrast with the development plans of the 39 leading universities where the focus on building international profile was limited, marketing or reputation enhancement strategy was given much attention in the roadmaps. Considering that Siberian universities are located in a close proximity from each other, it is necessary for them to differentiate from each other by carefully analysing the opportunities in the international higher education marketplace and selecting their unique niche.

The findings illustrate that while universities take different approaches to identifying their international image, most of these approaches are linked it to the uniqueness of their geographic location. For example, the Novosibirsk State University states that the main market of services for the implementation of research and innovative work of the university were traditionally Russia and especially the Siberian Federal District. However, the second most important region for the development of scientific and education services for the university is Central Asia. Novosibirsk State University plans to expand its presence in science and education services in the Asia-Pacific region and South and South-East Asia. Thus, the university sees its image by 2020 as one of the leading research universities in Central and North Asia and Eastern Europe. In its roadmap Tomsk State University positions itself as Eurasian due to ‘the historically developed mission and unique geographic location’ and sees itself as ‘scientific and educational bridge, connecting Western and Asian achievements and perspectives’ (Tomsk State University, 2013). Far Eastern Federal University is positioning itself as an intellectual centre, largest in the Far East and Eastern Siberia, integrated in the academic space of the Asia-Pacific region and providing transnational mobility of students and staff, knowledge and technology. While Siberian Federal University prioritises global challenges, such as climate change, as its focus, this is largely based on the geographic location of the University. Siberian Federal University is situated in the very heart of Siberia, in close proximity to a number of natural and climatic zones that are little studied but have a

126 significant impact on global climate change. The university emphasises that the study and efficient use of natural resources and the unique ecosystems of the region will contribute to the sustainable development of Russia and the world. Thus, data analysis points to the centrality of geographic position, proximity to Asia in particular, as a factor influencing the international positioning of the regional universities in Siberia and the Far East.

In their roadmaps, the Siberian and Far Eastern universities presented a reference group of the world leading universities from Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America for the purpose of benchmarking and evaluating their performance. The peer institutions selected by the universities are presented in Table 5.5. These reference groups show that universities in Siberia and Far East consider learning from the achievements of universities in Asia-Pacific and using some of their experience as models for facilitating their own development.

127

Table 5.5 Reference group of peer institutions

Europe North America Asia-Pacific Far Eastern Federal Seoul National University University Tohoku University National Taiwan University Australian National University National University of Singapore Novosibirsk State VU University Sungkyunkwan University Amsterdam (The University (South Netherlands) Korea) National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan) Tomsk State Lund University University of Texas National Taiwan University Utrecht University Austin University Fudan University (China) Tomsk Polytechnic Royal Institute of Arizona State Nanyang University Technology University (USA) Technological (Sweden) University (Singapore) Siberian Federal University of University Alberta (Canada) University of British Columbia (Canada) University of Alaska (USA)

The reference groups of Far Eastern Federal University and Siberian Federal University are worth special attention. The Far Eastern Federal University selected universities from the Asia-Pacific region only, which is not surprising considering the strong focus of the university on this region. The Far Eastern Federal University in its roadmap for the 2nd period of the project replaced from its reference group universities located in English speaking countries with universities located in non-English speaking countries in the Asia- Pacific and the Commonwealth of Independent States. As a result, the Australian National University and National University of Singapore were replaced by Fudan University

128

(China) and L. N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University (Kazakhstan). Given that Far Eastern Federal University does not have such an inherited advantage, benchmarking its progress with universities located in non-English speaking countries appears to be more appropriate.

Of note, while Siberian Federal University indicates Asia-Pacific region as a priority in its vision statement, no universities from this region were included in its reference group. The selection criteria used by the university to identify the reference group of peer institutions was based on the common research areas and specialisation ‘in the commercial development of unique natural areas and northern regions, particularly forest ecosystems in North America and Central Eurasia’. However, all three selected peer universities are located in North America.

It is important to note that overall out of twenty universities participating in Project 5- 100 that had reference groups of universities available in their roadmaps, only five did not include any universities from the Asia-Pacific region. This demonstrates that the majority of universities participating in the Project 5-100 consider certain universities in the Asia-Pacific region internationally advanced and able to serve as a benchmark for international development. Indeed, many universities in the Asia-Pacific have been able to achieve great progress in internationalisation in just recent years and Russian universities may benefit from understanding their pathways and experience of internationalising. Some Russian scholars note that the models of modernisation and internationalisation in East Asia can potentially be successfully adopted in Russia (Starygina, 2017).

In addition to identifying the reference group of peer institutions, universities participating in the Project 5-100 established international councils to provide an expert assessment and recommendations on various internationalisation projects or, as described on the website of the Siberian Federal University, ‘high-level guidance on all aspects of increasing of the University’s competitive position in comparison with established international universities’. The international councils in general included seven to sixteen members of academic community. Interestingly, despite the

129 consideration of the Asia-Pacific region on the institutional agendas, among four universities that had a list of members of the international council or advisory board either on the website or in the roadmap, only Novosibirsk State University had one representative from the Asia-Pacific region. The region was not represented on the international councils or advisory boards of Tomsk Polytechnic University, Tomsk State University or Siberian Federal University. Thus, while universities express an aspiration in their strategic documents and statements to build greater presence in the Asia-Pacific region, they tend to turn to the West to seek advice on how to achieve this goal.

In the second section of the roadmap, universities outlined the proposed action plan for promoting their competitiveness. In addition, they provided an analysis of their weaknesses and reasons underlying the existing gaps between current and target values of the performance indicators. These explanations highlight some of the key challenges for the international development of universities. The analysis of the roadmaps illustrates that despite the similar nature of the existing challenges, universities have different approaches to understanding the gaps between current and target values of performance indicators. Some of the reasons for the low number of foreign students and international professors, teachers and researchers at the universities are presented in Table 5.6 and Table 5.7.

130

Table 5.6 Reasons for low share of foreign students studying in the core educational programs (including students from Commonwealth of Independent States)

University Reasons Novosibirsk . The absence of core programs in English; State . Poor knowledge of Russian by foreign students; University . Lack of necessary infrastructure (the influx of students requires additional classrooms, dormitories, etc.); . Insufficient level of qualification of the administrative staff and faculty for working with foreign students; . The absence of structural units responsible for the marketing of educational services on a global scale and the recruitment of foreign students; . Low level of implementation of distance education programs in Russian-language targeting the Commonwealth of Independent States countries. Tomsk State . Relatively low attractiveness of the region as a whole for the University permanent life and study of foreigners from economically developed countries; . The traditional ‘stake’ for easier - and growing - markets of Russian-speaking foreign entrants from the Central Asia (Commonwealth of Independent States countries), in comparison with the far abroad.

One of the performance indicators that is lagging behind according to the universities is the low share of foreign students studying the core educational programs. Universities appear to take a different approach to explaining the current low value of this performance indicator. For example, Novosibirsk State University focuses on students from the Commonwealth of Independent States or near abroad and points to a lack of distance education in Russian language as a reason for a low number of foreign students. Tomsk State University prioritises the recruitment of students from far abroad and sees the traditional focus on ‘Russian-speaking foreign entrants from the Central Asia (CIS countries), in comparison with the far abroad’ as a problem. As discussed in section 3.2, the majority of the international students in Russia are from the countries which are members of the Commonwealth of Independent States. As most of these students speak Russian or complete Russian language courses prior to commencing their studies, they usually study in Russian language. As a result, they are often treated as local, rather than international students and not being considered to enhance the internationalisation or

131 national reputation of the universities. Statistics on the number of international students from the Commonwealth of Independent States are often presented separately to the numbers of students from other countries.

Similarly, a range of diverse reasons was identified by the universities regarding their current low performance on such indicators as the proportion of the foreign academics at the university. A summary of the reasons is provided in the Table 5.7. As can be seen from the table, some commonly accepted challenges included language barriers and low salaries, as well the lack of programs in English or internationally accredited programs. Other reasons varied from the relative unattractiveness of the region according to the Tomsk State University to the previous ban on allowing foreign visitors in Tomsk Polytechnic University due to the presence of a research reactor.

Table 5.7 Reasons for low percentage of international professors, teachers and researchers among research and teaching staff, including Russian citizens – PhD holders from foreign universities

University Reasons Novosibirsk . The absence of core programs in English; State . Relatively low salary; University . Insufficient language readiness of students for learning in English. Tomsk State . Relatively low attractiveness of the region (and transport University distance) in general and Tomsk State University in particular for the permanent life and work of world-class researchers; . The existing culture of low academic mobility in the country; . Low level of English proficiency incl. among students; . The low level of internationally accredited programs and schools. Tomsk . Prohibition against inviting foreign citizens to the university until Polytechnic 2010 due to having its own research reactor; University . Uncompetitive level of academic staff's salary and absence of additional funding sources for visiting specialists; . Lag to the world level in terms of developing a base of modern unique research equipment; . Language and administrative barriers including difficulties in mutual recognition of scientific degrees; . Insufficient recognition of TPU in the global academic society; . Existing requirements for having a visiting professor for one- term stay at the university; . Difficulties of socio-cultural adaptation.

132

The findings suggest that universities share similar challenges of internationalisation, such as low salaries of staff, insufficient knowledge of foreign language by students and staff or lack of necessary infrastructure for conducting research and hosting international students. However, universities do not necessarily approach them in the same way. A divergence in reasons underpinning the same challenge supports the argument made in Chapter Two, that internationalisation is a process where one size does not fit all and where a customised strategy needs to be developed for each university.

5.4 Summary

This chapter has sought to identify the extent to which and how, under the strong government push to modernise and incorporate Russian higher education into the international educational landscape, internationalisation is acknowledged in the agendas of leading Russian universities. The analysis of university mission statements and strategic development plans suggests an overall ad hoc and still rather marginal approach to the internationalisation in Russian universities, which falls into quadrant A of Davies’s (1992) model of institutional approaches to internationalisation in universities (see section 2.1.2). As argued by Davies (1992), most universities find themselves in quadrant A in the initial stages of internationalisation before they progress to a more systematic and central approach.

The document analysis of the mission statements illustrates that leading Russian universities remain largely inward looking with regards to their missions. Universities that include the international dimension in their mission statements are for the most part participants of the Project 5-100. The analysis of strategic development plans reveals that universities focus predominantly on international mobility and recruitment. These cross- cutting internationalisation function reinforce international engagement within a limited number of core institutional functions, such as joint courses and courses in a foreign language, international research collaboration and publishing in international journals. State financial investment provided for the implementation of strategic development programs has conferred specific responsibilities to the group of leading universities to achieve performance indicators outlined by the government. The findings demonstrate

133 that strategic international dimensions highlighted by the universities are strongly influenced by government set performance indicators.

Drawing on the document analysis of the roadmaps of five universities located in Siberia and the Far East participating in the Project 5-100, the findings reveal some gaps between the espoused priorities and enacted strategies. More specifically, despite some universities declaring their orientation towards Asia in international engagement, they do not refer to Asian peer higher education institutions as a benchmark for their development or do not have representatives from Asian countries on their international advisory boards. This raises the question of whether universities in the region, in particular in Siberia, will take advantage of their close location to Asia and will indeed deepen internationalisation through closer international collaboration with the universities in the region.

To shed more light on the extent to which strategic planning informs practice, the following chapter presents analysis of data collected from semi-structured interviews with administrative leaders engaged in international activities at the leading universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia. The aim was to explore the administrator perspectives on the motives and challenges of internationalisation in their institutions. It also seeks to gain a better understanding of their perspective on cooperation with higher education institutions in Asia.

134

CHAPTER 6. Internationalisation of universities in Siberia and the Far East

The previous chapter presented the findings from the first phase of the study investigating how the international dimensions of leading Russian universities are acknowledged in their mission statements and strategic development plans. The analysis showed that references to the international dimensions were limited, although international academic mobility and the recruitment of foreign staff and students were mentioned in more than half of the universities’ strategic development plans. The findings from the first phase of the study also suggested that the State (government’s) performance indicators have a strong influence on the international dimensions prioritised in institutional development plans.

This chapter examines the findings from the second phase of the study involving interviews with administrative leaders directly engaged in international activities in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East. The aim was to elicit information about administrators’ understandings of higher education internationalisation and the drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process in their institutions, in order to gain insights into the principal research questions in this study about the factors influencing the internationalisation process in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East.

As can be seen from the list of administrators’ positions presented in Chapter Four, the interview participants in this study were occupying a range of various roles when the interviews were conducted. Overall, a slightly larger proportion of administrators in senior position participated in this study. Senior administrators were able to provide an overall picture of internationalisation in their universities, as they are more closely involved in decision making. Less senior administrators, on the other hand, could provide insights into the practicalities of the daily international activities.

The chapter begins by exploring how internationalisation is conceptualised by various administrators in seven Siberian and Far East universities. This is followed by a discussion about the influence of the government as an external driver of higher education internationalisation. The following two sections then focus on perceived drivers of and

135 barriers to the internationalisation at an institutional level. Finally, the chapter concludes by exploring the regional dimensions of internationalisation in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East.

6.1 Conceptions of higher education internationalisation

Interview participants were asked to share their understanding of the meaning and key dimensions of the internationalisation process in their universities. This was an important question to ask to ascertain whether university administrators held a shared understanding of the concept. Overall, the administrative leaders interviewed in this study acknowledged that internationalisation is a complex and multidimensional process. Internationalisation was predominantly described by the interviewees as a range of international activities, in particular the academic mobility of students and staff. This was mentioned by almost all of the 17 interview participants. In addition, participants described internationalisation within the framework of various academic programs, such as foreign language study, programs in English, and joint courses. The following responses from the Heads of Department or Office for International Cooperation of three different universities highlight this shared perception:

First of all, of course, we are talking about international students studying in our university. … Of course, we are talking about our students and academic staff having an opportunity to go abroad, aligning the study plans and study process in general. (Department Head, Department for International Cooperation, I1)

It is absolutely everything, internationalisation, I suppose. It is new forms of cooperation with the partner universities, and students’ knowledge of several foreign languages; it is an opportunity for students to study, within the framework of mobility, in other countries. (Head of the International Relation Office, N1)

So cooperation, academic mobility in and out going, and creation of products at the university that can increase the level of incoming mobility, make university more attractive. In other words, education programs (long, short, summer schools) in English language. (Director, Department of International Relations, S1)

136

These responses point to an activity-oriented understanding of higher education internationalisation. The focus on faculty and student mobility programs is not surprising, as it echoes the international dimensions highlighted in the institutional strategic development plans of the majority of leading Russian universities. While this approach mirrors how internationalisation is commonly conceptualised worldwide (de Wit, 2011), it may lead to various misconceptions (see Knight, 2011; de Wit, 2011), for example, that gaining more international partnerships or recruiting more international students make universities more internationalised.

In contrast to the view of these administrative leaders whose understanding of internationalisation may have been influenced by the practical nature of their day-to-day work, a Vice-Rector for Research and International Cooperation emphasised the importance of science and research in internationalisation:

The main goal [of internationalisation] is the representation of scientific and educational results and achievements at the international higher education space and open work on the global market of science and research development. (Vice-Rector for Research and International Cooperation, S3)

This indicates that the professional background or professional role of the individual administrative leaders within the institution may influence their interpretation of the concept.

While an activity-based approach was identified as a key theme arising from the interview data, a number of administrators went beyond the description of specific activities and emphasised the all-encompassing nature of internationalisation as a process that permeates all aspects of university operation, not only academic and research activities. This is illustrated in the following quote:

… internationalisation is a comprehensive process. So there is no such concept, as internationalisation of something specific. If we are internationalising, it is internationalisation of science, education process… Simply, if you take those services that are involved in the routine work such as finance, legal department; they also have to internationalise, they have to change their approaches to the finance, legal system. (F1)

137

The response above echoes Hudzik’s (2011) interpretation of internationalisation as a comprehensive process, supported by a shared commitment of students and staff to integrate international perspectives through teaching, research, and the service missions of universities. The latter is important as internationalisation of higher education challenges the status quo by introducing new approaches to processes and management. Bureaucracy passed on from the Soviet administrative system still exists in current Russian higher education institutions and is identified in the literature as one of the factors hindering the internationalisation in Russian universities (see Telegina & Schwengel, 2012). In addition, the interview findings have revealed that a lack of staff commitment to and support for internationalisation are other perceived barriers to internationalisation. This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

An attempt to introduce a more comprehensive approach to internationalisation by making it a shared responsibility was evident in another university, where internationalisation had become a responsibility of each member of senior leadership, rather than just the Vice-Rector (Chancellor) International. As explained by the senior administrator:

The word 'international' was removed from the title of Vice-Rector. The Rector decided that the university did not need a Vice-Rector for International Relations, because the work of each Vice-Rector, teaching or research, had to be permeated with international relations. (T1)

This suggests that there is an attempt to bring the internationalisation process that is often marginalised in a specific administrative unit or division, to a broader, institutional agenda at a more senior level. However, it is important to note that this was not identified in other universities, and remains something specific to that particular university.

Several administrators took a different approach to interpreting the internationalisation process. They focused on student and staff experience and described internationalisation with respect to its ability to enhance the intercultural understanding and skills for local students and staff. For example, the Deputy Dean for Master's degree studies in one university commented on how internationalisation, in particular the presence of foreign

138 students and academics in their faculty, promoted intercultural exchange and made classes more interesting. As can be seen from the response below, internationalisation was perceived as a source of positive change:

I think we had to start [internationalisation], so in practice, with foreign students and staff, to understand that we change ourselves when they [foreign students and academic staff] come. These positive changes linked to the fact that there are more of them [foreign students and academic staff] and they are different, that our students learn from other students about certain culture of education, the classes themselves become more interesting, the teachers that are coming they are also carriers of a different culture. (N5)

Such an approach to higher education internationalisation is similar to Internationalisation at Home, according to which internationalisation focuses on the creation of a university culture that enhances intercultural understanding. A similar approach to internationalisation was also taken by the Director of the International Recruitment Centre in another university, who stated that internationalisation provides an opportunity for intercultural exchange and enrichment at the university.

Internationalisation also solves several global questions. These [questions] are intercultural exchange, enrichment and exchange of experience. So this is the basis that I believe is very, very useful. (F2)

The same participant went on to describe the value of internationalisation as a process that launches mechanisms that transform the university environment and promote a more tolerant climate on campus.

Internationalisation launches mechanisms that create the environment around it. It [internationalisation] is not possible without knowledge of the language. Multi-language environment launches processes of tolerance – that are also very, very important. (F2)

Reference to ‘tolerance’ as a part of the interpretation and understanding of the internationalisation process did not come out strongly in the responses. Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the ‘ideological component’ of international education is often considered to be implicit and, therefore, left out of the general interpretation of the internationalisation process. However, the reference to the ideological aspect of

139 internationalisation that supports tolerance is a reminder of the ethical roots of the concept of international education discussed in Chapter Two.

6.2 The State as an external driver

The role of the State Government as a driver for the internationalisation of Russian universities cannot be underestimated. On one hand the funding provided by the State is necessary and welcomed by the universities. On the other hand the uniform policy with set performance indicators for all universities across the country and a pressure to produce quick results limits their ability to diversify the investment of their funds and focus on a more long-term internationalisation strategy.

As discussed in Chapter Three, internationalisation in Russia is part of a broader process of higher education modernisation within the country. It is a State initiative to revive the status of Russian higher education that deteriorated following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The analysis of the development plans of the leading universities in the previous chapter indicated that the strategic dimensions of the internationalisation process in Russian universities is, to a large degree, shaped by the priorities determined by the government. Interviews with administrators also confirmed the role of the State in driving the internationalisation process. As summarised by one of the Heads of the Division for International Affairs:

It [internationalisation] is important because it is an objective set by the Ministry of Education. If before it was our initiative, now it is one of the objectives. (T2)

This shows that, while international activities had already been identified as an important part of the university’s development, the internationalisation process was seen to have become a strategic objective for Russian universities under the national higher education modernisation policy. The influence of the government as an external driver to internationalise was also evident in the response of another senior administrative leader, who commented that the understanding of internationalisation in the institution was aligned with the State’s interpretation of this process:

140

In our university we do not have such a practice that we separate ourselves from the State policy. So we do not have some kind of our own interpretation. So we understand it [internationalisation] the same way as the government does. (F1)

Given that the institutional strategic development plans of leading universities and competitiveness enhancement programs of universities participating in Project 5-100 were designed following a uniform structure and the key performance indicators identified by the Ministry of Education and Science or International Council that selected the universities for the Project 5-100, it is not surprising that some administrative leaders understand the internationalisation process within the parameters suggested by the government.

The interviews also revealed a perceived urgency in the government initiative to internationalise, particularly amongst those administrative leaders who worked in universities participating in the Project 5-100, the government funded initiative to improve the competitive position of a group of leading Russian universities in research and education. As can be seen from the comments below, several interviewees compared it with ‘waking up’:

Now the situation has radically changed, now the government woke up, and woke up strongly and overly... let's get everyone quickly in top 100. (T1)

The Russian government woke up and decided that at least five universities have to be in the top hundred best universities in the world by 2020. (N1)

These comments highlight the suddenness with which the internationalisation of higher education moved to the forefront of the state agenda. The mission to drive internationalisation was passed from the Russian President to the Federal Government and on to Rectors of a group of selected universities, who became personally responsible for the success of the proposed institutional strategic development plan. One administrator described this top-down approach to internationalise as the ‘carrot and stick’ policy:

Even though we always had the understanding that we participate in internationalisation and we were not going to stop. However, Moscow now

141

uses a ‘carrot and stick’ approach. Carrot is the massive funding provided for internationalisation. Stick – if you are not going to deliver, the consequences can be as harsh as changing the leadership group. That is why we do not resist and understand the importance. (N1)

This supports the argument about the implementation of Project 5-100 as a traditional very Soviet manner that ‘represents the classical pattern of top-down, centralized directorial management’ (Kuraev, 2014, p. 263). However, while the institutional leadership is directing the universities to internationalise, the interviews revealed that not everyone within the institution is ready to embrace the internationalisation process yet. Attitudes towards the top-down push for institutional internationalisation vary across individual staff members, especially those in less senior roles. As summarised by an administrator:

Now in principle there are some attempts to launch internationalisation from the top down. They [university leaders] are trying to launch it from the top, but the 'down' does not yet want it too much. (I2)

The sudden push to internationalise from the institutional leadership, on the one hand, and the lack of understanding of this process by the staff, on the other hand, creates a risk that internationalisation will remain superficial and imposed, rather than a commitment confirmed through action and embraced by all institutional academic and support services, as suggested by Hudzik’s (2011) definition of comprehensive internationalisation. The unsupportive environment towards internationalisation was identified by the interviewees as one of the barriers to international initiatives and will be discussed in more detail in the following section.

The pressure to meet the set performance targets and not to be eliminated 28 from Project 5-100 was evident in the interviews. For example, in response to the question about international dimensions in the university one senior administrative leader said

28 The universities in the Project 5-100 were initially supposed to be eliminated each year based on their performance. However, the rules of the Project were changed and six more universities were added instead.

142 that ‘today everything [international dimensions] serves to accommodate the Project 5- 100’ (T1). This supports the findings from the previous chapter showing how government policy influences the key international dimensions emphasised by universities in their strategic development plans. The same participant also commented:

Internationalisation was important even 20 years ago, but today it is critically important… we do not want to be eliminated from 15 universities in Project 5- 100. (T1)

Given the limited resources available to the universities on the periphery, State financial support provided to universities participating in the Project 5-100 is crucial for advancing their internationalisation. However, the constantly changing rules of the Project and the conditions associated with receiving these funds, based on performance indicators, lead to an unstable environment that may impede the progress of the universities towards more long-term internationalisation. Universities are pressured to focus on short-term and quickly achievable goals, rather than implementing more comprehensive and in- depth changes.

6.3 Institutional motives to internationalise

While the Russian government is an external driver for higher education internationalisation, there are also internal motivations for strengthening international institutional engagement. This section discusses some of the key motives of internationalisation identified by the university administrators interviewed in this study. Examining institutional motives to internationalise is important for this study as it can provide a better understanding of how the internationalisation process is conceptualised in universities in Siberia and the Far East.

6.3.1 Remaining competitive

Internationalisation was perceived by the administrators in this study as necessary for their university's survival in the national and international higher education market. Two participants commented that, in today’s rapidly changing academic space, there is a great

143 need for continuous institutional development in order to keep up with the competition among the universities. This is vividly captured in the following quote:

There is a fierce competition now. Not only in Russia but in the world. So you are as an athlete… today you can walk and this is enough to pass someone, but tomorrow you will need to jog, if you keep walking you will be overtaken, and the day after you will have to try accelerating and running… (N1)

In today’s world you have to run, just to maintain the same position. (T1)

These comments show that internationalisation is perceived as necessary for keeping up with the growing institutional competition. As summarised by the Head of the Department for International Cooperation, the internationalisation of higher education is important, ‘so that the university can adequately develop and be competitive’ (I1). Increasing institutional competitiveness in the market of higher education services is also identified in the literature as one of the motives for internationalisation among Russian regional universities (Garusova & Piginesheva, 2013, p. 2).

As explained by another Head of International Relations Office, talented students now seek opportunities to work or study overseas and learn global trends in order to gain a competitive advantage for employment in the global labour market after graduation. Thus, to remain competitive, universities should find ways to offer such opportunities to students, for example, through international cooperation with other higher education institutions:

… if any university wants to be competitive and leading it has to be a step ahead of others, it has to offer [to students] new forms... new forms of cooperation. (N1)

The interviewee also commented that, even within the Commonwealth of Independent States, where the higher education sector is also in a decline after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there are now many examples of high quality, well-established universities that are proactively engaging internationally. As was mentioned in Chapter Two, the majority of international students in Russia are from the neighbouring countries or, as commonly referred to in Russia, the near abroad which is comprised of the

144

Commonwealth of Independent States. As the quality of universities in the Commonwealth of Independent States continues to improve, there is a potential risk that students from these countries would prefer to study in their home universities rather than going to Russia. This can cause a decline in the number of international students from these countries studying in Russian universities.

Russian leading universities are required to increase the proportion of foreign students and academics studying and working at the university to meet one of the State-identified performance indicators. In this context, universities face increasing competition not only at an international but also at a national level. The interviews revealed that the peripheral location of Siberian universities makes it challenging for them to compete at a national level. As noted by the Vice-Rector for Academic and International Affairs from one of the Siberian universities, it is almost impossible to compete with universities in the Eastern Russia:

Moscow and Saint Petersburg, and the European part [or Russia] in general are out of competition, because they are more attractive for foreign students and foreign academics who are being recruited there now… (T1)

The senior administrative leader concluded that the university needs to take considerable steps to internationalise, otherwise there is a risk of falling behind, despite all the work and the international experience their institution gained in the past:

I think that within some time, if we do not take some extraordinary steps, as we did in 1998, we will hopelessly fall behind. (T1)

There appears to be a need for the universities on the periphery to develop more innovative strategies as usual practices may not generate the expected results. This suggests that, despite equal opportunities provided by the government, the geographic location affects the internationalisation process in Russian universities. Thus, national policy needs to take into consideration local realities that influence higher education internationalisation in the peripheral universities.

145

In addition to competition at a national level, Siberian universities also compete regionally. This is not surprising, as all five universities are located relatively close to each other. Moreover, Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University are located in the same city, Tomsk. The Deputy Vice-Rector for Research and International Cooperation from one of the Siberian universities mentioned that both regional and national competition is considered when their institutional international strategy is determined.

Considering our location and competition with universities in Tomsk and Novosibirsk and federation, this is Moscow and Saint Petersburg, we understand the vector of student flows, including internal flows of local students and international students. (S2)

In the context of the peripheral location of Siberian universities with regards to the Russian academic ‘centre’ and inter-regional migration causing the decline in the population in the region, it may be suggested that this competition between Siberian universities will only continue to increase. It is worth noting that such regional tension was not identified in the interviews with the administrative leaders from the federal universities in the Far East, which could possibly be explained by the fact that these universities are the only major higher education institutions in the region.

6.3.2 International visibility

The interviews with the administrative leaders revealed that increased visibility of the university in the international higher education landscape was one of the motivations to internationalise, as well as a desired outcome of the process. For example, one senior administrator stated that one of the goals of internationalisation for their university is ‘visualisation of the activities of the university’ (S3). A similar view was echoed in another response:

Internationalisation will, first of all, contribute to the popularisation of our university in the World. It is very important in this way. (N3)

146

Greater international visibility of the university achieved by means of internationalisation was seen by some administrators as a way of attracting foreign talent and exchanging best practices and latest education and research trends.

And the only way to increase your visibility on the international market, to attract attention, to learn new trends, to exchange best practices, to bring experts here, all this is in the concept of internationalisation, in its broader sense. That’s why it is one of the priorities today. (S1)

These comments illustrate a shared view amongst administrative leaders that internationalisation is an opportunity to make their institutions better known. According to the Vice-Rector for International Cooperation from one university, among other things successful internationalisation requires ‘strengthening of information presentation activity of the university on the promotion of educational programs and scientific projects’ (NE1). As discussed in Chapter Two, the majority of Russian universities have only recently started making attempts to build their international profile, such as making university websites available in English and other foreign languages. As shown in the recent study on the English-Language Websites of Universities in Russia, the English- language content of the websites of Russian leading universities still requires a lot of improvement (Timofeev et al., 2016). Building the visibility and presence of the institutions online through the website available in foreign languages and other sources of information is an imperative for universities in peripheral locations in order to internationalise.

According to Knight (2007), achieving a strong reputation and international name recognition is among the institutional drivers to internationalise. Russian scholars identify increasing an institution’s prestige at the national and international levels as one of the motives for internationalisation among Russian regional universities (Garusova & Piginesheva, 2013, p. 2). However, as suggested by the interviewees, understanding of international visibility in the peripheral universities is more modest and linked to reducing the isolation of these institutions. This point came up strongly in the interviews when participants talked about another driver of internationalisation – student and staff development.

147

6.3.3 Student and staff development

The development of both students and staff was identified in the interviews as another motive for internationalisation. As mentioned previously, an internationalised university could offer students opportunities to engage in various international activities that could further their competitive advantage in the global marketplace. In addition to this, some administrators perceived that students in an internationalised university can benefit from a better understanding of global trends in their fields and professional markets. This is captured in the following response:

Specialist, even if this specialist is being prepared for local needs, cannot be efficient if s/he does not know global trends in the field of specialisation… … Preparation of high class and high-quality specialists, which is a mission of our university, is not possible without the broad-mindedness, without a global comprehension of professional market. (S1)

While a global outlook is one of the important graduate attributes that many universities aspire to achieve, this is perhaps a more difficult task for those universities located in places with limited international exposure. Internationalisation is especially important for peripheral higher education institutions so that people do not feel isolated. This view is illustrated in the following quote by the Head of the Department for International Cooperation:

Internationalisation is very important. It is probably important for any university, but for university that is located not in the centre of the Universe it is, I think, even more important. So that people do not feel, firstly, disconnected and, secondly, so that people keep up with the rest of the World. (I1)

A participant from another university also pointed out that internationalisation could offer benefits to students and staff to lessen the negative factors of isolation by providing an impetus for personal development:

I think that with this experience [internationalisation], if you are talking about what internationalisation means for the university, it is actually an understanding of what we gain from it. Not just the formal rankings, but that

148

we really gain something for ourselves. Such an external impulse is very important, as it appeared. Isolation is not positive. (N5)

Thus, it can be seen from the quotes above that, given the geographic isolation of the region where the universities are located, internationalisation is perceived as an important tool for student and staff development. The comments from the administrative leaders also support Klemenčič’s (2017) argument that for peripheral higher education institutions the imperative to internationalise is greater due to the challenges of their geographic location.

6.4 Internationalisation challenges

The internationalisation process in leading universities in Siberia and the Far East is challenged by various factors. Some factors limiting internationalisation in Russian universities such as alignment and recognition of Russian qualifications, infrastructure, bureaucracy, government policy on international education and language, are linked to the national context and shared by universities across Russia. These factors have been identified in the literature and were echoed in the interviews.

The analysis of the interview data revealed that, in addition to the internationalisation challenges at a national level, some region-specific factors add another layer of complexity to the higher education internationalisation in Siberia and the Far East. Administrative leaders pointed to some historical and geographic characteristics of the region that challenge the internationalisation process. Some of the key findings emerged from the data are discussed in this section in more detail.

6.4.1 Geographic location

The analysis of the interview data suggests that various characteristics of the geographic location of universities in Siberia and the Far East, shown in Figure 6.1, make the internationalisation process more challenging. Some of these factors include the peripheral status and external image of the region and distance to other education hubs.

149

Figure. 6.1 Location of the leading Russian universities in Siberia and the Far East

The peripheral location of universities in Siberia compared to those located in the European part of Russia hinders the internationalisation process, in particular the recruitment of international students and staff. Several university administrators commented on the large amount of effort and resources that have been expended on foreign student recruitment and that this has had little effect. One senior administrative leader pointed out that the return on investment in student recruitment was only around 15%. Of those students who came to study in Siberia, the majority were from the Commonwealth of Independent States and Asia. Students from developed Western countries rarely come to Siberia, usually just for short exchange programs, as an ‘exotic’ experience. The Vice-Rector for Academic and International Affairs from one university commented on how high school students from foreign countries who win Olympiads organised by Rossotrudnichecstvo29 and who are offered scholarships to continue their studies in Russian higher education institutions often choose to pursue their studies in universities in the European part of Russia, in particular in two major cities – Moscow and

29 Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of Independent States Affairs, Compatriots Living Abroad, and International Humanitarian Cooperation (Rossotrudichestvo) was established in accordance with the Presidential Decree № 1315 of September 6, 2008. http://www.rs.gov.ru/en/about

150

Saint Petersburg. The interviewee complained that no Olympiad winners at all applied to study at their university that year.

In addition to the challenges of the peripheral status of the region, participants from the universities located in Siberia (highlighted in blue in Figure 6.1) pointed out that the international image of Siberia, often based on stereotypes, is one of the main hindrances to academic mobility and recruitment. Indeed, Siberia is often depicted in the literature (e.g. Frazier, 2010; Wirick, 2006) and media (e.g. Terskikh & Malenova, 2015) as being in the ‘middle of nowhere’ and a place with a severe climate and history of political exile. The following quotes vividly highlight the views of administrators:

All because we are located in Siberia – the word ‘Siberia’ is scary! (T1)

Siberia, the name ‘Siberia’ itself has a very, very negative image that is hard to fight with… we are located in Siberia and for them [foreign student] it is scary! (N1)

Thus, the interview data suggest that the perceived status of the region hinders the internationalisation process of Siberian universities. While it is argued that international profiling is important for higher education institutions on the periphery, as the places where they are situated are often not very well-known (Klemenčič, 2017), in the case of Siberia, this is different, as the concept Siberia is recognised internationally as ‘a place with extremely cold weather’ or ‘a place that is far away.’ The external image of Siberia thus seems to be a greater problem than its actual location. One administrative leader commented that students from European universities would prefer going to Yakutia30, (highlighted in orange in Figure 6.1), the coldest place in the World, than Siberia. This is because this city is not associated with Siberia.

You can send students to Yakutia, they go there because they do not know what Yakutia is, they are interested, for them it is not Siberia, it is Yakutia. They go to the Far East, to Vladivostok, no problem. This is not Siberia. (N1)

30 Yakutia Autonomous Republic (Sakha) is located in the Far Eastern Federal District. One of the coldest locales on Earth – Oymyakon – is located there.

151

A senior administrator from North-Eastern Federal University (see NEFU in Figure 6.1) located in Yakutsk, capital of Yakutia, however, did not mention either the negative image of Siberia nor the harsh climate as a challenge for internationalisation. According to this participant, the distance from other universities and associated high costs of traveling were seen as the main challenges to the internationalisation of higher education related to the geographic location of their institution.

The natural obstacle to enhancing cooperation with, for example, the universities of the Arctic countries is the geographic remoteness of the regions and the high cost of transportation. (NF1)

The focus on geographic isolation, rather than the external image of the region in this response, suggests that the factor of distance is felt even more strongly in this university due to its remote location from other universities in Russia and abroad. In contrast, the group of Siberian universities in Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk and Tomsk is located in relative proximity to each other which diminishes their sense of remoteness. In addition, given that Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia, its infrastructure is more developed and there are more national and international flights operating to and from the city, which also helps to reduce the sense of the remoteness for universities in the region.

The interview data indicated that the historical characteristics of the place where universities are located can also affect the internationalisation process. For example, most of the universities in this study are located in the former ‘closed cities’ that used to require government permission for entry, due to their proximity to places where nuclear or other secretive research was being conducted or, as in case of Vladivostok, where a naval base was established. In the case of Tomsk Polytechnic University, foreign citizens were prohibited from visiting the university until 2010, as the university had its own research reactor (Roadmap, Tomsk Polytechnic University). Thus, foreigners were not allowed there until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. A senior administrative staff member from the Siberian Federal University commented that this affected the current preparedness of cities to provide appropriate infrastructure for incoming international students that universities were fiercely trying to recruit:

152

Language, mentality of the staff, but all this is also connected with the city, and region; to what extent it is internationalised itself. To better understand, at some point the Krasnoyarsk region, Krasnoyarsk was a closed city and now we are open but it does not mean that everything has change in a moment. One also needs to understand this... this peculiarity. All these things are interlinked. But we are not closed, our university is fully open to internationalisation. (S2)

The interviewee questioned whether the city where their university is located is prepared to internationalise, as urban infrastructure also needs to become more international and the local people need to become more open-minded to support the internationalisation of university.

The interview participant from the Far Eastern Federal University (see FEFU in Figure 6.1) argued that the attitude of people in Vladivostok was different and very suitable for internationalisation. As the respondent put it:

Vladivostok has an advantage, like any port city, there is no complex of the provinciality. In Russia, all other cities have a big alignment on Moscow and Saint Petersburg. (F2)

According to the interviewee, despite the fact that Vladivostok also used to be a closed city until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its dwellers do not have the ‘provincial complex’ that citizens of many Russian cities do. As explained by the participant, while Far Eastern State University is located far from Moscow, it has the advantage of being in close proximity to the capitals of the major Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan. Another senior administrator from Far Eastern State University also commented how a combination of various factors, including the geographic location, in particular the proximity to Asian countries, contributed to the university’s strong internationalisation starting base in comparison with other universities in the Far East and Siberia:

We had a strong start due to the summit [APEC summit], this campus, our location, that we are located close to the Asia countries, due to the multilingualism in Vladivostok and so on. All this has an influence. (F1)

153

The interview data suggest that the geographic position of the city and specific historical factors that may not be well known may create a certain environment and shape the culture of and attitudes towards internationalisation. The following section explores some aspects of the existing institutional culture, by looking at the attitudes of the university staff towards internationalisation in greater detail.

6.4.2 Attitudes and cultures

Although far from the capital, Siberia and the Far East do not escape close central governmental control, and the broader political situation in the country affects the region. As discussed in the previous section, the location of universities in former closed cities, is seen to have limited their ability to engage in international activities with countries outside of the Communist Bloc. As such, many universities in the region only began to internationalise in earnest after 1991, when the Iron Curtain was lifted and universities acquired the autonomy to engage in various international activities. The following explanation of the historical developments in Siberian universities by Director of the Department of International Relations may provide the context to the existing cultural challenges of internationalisation:

Internationalisation is not a new word on the international education market, but not as common for the Russian universities, including Krasnoyarsk, due to various reasons. Until 1991 Krasnoyarsk was a closed city and one could come here only with a permit. The permits were only given to the citizens of the friendly socialist camp. The process of opening up, as the defence industry complex was closing, allowed foreigners the opportunity to come here, to this region and this city in particular. Internationalisation and cross-cultural communication have been for a long time only quite exotic terms, as in fact nothing like this happened here. So for the local universities maximum internationalisation was five or six Chinese students studying Russian language and almost all city dwellers would come to look at them [joking]. It was already a big achievement. (S1)

As can been seen from the above quote, for a long period of time the universities have been isolated from the outside world. International activities and foreigners from countries outside of the Communist Bloc were perceived as unusual and exotic for the cities in Siberia and the Far East, perhaps with the exception of Russia's far-eastern port

154 city of Vladivostok. This historical lack of international exposure appears to have influenced the attitudes of people towards internationalisation. As the respondent quoted above put it: ‘the narrow-mindedness of people is one of the obstacles to internationalisation’ (S1). The current mindset of some academic and professional staff was identified as a challenge for higher education internationalisation in many responses. The following comments capture this shared view:

First is the mentality. You need to change your mindset, make your way of thinking more flexible. (F1)

Internationalisation has to happen in the mind. People need to start looking a little bit differently at the world and cooperation in general. … People need to be more flexible towards the world and other things. (I1)

As seen in these quotes, the interviewed participants strongly emphasised the importance of the staff shifting their perspectives and becoming more open-minded for institutional internationalisation to be successful. Despite more academic staff now being engaged in international activities, not everyone is ready to embrace international practices. In addition to the lack of international exposure, the mentality of Russian people was influenced by strong organisational culture of Soviet higher education underpinned by the principles of uniformity, top-down administration, and one-man management (Kuraev, 2016) that was in place for decades. As explained by the Director of Department of International Education:

Unfortunately, the mentality of Russian people, especially people from older generation, is still a mentality of the Soviet system. (F1)

Thus, despite the recent modernisation of higher education, many ‘rudiments and systematic restrictions of the Soviet past’ are still evident in Russian higher education (Yudkevich, 2014). The Soviet system appears to have left behind in the universities many academic and professional staff members who are unable to innovate and resistant to change. However, the challenge goes beyond changing the mentality, as explained by two senior administrators:

155

The majority of people [at the university] were brought up in a completely different paradigm. Ageing people, they will never learn a foreign language anymore and the young people who began coming to work at the university, they may have language skills but they do not have the background. (T1)

The average age of academic staff is quite high, so this also influences that people are not as flexible, not quickly adaptable to the rapidly changing World. (I2)

The interview data suggest that, on the one hand, the ageing generation of academics that possesses valuable knowledge and experience is being challenged to adjust to a rapidly transforming higher education environment and change their old practices. On the other hand, as mentioned in Chapter Three, there are national challenges to the recruitment of a younger generation of academics due to low salaries and the lack of prestige of the academic profession (Kuraev-Maxah, 2004; Smolentseva, 2007). This is summarised in the following response of a senior administrator:

The goals [of internationalisation] are clear, the expertise has been done from all sides, there is only a lack of personnel who can do it all… the recruiting system is not perfect. So there is no staff and we do not know how to get it. (T1)

The challenge of attracting talented staff may be even more evident in universities in the peripheral regions of Russia, given the population decline due to the inter-regional migration to Moscow and its nearby regions, and those few who do stay to work at the universities needing time to gain the experience and knowledge that older generations of academics have.

The challenge of building a supportive institutional culture that views internationalisation as an institutional priority is not only restricted by the Soviet frame of mind of some academic and professional staff, but also by a more complex set of factors. For example, several administrators commented that internationalisation, being an external push, was initially perceived as a problem and thus met with resistance by some academic and professional staff. This is highlighted in the following quotes:

So actually, internationalisation is perceived a little bit artificially at the university and, as I said, as an external parameter that we realised was

156

necessary. And maybe initially internationalisation is perceived as a challenge, a problem… (N5)

Yes, you have to [internationalise], but at the same time they [long time faculty] have been living perfectly before this. So we do meet some resistance on the ground. (N1)

This can to some extent be explained by the lack of skills and understanding of what internationalisation of higher education means, as seen in the comment below:

There is a lack of language skills, lack of skills in communication with foreign colleagues, lack of understanding of it [internationalisation] from the academic side. (I2)

The lack of understanding of the meaning of internationalisation is not unique to Russian universities. As suggested by a recent study of the international engagement of academic staff in Australian higher education, the multiple approaches to understanding internationalisation affect the level of faculty engagement with internationalisation in higher education institutions worldwide (Proctor, 2015). However, in case of the universities in this study, the lack of understanding about the internationalisation process seems to be one of the factors hindering the motivation of staff to engage in international activities. This lack of motivation was identified by some administrators as a challenge:

But far from everyone within the university feel that drive and motivation to do this [internationalise]. (N5)

There need to be a motivation, people need to be motivated and then you can 'move the mountains.' (I2)

A supportive institutional culture and the attitudes of staff and students towards internationalisation is important for the internationalisation process to be successful (Hudzik, 2011; Klemenčič, 2017). In practice, the internationalisation process often remains marginalised into two main areas: institutional governance (where the strategy and vision for internationalisation are developed) and international offices (where the operational side of this strategy is implemented). One respondent commented that the project office responsible for internationalisation at the university is so busy and focused on achieving the quick results necessary to justify the State funding, there is not enough

157 time for communicating the purpose and value of higher education internationalisation to the staff within the university. The uncertainties with regards to the funding and the need to show quick returns on the State investment seem to hinder the ability of universities to invest in long-term internationalisation strategy concentrated on stimulating an institutional culture supportive of internationalisation.

6.4.3 Alignment of educational programs

Operating within the same national context and under the uniform national higher education policy, universities across Russia share some similar challenges in their attempt to internationalise. The analysis of the institutional development plans in the preceding chapter showed that achieving international accreditation and the development of programs in the English language were the common international strategic goals among the majority of the universities. Not surprisingly, these international dimensions came up in the interviews. An administrator from a federal university pointed out the process of alignment of the programs with international standards as well as the development of programs in English language as challenges for the university:

One of the serious challenges that the university is facing is the adaptation of the study plans and study programs to the standards and established practices of international education and developing programs in English language. (S1)

The Russian higher education system is quite specific, and this can often complicate the alignment of the course curriculum. The Coordinator of the Exchange Program from a national research university commented that scientific specialisation at their university starts very early and, by the fourth and fifth years, students are mainly concentrating on research and science. In contrast, students in some European universities begin deep scientific specialisation only during the last year of their master-level degree. Therefore, the existing differences in the academic program structures and curriculum challenge the development of joint programs, which was also identified as a strategic goal in the development plans of many universities. This is captured in the following quote:

158

Our requirements to the students coming to study here or what they [other universities] can offer our students do not match. So we have to change a lot, compromise a lot. We have to work a lot with every joint program. (N1B)

This supports the argument that insufficient flexibility and a lack of adaptability of educational programmes is a barrier to internationalisation at a national level in Russia (The Russian Federation National Report 2007–2009, 2008). However, as argued by some scholars (Altbach, 2016), the replication of international standards without considering specific local contexts can lead to the adaptation of inadequate models and a loss of local knowledge. In this light, while it may be seen as a challenge, searching for compromise rather than blindly adopting foreign education models and curriculum, can help to preserve certain elements of Russian educational tradition.

6.4.4 Level of bureaucratisation

The findings from the interviews support the argument that the high level of bureaucratisation is one of the barriers to the successful implementation of international initiatives in Russian universities (Telegina & Schwengel, 2012). Bureaucratisation is often linked to the government trying to impose more control and is reflected across various levels of the state administrative apparatus. A recently appointed administrator from another university pointed out that the existing institutional bureaucracy negatively affects incoming student mobility. This view is captured in the following quote from the interview:

From our side, university side, there are constantly new documents, new agreement, to the extent that you need to create three different agreement for a poor international student who can barely read Russian, so with this we often have problems. (N4)

As explained by this Director of International Education Department, despite the government declarative policy promoting higher education internationalisation, the ineffective state regulatory and legal systems, as well as financial and tax systems, still present many obstacles:

159

Unfortunately, our laws and regulations adopted by the Ministry of Education and Science and government they do not always work, or more precisely almost do not work at all, for the goals of internationalisation of universities. (F1)

The interviewee commented that it was harder for Russian universities than universities in other countries to open an overseas branch campus.

Having received the ‘massive funding’ for internationalisation’ (N1), as was referred to by one interviewee, the universities were required to provide regular reports to the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education. Such strict government oversight over the allocation of provided funds seems to be limiting institutional autonomy and may provoke criticism from Western scholars advocating for a high level of institutional autonomy. However, in the Russian higher education context with high levels of institutional corruption, such measures to control the institutional expenditure of federal funding appear to be necessary. As an example, six years after the Far Eastern Federal University was established, its President was arrested for financial fraud conducted during the construction of the new campus of the university (Osipian, 2016). Thus, State control may be to some extent a necessary measure to prevent, or at least lessen, possible cases of corruption and financial fraud.

6.5 Regional dimensions of internationalisation

The analysis of institutional development plans and mission statements presented in the previous chapter showed that the geographic location influences the trajectories of institutional international engagement stated by the universities. For example, four out of seven universities stated their aspirations to position themselves within the Asian region. The focus on Asia, as a strategic direction of higher education internationalisation, was echoed in the interview responses. Such a view is illustrated in the following comment by the Head of the Department for International Cooperation:

In our development plan it says that we need to become a centre of international level in the Asian region, and accordingly we aspire to achieve this. So now the international cooperation is being developed mainly with

160

Eastern universities. So we are trying to concentrate our efforts specifically to achieve this goal. (I1)

While many respondents from Siberian universities noted that the locations of their institutions facilitate more attention to Asia, they were quick to mention their aspiration to continue developing collaboration with Western, in particular European, universities. This can be seen in the following quotes:

Yes, there is such focus [Asia]. But this does not mean that we started paying less attention to the West, but the East in this particular case is closer to us.... (I1)

Of course, geographically it is all Asia-Pacific region, but this said, we do not want to limit ourselves to this direction only. We have very good relationships and many agreements (perhaps second after China) and very intensive collaboration with Spain. (S1)

– First of all, we are not oriented on Europe, we mainly oriented towards Asia- Pacific region and now maybe a little bit on a Middle East… India, Pakistan. (T1)

– But we do not cross out Europe. (T2)

These comments suggest that universities in Siberia find themselves at a cross roads between Asia and Europe. While there is an understanding that, given the geographic location of the universities, they need to collaborate more closely with higher education institutions in Asia, there are still strong aspirations for further international engagement with European universities. This can be explained to some extent by the fact that historically Russia often looked to the West for the best practices and educational models and officially joined the European Higher Education Area in 2003.

The aspiration to maintain close links with Western higher education institutions may perhaps also be explained by the existing misconceptions around institutional cooperation, more specifically the perception that collaboration with universities that are more prestigious on the international higher education space is more beneficial than with peer or less advanced institutions. For example, according to one administrator, closer cooperation with universities in the developed Anglophone countries can enhance the

161 status of the university in the international higher education space. This is captured in the following quote:

I think the best higher education is in the United States, European Union, Australia and New Zealand, the most developed Anglophone countries… at first, in order to improve the status of the university on the international higher education space, it is necessary to build good cooperation with them, but in this regard the process is not going that well. (N3)

Similar misconceptions were observed at the conference of Project 5-100, where the Director of the International Office of one of the Siberian universities was giving a presentation about their successful cooperation with one of the Chinese universities. A senior administrative leader from another Siberian university questioned the success of this collaboration due to the low international status of the Chinese university. This suggests that some leading universities in Siberia with a long history of excellence and academic tradition have an expectation to build partnerships with only the top higher education institutions. As discussed in previous chapters, it is common for peripheral higher education institutions to put a lot of effort into building partnerships with top international institutions while disregarding their peer institutions in neighbouring countries.

However, attempts by the universities to build strategic cooperation with higher education institutions in developed countries are not always successful. The Head of International Relations Office of one Siberian university mentioned the institution’s aspirations to build closer partnerships with German universities. This, however, had not been very successful and the administrator could not explain the reason. An administrator from the same university provided an example of how the Rectors of the European partner universities declined an invitation to attend the university’s anniversary, which also points to their lack of interest in developing cooperation with Siberian universities. This is summarised in the following response:

From the 11 responses received so far, all European partner universities are apologies. The ones that are coming are representatives from two Chinese partner universities, one Japanese, and one from Tajikistan. There is no reply yet from Kirgizstan and Kazakhstan. But the European partners are definitely

162

not coming. This is also a vivid example of who the university is friends with and who is not. (N3)

In addition to the lack of interest from European higher education institutions to cooperate with universities in Siberia, students from Europe are also not particularly interested in studying there. As explained by one senior administrative leader, students from the West would not come to Russia to pursue a full degree, as they would have to pay tuition fees. And, if they do decide to come, they would most likely to study in Moscow or Saint Petersburg:

– No, we do not cross out Europe, but we understand that Europeans would not come here for a full program. What for? First of all, we charge international students, we have to [do it] by law. Why would they need it, if they can study in their home country for free? (T1)

– And if they pay, they would go to Saint Petersburg or Moscow. (T2)

This illustrates that there is an understanding that Siberian universities do not present much interest for European higher education institutions and students. However, a closer cooperation with fast developing higher education institutions in Asia does not yet appear to have gained enough priority. For example, despite Asia being mentioned as a potential strategic area for cooperation by a senior administrator in one university, that university had only two double degree programs with China. The administrator commented: ‘Unfortunately, we were not able to do more. But this would have been a good strategic line now’ (T1).

A Vice-Rector for Research and International Cooperation stated that the specific regional focus of their university was on the Commonwealth of Independent States and South- East Asia. However, the senior administrator further commented that some higher education institutions from Middle Eastern countries had recently expressed interest in cooperation with the university and were thus ‘pulling the university in that direction’ (S3). This suggests that the university is still in the process of identifying its international focus and priorities. Interviews also revealed that many existing partnerships with foreign universities started as ad hoc arrangements, but over time have developed into a long term and more formal cooperation. As one respondent jokingly put it: ‘Our roads crossed

163 in the right place at the right time’ (N1). Building strategic cooperation with specific regions and countries, on the other hand, is not always successful or pursued to the full capacity.

While the number of institutional partnerships with higher education institutions in Asia- Pacific is expanding, leading universities in Siberia and the Far East can more actively collaborate with the universities in the region through existing associations. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation University established in 2008 operates as a network of existing universities in some of the member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and observer countries. The aim of the organisation is to prepare highly qualified personnel in one of the priority areas of cultural, scientific, educational and economic cooperation. Among 78 institutions participating in this organisation, 20 are from Russia, but only two leading universities from Siberia: Siberian Federal University and Novosibirsk National Research University. Another regional organisation, the Association of Asian Universities, was established in 2013 to form a single educational platform promoting the role of universities in the development of education and science. The Association has 65 member-institutions from Armenia, Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Russia, Tajikistan, and Thailand. Among 19 member-institutions from Russia, there is only one leading university from Siberia – Tomsk State University. Thus, it appears that Siberian and the Far Eastern universities do not yet take full advantage of the opportunities available in their region to enhance their internationalisation efforts.

6.6 Summary

This chapter has presented an analysis of findings from interviews with administrators involved in international work in Siberian and the Far Eastern universities. The analysis revealed that, while the administrators understand the importance of internationalisation process for their universities, this understanding is not yet shared by all staff members across the universities. Internationalisation, among other things, is seen as a way to increase the visibility of the university in the global higher education space and to lessen the regional isolation of the institution, as well as its staff and students.

164

The interview data suggest that the internationalisation process is influenced by multiple factors. At a national level, the increasing attention on internationalisation stems from government imperatives regarding the overall modernisation of the higher education system. This comes with a lot of pressure to achieve success in a short period of time. Furthermore, the micro-regional environment of Siberia and the Far-East with its historical, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics adds another layer of complexity and imposes additional challenges for internationalisation in the universities. An analysis of the interview data suggests that the attitudes of many university staff members are still quite conservative and resistant to internationalisation. While this is to some extent related to the Soviet frame of mind, it is also influenced by the fact that many cities where universities are located were once closed and foreigners were prohibited from entering. In addition to the institutional culture not yet being fully supportive of internationalisation, the external image of Siberia hindered by the harsh climate and various stereotypes was identified as one of the key regional obstacles of internationalisation.

The following chapter discusses the findings from the two phases of the study drawing upon the integrated approach to internationalisation of higher education institutions introduced in Chapter Two.

165

CHAPTER 7. Towards an integrated approach to internationalisation

The previous chapters presented the findings from the two phases of the study. The aim was to shed light on the extent to which international dimensions are acknowledged in the institutional strategic development plans of leading universities across Russia, and to gain a better understanding of the drivers and challenges of the internationalisation process in regional Russian universities, namely those in Siberia and the Far East. This chapter synthesises these findings from the two phases of the study and discusses the conditions necessary for leading universities in this region to move towards integrated international engagement.

The chapter starts by looking at the complex combination of factors that challenge the internationalisation process in the seven universities selected for this study. It is argued that the State’s strong top-down push to internationalise presents a significant challenge for universities and promotes institutional cultures that are resistant to internationalisation. Drawing on Klemenčič’s (2015) integrated approach to the internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery, the discussion then explores the opportunities for universities in the region to create a ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagement, by focusing on international profiling and international institutional cooperation, as well as building a supportive environment for internationalisation. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the internationalisation of universities in the academic periphery.

7.1 Key challenges to internationalisation for universities in Siberia and the Far East

Higher education institutions operate within the multiple nested contexts of global, national and local, or as referred to by Marginson and Rhoades (2002) ‘glonacal’, environments. These contexts create a complex interplay of factors that influence the implementation of internationalisation. This study argues that, in addition to ‘glonacal’ influences, regional contexts also play a significant role in shaping the factors affecting internationalisation in higher education institutions. As noted by Johnson (2008), while universities in Siberia and the Far East adopt worldwide internationalisation trends, ‘the

166 ways in which state power and professional relations work beneath the surface remain historically conditioned, culturally particular, and very regionally specific’ (p. 162).

This study shows that while the Russian government has launched various initiatives to promote internationalisation in universities across the country, the progress of these initiatives has been uneven, largely as a result of government policy not accounting for regional differences. Centralised government policies have limited the ability of universities to prioritise international dimensions specific to their local context and the flexibility to use state funds for purposes other than those identified in the strategic development plans. This has resulted in a mismatch between the State agenda and the capacity of institutions in regions such as Siberia and the Far East, to achieve the State’s goals. The top-down government agenda to modernise and internationalise higher education focuses on quick, quantifiable results that can improve the position of universities in international institutional rankings. This focus on short-term results has led to resistant attitudes among some staff towards the internationalisation process. It has also meant that universities pay less attention to long-term strategies for institutional changes including promoting an institutional culture that is supportive of internationalisation. A combination of these factors creates challenges for the internationalisation process in the universities in Siberia and the Far East.

7.1.1 A top-down centralised higher education policy

The internationalisation of universities in Russia is strongly influenced and shaped by government initiatives to modernise education in Russia. Internationalisation is one part of a broader agenda for higher education reforms under the Conception for Modernisation of Russian Education and the National Priority Project: Education. However, this study argues that the modernisation and internationalisation initiatives launched by the government do not affect universities across Russia in the same way. Instead, their implementation in universities is influenced by diverse historical, geographic and demographic factors in different regions in Russia.

167

The top-down approach towards internationalisation has implications for the ability of higher education institutions to develop a deliberate internationalisation strategy that takes into consideration regional factors influencing this process. The authors of the OECD Country Background Report on Russia (2007) acknowledge that ‘significant diversification of educational and training programs, a liberalization of management and active development (of) the linkages with local communities’ (p. 63) are necessary reforms for Russian regional universities to be able to address the social and economic problems of their regions. These could also assist the internationalisation of regional universities. However, the diversification of education programs, based on regional differences and local needs, is seen as a potential threat to the integrity and quality of the Russian education system in the report (Ministry of Education and Science and State University – Higher School of Economics, 2007). This points to an historical tension in the development of Russia as a federation that involved maintaining close control over its federal states. Maintaining a unified higher education system is another way of reinforcing state control. This could, however, create an environment where universities in the ‘centre’ of Russia are more likely to benefit from the education reforms than those in peripheral locations. To mitigate this, universities in the periphery require a more customised and context-specific strategy for institutional development, including internationalisation.

However, the ability of universities to develop context-specific internationalisation strategies has been influenced by the government’s usage of the international institutional rankings as an instrument to measure the performance of universities, particularly those funded through the Project 5-100. This has led to universities adopting ‘a common and limited set of criteria’ (Hudzik, 2011, p. 27) for their strategic development. The common international dimensions referred to in the international strategies of the leading Russian universities, including those in Siberia and the Russian Far East, are shaped by the state-selected performance indicators of internationalisation and international recognition. Despite the varied geographical and cultural contexts of the universities across Russia, these plans follow a largely uniform structure that, overall,

168 emphasises strategies for increasing academic mobility and the international recruitment of students and staff.

Contrary to the view that using international institutional rankings to measure institutional performance encourages the homogenisation of higher education institutions, the use of international academic rankings to monitor the progress of excellence initiatives in Russia has created a possible risk of greater stratification among the universities in the national centre and periphery. Some scholars have expressed concerns about the possible risk of Russian higher education reforms to shape ‘a very stratified higher education system in Russia: a cruel fate for many (especially in the regions) and a strengthened position for traditionally strong universities (especially in Western Russia)’ (Block & Khvatova, 2017, p. 777). Thus, the indicators used to measure the performance of universities across Russia should go beyond those provided by international institutional rankings. They need to be more context-specific and multidimensional, and take external factors affecting the internationalisation process into consideration.

In other words, university rankings may not provide the most appropriate approach to institutional performance measurement. This study indicates that despite some Siberian universities being more highly ranked31 than other Russian universities, their progress with internationalisation is slower than other universities and is hindered by the negative image of the region that influences the internationalisation process in these universities. As discussed in Chapter Three, the concept of ‘Siberia’ is well-known internationally due to its figurative meanings, often based on misconceptions of the region being wild and isolated, sparsely populated and permanently covered with snow. The overall attractiveness of the region, including the standard of living, the development of infrastructure, and climate, plays an important role in the ability of universities to attract and retain talent. As pointed out in Chapter Five, the relatively low attractiveness of

31 Based on the 2018 QS BRICS University Rankings, three Siberian universities: Novosibirsk State University, Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University are ranked in the 10 top universities in Russia, along with six universities located in Moscow and one in Saint Petersburg.

169

Siberia for long-term living and working was identified by some universities as one of the reasons for the low number of the foreign academics working in their institutions. This was also echoed in interviews with administrative leaders from other Siberian universities, who perceived the low appeal of the region as one of the challenges for university internationalisation. For the North-Eastern Federal University, remoteness and transport distance was perceived as a major challenge.

In addition to the government controlling institutional performance indicators, it closely monitors the allocation of state funds provided to universities. Government control over funding limits the ability of universities to diversify their international initiatives to areas beyond those directly related to the prescribed key performance indicators. As the funding comes from the federal budget, university activities are ‘toughly regulated to the smallest detail by the Ministry of Education and Science’ (Rykun, Yuzhaninov, & Vychuzhanina, 2015, p. 361). Universities are required to submit regular reports to the government, which according to some scholars, ‘reveal a system of increased state control’ (Block & Khvatova, 2017, p. 777). The study supports claims made in the literature that while pursuing a market-oriented and economically profitable higher education system, the Russian government aspires to maintain a centralised administrative control over it (Kuraev, 2014; OECD, 2007). Funding provided by the Russian government to support the strategic development of selected universities is especially important for the development of regional universities, like those in Siberia and the Far East. It also has implications for the overall ability of universities to effectively collaborate with their local communities and fulfil their role in regional development.

Due to regional socio-economic disparities, the additional funding provided by the government to internationalise serves as a means for universities located in the periphery to catch up with those in the academic centre. The findings from this study demonstrate that many factors influencing higher education internationalisation are region-specific, and consideration of regional conditions is crucial for the development of policy on internationalisation, including the distribution of funds from the federal budget. The findings thus lend full support to the conclusion from a recent study on the structure of

170 public education financing that argues for the need ‘to introduce territorial coefficients in the process of state support allocation, offsetting the difference in costs of education programs’ in order to create equal opportunities for universities throughout the different regions (Abankina, Filatova, and Nikolayenko, 2018, p. 425). The authors note:

If territorial conditions where universities operate are not taken into account, universities located in Russia’s remote north and far east receive larger amounts of support, but this only serves to balance the higher costs of education programs in these regions. (p. 425)

Regional disparities between the centre and periphery not only affect the financial capacity of universities, but also their ability to attract talent. This has implications for how the state initiative to internationalise universities by increasing the proportion of foreign academics and students unfolds in various regions across the country. In their attempt to internationalise, Siberian and Far Eastern universities face challenges associated with the peripherality of their region on a national level, due to the strong centre-periphery relationship between Russia’s core in Moscow and other regions in Russia. Some interviewees from Siberian universities perceived that universities in Moscow and Saint Petersburg had a more competitive advantage in attracting talented students and scholars. The concentration of resources in the ‘centre’, with almost half of all national research universities and universities participating in the Project 5-100 located in Moscow and Saint Petersburg, not only hinders the ability of regional universities to attract international students, but also contributes to the outflow of the most talented local students from the peripheral eastern territories to the European part of Russia in pursuit of a higher education degree.

In summary, the study has pointed to a misalignment between government policy on internationalisation and the capacity of regional universities to deliver expected results. As a result, regional universities are challenged to search for the right balance between meeting the State’s goals and meeting their local needs and reality.

171

7.1.2 Institutional cultures resistant to change

The State’s top-down push on universities to internationalise and pressure to produce quick, quantifiable results can have unintended consequences and lead to staff being resistant to internationalisation. This presents another major challenge to the internationalisation process in the universities studied in this research. The study reveals that institutional cultures in universities in Siberia and the Far East are not yet fully supportive of internationalisation. Some academic and professional staff seem to see little value in the internationalisation process, but rather perceive it as an inconvenience that means change to existing practices and additional work.

The State’s objectives for internationalising universities are reflected in the institutional strategies focused on quick measurable results 32 , rather than on a more long-term cultural change at the institution. As a result, under the pressure to internationalise, university leaders interviewed in this study appear to pay little attention to raising awareness of the value and benefit of internationalisation among students and staff, and motivating all members of the university community to engage with this process. A supportive institutional environment is important for the success of the higher education internationalisation process (Knight, 1994; Hudzik, 2011; Klemenčič, 2017). Thus, failure to lay the foundation for building an institutional environment that enables internationalisation through integrating international dimensions into the systems and values of an institution, creates a barrier for internationalisation in the universities.

Institutional cultures in Russian universities, including those in Siberian and Far Eastern universities, have been shaped by the Soviet higher education system. This study suggests that the lack of exposure to international education models and trends, as well as the legacy of the ‘Soviet mindset’, might have influenced the attitudes of some professional and academic staff towards internationalisation. The administrative leaders interviewed for this study commented that the mentality of the majority of staff at their universities

32 Roadmaps of some universities even have a section called ‘Quick wins’ outlining what universities have already managed to achieve.

172 lacked flexibility and openness. Some interviewed administrators commented on the suddenness and scope of the state agenda to internationalise higher education. In this context, many academic and administrative staff are forced to quickly adapt to a changing working environment, that may include teaching students from diverse backgrounds, teaching in a foreign language or understanding a credit-module system used in other countries. Given that universities in Siberia and the Far East have for a long time had only very limited international exposure, not all staff members have the skills required to support international activities.

Thus, the lack of international exposure has hindered the ability of universities to engage in international activities and the opportunity of staff to gain necessary experience in collaborating with international colleagues and communicating in a foreign language. This creates tension and reinforces the resistance towards the process. Consequently, these factors have influenced the overall ability of universities to create an institutional culture that enables internationalisation.

The level of engagement of staff with the process of internationalisation is shaped by various factors, including the level of institutional support, certain individual factors, such as lack of experience or willingness to change, as well as the various interpretations of the meaning of internationalisation (Hudzik, 2015). Similar factors may also influence the attitudes towards internationalisation of non-academic staff, who are equally important for the success of internationalisation in higher education institutions. In his study on the international engagement of academic staff in Australian higher education, Proctor (2015) noted that national context, and in particular, geographic isolation, influences the international dimensions of academic work. While low levels of staff international engagement are internationally recognised as an issue, it is perhaps even more prominent in Russian peripheral universities, due to certain historical developments. For example, as discussed in a previous chapter, universities in Siberia and the Far East have only been engaging in international activities for two decades, as some cities where the universities are located used to require government permission for entry, due to their proximity to ‘closed cities.’

173

In Russian universities the development of an institutional international strategy is generally the responsibility of the Rector or Vice-Rector for International Affairs, if such a position exists at the university. Administrators working in the international units and departments are not always able to comment on their institutional international strategy. One junior administrator pointed out that taking the international initiatives of the International Department to the leadership of the university is challenging. This points to a possible lack of communication and collaboration between the university senior leadership and the middle management and less senior administrative staff, including those directly engaged in the practical aspects of the institutional internationalisation. Thus, on the one hand, the ‘top-down’ push from institutional leaders to internationalise is not always effectively communicated to all staff members across the university and on the other hand, ‘bottom-up’ initiatives from staff do not always receive consideration from the institutional leaders.

In summary, the complexity of influences brought by the national and regional contexts highlights the need for a more long-term internationalisation strategy, with a special focus on communicating the purpose and value of the internationalisation process to all staff and students at the institution, and providing staff with adequate training and support to carry out the institution’s international objectives.

7.2 Priorities for universities in the periphery

The study reveals some areas of misalignment between the international functions prioritised by universities in Siberia and the Far East region and those seen as imperative for higher education institutions in the periphery, such as international institutional cooperation and international institutional profiling. Using Klemenčič’s (2015) integrated approach to internationalisation as a lens, this section examines the implications this may have on the advancement of internationalisation goals in universities in this region and discusses their opportunities to achieve integrated international engagement.

174

7.2.1 International profiling

Given the known challenges for internationalisation of higher education institutions in the periphery, it is argued that finding a unique niche and sharpening the institutional profile in teaching, research and the third mission should be among the top priorities for peripheral higher education institutions. This is even more important for universities in Siberia and the Far East given their peripheral status at the national level, as well as demographic decline in the regions and growing competition among the universities. Based on Klemenčič’s (2015) integrated approach to internationalisation, higher education institutions in the periphery should use international profiling as a strategic tool to advance institutional international engagement. According to Klemenčič, institutional international profiling should underpin the internationalisation strategy, and internationalisation should support the implementation of an international profiling strategy.

For Russian leading universities overall, with the exception of a few universities, in particular those participating in Project 5-100, international profiling is not a common institutional priority. The lack of importance given to international profiling in the institutional strategic development plans can be explained in several ways. Most Russian universities used to be institutes affiliated with specialised industrial ministries; many of the universities still maintain a strong reputation of specialisation in a certain field which underpins their institutional positioning. As discussed in Chapter Five, many Russian universities in their strategic development plans still refer to some fundamental needs such as, for example, gaining access to the global information resources and achieving international accreditation of programs, that are necessary preconditions for advancing the internationalisation. This suggests a possible lack of institutional capacity for strategic planning and institutional positioning.

Given the limited resources available to universities to build their international profile, only universities participating in Project 5-100 pay attention to international profiling. A specific section of the Competitiveness Enhancement Programs or Roadmaps of these universities is dedicated to an institution’s international profile and position, where

175 universities identify their target model, desired international image and identity. According to Klemenčič (2017), international profiling is directly linked to institutional positioning, the process through which institutions locate themselves in specific niches and develop specific relationships within the higher education markets (Fumasoli & Huisman, 2013). Therefore, it would be beneficial for all universities to commence the development of their strategic international profile by identifying the institution’s existing and desirable competitiveness and visibility areas (Klemenčič, 2017). However, it is perhaps even more critical for Siberian universities to undertake this, given their close location to one another within the region, with Tomsk State University and Tomsk Polytechnic University having their main campuses next to each other on the same street. Thus, the close proximity of leading universities and the growing competition has led to universities needing a distinct institutional niche that appeals to international students and academics, while also serving the needs of their local community.

The geographic location of universities with the specific characteristics of the region appear to be a part of institutional positioning. For example, the Siberian Federal University focuses its international image on global challenges such as climate change, from the perspective of its unique geographic location. The national research universities identify their competitive advantage in the specific fields of research, although unique regional characteristics, such as natural resources and environment, are often a part of the selected research areas. Tomsk Polytechnic University, for example, focuses on research issues of resource efficiency related to interdisciplinary clusters: safe environment, sustainable energy, medical engineering and the planet’s resources.

Contrary to Klemenčič’s (2017) argument that peripheral locations are usually less known and less visible within the global higher education space, Siberia is a region that is internationally well-known. Therefore, the uniqueness of a region can be included in an institution’s international profiling. Some experts argue that Russia needs to create ‘a brand for the region’ and suggest a focus on its major natural landmarks to promote tourism (Karaganov, 2014). This study argues that leading universities in Siberia and the Far East should play a more active role in the redevelopment of the region’s brand. This

176 will allow it to expand beyond tourism and tap into many areas unique to the region, such as climate, geography, sustainable development, indigenous cultures and language. Transforming the negative image of the region into a positive one through the network of leading Siberian universities could be the key to internationalisation, not only in Siberia’s universities, but also the region as a whole. Thus, while it is necessary for each university to identify its own distinct area of desired international visibility, cooperation within the Siberian micro-region is also important. This type of cooperation is often overlooked in the studies on internationalisation of higher education that are more concerned with cross-border collaboration.

The aspiration to increase cooperation within the research function of some Siberian institutions has been recently expressed by the head of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, who called for ‘the accelerated development of the Novosibirsk and Tomsk Scientific centres’, to create ‘Silicon Taiga’ (“Silicon Taiga can become a reality to drive Russia forward,” 2018). Cooperation among the universities on a micro-regional level was also brought up in the interviews conducted for this study. The Head of the International Department from one Siberian university expressed an aspiration to create a consortium of Siberian universities to promote international collaboration. However, the study indicates that sometimes competition hinders institutional cooperation in the region. For example, a consortium of universities and scientific organisations was established in Tomsk to allow universities there some flexibility in the way they combine their institutional resources for specific research and education projects. However, as commented by one senior administrative leader, while a consortium formally exists, ‘unfortunately nothing happened beyond the idea, because each higher education institution first pursues its own benefit. In other words, competition overtook the cooperation’ (T1). Thus, the competition between the universities in Siberia hinders the opportunities to develop a unique Siberian higher education hub by building on the areas of strength and competitive advantages of each institution in the region.

Collaboration between universities and city governments could also be mutually beneficial. Universities can play a vital role in the cultural, social, intellectual and political

177 life of the city and broader region (van Winden, 2014). The study supports Klemenčič’s (2017) argument that given the inherited factors of peripheral location, it is especially important for universities to collaborate with their cities and micro-regions to enhance the internationalisation of the whole community and to create an attractive learning environment. On the one hand, the quality of life in cities in Siberia and the Far East is important for attracting talent, and on the other hand, hosting a sizeable student population is vital for the stable economic, demographic and social development of the cities. For example, as one of its strategic initiatives, Tomsk State University sees its contribution to the social and economic development of the region as creating an attractive social environment in the university, the city of Tomsk and the region as a whole.

Internationalised universities in Siberia and the Far East have the potential to become attractive centres for young people and to slow down the inter-regional migration to the west of Russia. According to the institutional development strategy of Irkutsk State Technical University (2010), the university aspires to become:

[a] centre of attraction for young scientists and talented youth in the Baikal and Far Eastern regions, which will significantly reduce the outflow to the European part of the country and abroad. (Program of the development of the state educational institution of higher education ‘Irkutsk State Technical University’ in 2010 – 2019, 2010)

Leading universities in Tomsk and Novosibirsk already attract students from smaller Siberian cities. In 2013, the largest proportion of non-resident students from other regions and countries were enrolled in universities in Tomsk, Saint Petersburg, Novosibirsk, and Moscow, respectively (Hadaev, 2013). As noted by Zubarevich (2002), such Siberian cities as Tomsk and Novosibirsk have the potential to develop ‘high-quality universities with research facilities and an effective system of stimulus for academic activities’ (2002, p. 412). The author also points out that the emergence of innovation- driven urban centres beyond the Moscow agglomeration may have positive effects on the development of regions in Russia.

178

In summary, the lack of appeal of Siberia and the Far East and the peripheral status of the region influence international institutional profiling. Universities in Siberia and the Far East face the double challenge of gaining more appeal, not only internationally, but on a national level as well. Thus, higher education institutions in the periphery need to put in more effort to strengthen their international position by selecting a unique niche to differentiate them within the competitive international, as well as national and regional, higher education space. This can be achieved by creating a more attractive urban and regional environment through collaboration with other higher education institutions in the region and municipal and regional governments.

7.2.2 International institutional cooperation: The Eastern vector

In recent years, the Russian government has shown signs of reorienting the focus of its foreign policy from the West to the East. In this context, Siberia and the Far East may potentially move from the national periphery to a more central and geo-politically strategic position. The regions can serve as a ‘bridge between Europe and Asia’ (Vodichev & Lamin, 2008, p. 127) or become ‘Russia’s window to Asia’ (Karaganov, 2014, pp. 5–6). This may create a favourable environment for universities in Siberia and the Far East to increase regional cooperation with Asian universities. It is argued that the process of regional collaboration with institutions in neighbouring countries provides an opportunity for higher education institutions in the periphery to combine their resources to improve the academic and intellectual infrastructure (Altbach, 2016) and strengthen their regional relevance, international status and visibility (Klemenčič, 2017). Thus, the geographic proximity of Siberia and the Far East to the Asian higher education area and Russian foreign policy reorientation towards Asia can offer leading Siberian and Far Eastern universities opportunities that are worthy of further exploration. Knight (2012) proposed several points of consideration in the discussion of influences between the region and higher education. The impact of regionalism on higher education and the potential of higher education to be used as an instrument for regional integration are of particular interest to this study.

179

The Russian government has recently made attempts to reorient its foreign policy toward further regionalisation with the Asia-Pacific, which is described in the literature as ‘turn to the East’ or the ‘Asian vector’ of Russia’s policy (see Karaganov et al., 2012). While this shift in the foreign policy has been initiated along economic and political lines, it has the potential to produce cross-sectoral ‘spill-over’ to other areas (Beerkens, 2004, p. 31), and therefore may enhance collaboration within the higher education sector. The fact that the Russian government hosted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2012 on a new campus built for the Far Eastern Federal University on Russky Island, near Vladivostok, is a vivid example of such a cross-sectoral ‘spill-over’.

The strengthening of the Asian vector will require Russian leadership to accelerate the development of infrastructure in Siberia and the Russian Far East and to improve political relations with the leading Asia-Pacific countries (Karaganov et al., 2012). This could have a positive impact on the internationalisation of higher education in Siberia and the Far East. Investing in Siberia and the Far East can make the region more attractive for Asian higher education institutions to pursue international collaboration in teaching and research. The development of transport infrastructure could lessen some of the challenges associated with regional isolation for universities in Siberia and the Far East, and enhance international academic mobility by making the region more easily accessible, and reducing the costs associated with overseas travel. Currently, airports in some cities where Siberian universities are located, do not operate international flights, which adds another layer of complexity to the already challenging process of the recruitment of foreign student and academics to the universities in the region.

Another point for consideration with regards to higher education and Russia’s Eastern vector is the possibility of using universities in Siberia and the Far East as an instrument for strengthening Russia’s participation in regional integration in the Asia-Pacific. The report, Russia’s Guiding Landmarks in the Asia-Pacific after the APEC Summit in Vladivostok (RIAC, 2013), presents a summary of the outcomes of the forums held after the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Vladivostok. According to the report,

180 forum participants33 conceded that Russian national interests in the Asia-Pacific for the foreseeable future should, among other things, focus on improving universities in Siberia and the Far East in order to:

reinforce the non-primary innovative components of the economies of these areas of Russia, and to bring there students, professors and researchers from Asia-Pacific countries, boosting Russia’s ties to the region. (Sumsky, Kanaev, Koldunova, Zavadsky, & Zinovyeva, 2013, p. 11)

The role of regional universities can, therefore, be particularly important in changing the development priorities of the Russian Eastern territories from what is referred to in the literature as an ideology ‘based on resource extraction and bordering on colonial exploitation’ to one focused on human resource development (Karaganov, 2014, p. 64). In this context, higher education internationalisation should be an imperative for universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia.

Despite the apparent promising opportunities for Siberian and Far Eastern universities in the Asia-Pacific region, this study shows that while the universities in the Russian Far East view Asia-Pacific as a strategic region for international cooperation, Siberian universities seem to be somewhat at a crossroads between East and West. The study indicates a growing interest and understanding of the importance of collaboration with higher education institutions in the Asia-Pacific region, given the geographic proximity of the regions and the government’s pronounced ‘turn to the East’ with regards to its international policy. This study’s analysis of institutional visions, values, and priority shows that some universities position themselves within the Asia-Pacific region. Furthermore, universities participating in the Project 5-100 identify in their roadmaps certain peer universities in China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan as a benchmark for their development. However, engagement with European universities is still often given greater priority over cooperation with universities in the Asia-Pacific.

33 This event was attended by representatives from government agencies, Russia’s expert and business communities, and some foreign participants from such countries as the United States, China, Japan, Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines

181

While it is argued that peripheral higher education institutions need to consider collaboration with peer institutions, in particular those located in the neighbouring countries, they tend to seek cooperation with more established higher education institutions that possess more resources and reputational capital to build their institutional capacity. Such institutional internationalisation behaviours are often explained by the international rankings that drive universities to seek institutional collaboration with the prestigious and top-ranked universities in order ‘to elevate their visibility and brand’ (Deardorff, de Wit, & Heyl, 2012, p. 462).

In the case of Siberian universities, the aspiration to engage with European higher education institutions may also be explained by the national historical and cultural context. Russia remains mainly Eurocentric in its foreign policy, trade and overall mentality (Huasheng, 2016), and this study argues that Russia’s Eurocentrism also affects higher education. Historically, the idea of higher education was brought to Russia from Europe and, while it has since undergone some major transformations as outlined in Chapter Three, Western education models and practices are still considered to be an example of best practice. However, Kuraev (2014) notes that higher education in Russia is in transition and, while it is no longer an old Soviet system, ‘it is also not a modern Western-like university system’ (p. 267).

The commitment to Western education values and standards was recently reinstated, when Russia signed the Bologna Declaration on higher education in 2006. However, Russian integration with the European Higher Education Area did not appear to have the anticipated spill-over effect beyond education, to political and economic relationships between Russia and Europe (see Pursiainen & Medvedev, 2005). Considering recent negative trends in the development of relations between Russia and countries in the European Union, some scholars are surprised that Russia has not yet terminated its membership of the Bologna (Busygina, 2018).

Most of the institutional leaders of leading Russian universities were brought up in the period when Russia, as a part of the Soviet Union, was far ahead of many nations in its scientific research achievements. At that time, as a part of its mission to spread the Soviet

182 academic model to other countries, Russia provided education aid to countries in need of assistance, including some countries in the Asia-Pacific. This appears to have influenced the general attitude towards the higher education practices and models in Asia-Pacific countries as being inferior by comparison with those in Western countries. Thus, an important part of Russia’s ‘turn to the East’ is the ‘turn in the minds’ of the political and intellectual elites. This requires a change in the existing perception of the Eastern vector of Russia’s foreign policy as unnatural for the country’s Eurocentric political and cultural traditions (Karaganov, 2014).

In the last few decades, many Asian countries have undergone rapid transformation, both economically and in higher education, while education in Russia has been in stagnation since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Thus, Russia could learn from their experience, in particular considering that, similarly to Russia, the government in China and other Asian countries is the major driver of higher education internationalisation. China, perhaps, provides the most vivid example of achieving great results in modernising its higher education sector in a short period of time. While higher education systems in both countries were influenced by the Soviet model for many years, strong political commitment, supported by reforms and large investment in education and research, have allowed China to achieve much greater success in the modernisation of its higher education system over the past two decades than Russia (Marginson, 2016). Some scholars argue that the Chinese model of internationalisation effectively combined the international higher education trends and national higher education traditions and could possibly be used to guide the internationalisation of Russian universities (Starygina, 2017).

Thus, while the study shows that the regional context presents challenges for the internationalisation process in Siberian and Far Eastern universities, it can be argued that the geographic location of the institutions, in particular their proximity to Asia’s rapidly growing higher education space, may provide universities with some untapped opportunities. There is still, however, much work that needs to be done by the universities to progress in this direction.

183

7.3 The importance of a supportive environment

A supportive national higher education system and enabling institutional climate are necessary conditions for integrated institutional internationalisation (Klemenčič, 2017). Marginson (2004) observes that the national and institutional capacity to pursue a proactive global strategy, among other things, depends on the openness of the country to global influences. While the Russian higher education system and the Siberian and Far Eastern universities have recently started the process of actively opening up to global influences, the national and institutional environments are not yet fully supportive of the internationalisation process.

The Russian government plays an important role as one of the major driving forces of the internationalisation agenda in the country. Despite the State’s ambitious goal to internationalise and strengthen the profiles of a group of leading universities, the overall legal and policy frameworks in Russia do not appear to be flexible enough to fully support or enable internationalisation, but rather have a disabling effect on international initiatives. For example, highly bureaucratised visa and work regulations still present hurdles that may affect the decision of foreign students and scholars to study and work in Russia. There have, however, been some positive changes towards more openness by Russia to the global higher education space. For example, to attract international students, the quota of state-budgeted places has been increased over the past several years, and the process of obtaining working permits for full-time students has been streamlined.

To attract leading scientists to conduct research in priority scientific fields, world-class laboratories have been established (Measures to Attract Leading Scientists to Russian Educational Institutions, 2010). While more active engagement in internationalised research activities is being promoted as a part of the internationalisation agenda, legislative restrictions hinder the process of commercialising the research results and establishing small innovative enterprises or start-ups. In addition, as pointed out by one senior administrative leader, state funding provided for research is not comparable with that in other countries.

184

The institutional culture in Siberian and Far Eastern universities can also hinder internationalisation. The advancement of internationalisation within institutions requires considerable changes in staff work practices and the attitudes of its existing culture. In this context, barriers to behavioural change can become, according to Hudzik (2015), ‘the most confounding of impediments’ (p. 14) for comprehensive internationalisation. The study has illustrated that in Siberian and Far Eastern universities, such barriers are linked to a lack of understanding and the skills to engage in international activities by staff, and their absence of motivation and preference for the status quo, as well as a predominantly top-down approach to the implementation of internationalisation. While these barriers have been shown to be common for organisations and individuals globally, their intensity varies (Hudzik, 2015). This study has demonstrated that the existing challenges in behavioural change in universities in Siberia and the Far East are strong and rooted in the Soviet higher education legacy, and some region-specific factors that have shaped the institutional cultures of these universities.

More work needs to be done to communicate and promote the purpose and value of internationalisation across an institution in order to mitigate the existing attitudes of staff and to avoid the risk of internationalisation remaining a top-down imposition that is seen as a challenge rather than an opportunity by the majority of academic and administrative staff across an institution. Hudzik (2015) suggests linking internationalisation to the professional motivation of staff to make the benefits more evident. As mentioned by an administrator interviewed for this study, the meaning of the internationalisation process lies in ‘an understanding of what we [staff and students] gain from it. Not just the formal rankings, but that we really gain something for ourselves’ (N5). Another way to communicate and reinforce institutional commitment to higher education internationalisation is through the institutional mission and vision, as these statements underline key values. As shown in Chapter Five, only one university in this study mentioned internationalisation in its mission statement. Although a closer look at vision statements of universities in Siberia and the Far East has revealed that various international dimensions are infused in institutional aspirations, this was done in an unsystematic manner and was inconsistent across English and Russian language websites.

185

In conclusion, the success of the internationalisation strategy depends on strong leadership that is able to establish and foster an institutional culture supportive of internationalisation. Bartell (2003) notes that the leadership's role includes ‘the identification of internal contradictions and the design of appropriate solutions as well as the clarification and communication of the university's identity relative to its external environment’ (p. 67). University leaders need to bring all staff members to the internationalisation process as early as possible. The need for staff to be encouraged to proactively engage in the international dimensions of the institution’s functions was mentioned in several interviews and, as pointed out by a senior administrative leader, ‘it is now the responsibility of the Rector to motivate staff’ (T1).

7.4 A reflection on internationalisation of universities in the academic periphery

Globalisation and the rise of the knowledge economy have drawn the attention of national governments to higher education. Various policies and excellence initiatives to transform the national higher education landscape have been launched across the world (Marginson and van der Wende, 2009; Altbach, 2004b, p. 3). Such trends are becoming more visible in emerging economies that have gained the capacity to invest in higher education and pursue a more proactive international strategy. These countries that have been mainly on the periphery of the global academe, are now aspiring to transition closer to the centre that is mainly occupied by Western or Anglophone industrialised nations. In the process of becoming more international or global, universities in emerging economies are challenged to balance their local responsibilities and international priorities. This may lead to universities substituting part of their national identity ‘for a global identity for some, and regional or local identity for others’ (Beerkens, 2004, p. 23). It is uncertain how this will unfold for universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia. This study, however, argues that, given the unique location of the universities in this study, reinforcing their local identity and relevance can strengthen their international image and appeal.

The possible global trajectories of higher education institutions, including the opportunities for higher education institutions in the periphery to move closer to the

186 academic centre, are influenced by various inherited factors (see Marginson & van der Wende, 2009). Most of these factors, such as geographic position, history, or higher education system regulation and policy, are outside institutional control. However, some, including resources, academic and organisational cultures and institutional position- taking, can be addressed and therefore need to be prioritised by universities.

This study illustrates how different aspects of location influence the international initiatives of universities. For example, while some Siberian universities are ranked in the top 10 universities in Russia, the negative image of the region presents a major obstacle for attracting talent. Universities in the periphery, therefore, need to conduct institutional research, such as analyses of institutional strength and weakness and international trends and opportunities, as well as benchmarking with other universities, to inform strategic institutional positioning. These steps are similar to the elements for the development of an international strategy in universities suggested by Davies (1992), which shows that international institutional positioning works in parallel with the internationalisation strategy. However, institutional research involves regular data collection that requires time, financial and human resources, which are not always readily available in peripheral institutions.

International alliances are often considered to be a tool for less prestigious higher education institutions to improve their status on a national level by building a new global role (Marginson & van der Wende, 2007). Thus, peripheral universities often aspire to cooperate with the universities positioned in the top of the international institutional rankings. However, according to Klemenčič (2017), peripheral universities should strategically select partner universities and prioritise cooperation with the higher education institutions in neighbouring countries. According to Altbach (2016), regional cooperation is considered to be a ‘promising ideal’ for higher education institutions in the periphery, as it provides these institutions with the opportunity to improve their academic and intellectual infrastructure by combining existing resources. Furthermore, previous studies have highlighted that international collaboration on a smaller regional scale can be effective and beneficial for all institutions involved (Marhl, Rebolj, Kraljić,

187

2011; Yang, 2012). While this study supports these views, it argues that, in addition to collaboration with neighbouring regions, there is a need for universities to develop stronger links with peer institutions within their micro-region on a sub-national level.

This study argues that universities in Siberia and the Far East have great potential to successfully internationalise, given their proximity to the Asia-Pacific region. However, this will to a certain extent, depend on the ability of the political leaders in Moscow to launch the necessary mechanisms of regional integration with the Asia-Pacific. This, among other things, will require a shift in the national development strategy from a state- directed to a more market-driven economic development model, and a change in priorities towards the regional development and modernisation of Siberia and Russian Far East (Akaha & Vassilieva, 2014, p. 281). Whether universities in Siberia and the Far East will be able to take full advantage of their strategic geographic location also depends on the perceptions of the institutional leaders of the value of international institutional cooperation with universities in the Asia-Pacific.

Institutional culture creates an environment that can either inhibit or facilitate the higher education internationalisation process. According to Hudzik (2011), ‘the most important opening question is whether there is a fertile climate of awareness and real openness to internationalisation’ (p. 22). However, as this study has shown, institutional leaders do not always clearly articulate the purpose and importance of internationalisation at the early stages of the process. The lack of a clear message from leadership on the purpose and values of internationalisation may have important implications for peripheral higher education institutions wishing to increase their international engagement. For example, there may be a risk of creating indifferent, or even negative, and resistant attitudes of staff towards the internationalisation process. Effective internal communication within the institution, including the institution’s strategy and its broad public statements, such as mission and vision, and the motivation of staff to engage in international activities, are some of the strategies to mitigate this risk.

Beyond the institution, some national policy frameworks can enable the strategies of institutional internationalisation. As observed by Johnson (2015) ‘the reformed

188 universities could play a leading role as Russia carves out its own distinctive path towards (re)modernization and integration with the global economy’ (p. 307). However, this, according to Johnson (2015), will depend on Russia’s ability to effectively address issues of bureaucracy, intellectual isolation, and institutional corruption. This study argues that, in addition to the conditions observed by Johnson, the successful modernisation of Russian higher education and integration of Russian universities into the global academic space will also depend on the government’s ability to consider regional differences in the development of national higher education policy. This is necessary for all leading universities identified by the government across Russia, to be able to equally modernise and contribute to the balanced development of the country. Although this is outside of the direct institutional control, the universities could collaborate on developing policy suggestions for the Russian government. There has already been some progress in this regard. As mentioned by Karelina (2018), several amendments to Russian laws suggested by the Association of Global Universities, which is comprised of the universities participating in the Project 5-100, were adopted by the government.

Siberia and the Russian Far East present a unique context – a periphery with a high concentration of institutional resources and human capital. While geographically remote and peripheral to the capital, where most of Russian science is concentrated, most universities in the region are well-established higher education institutions with long- standing academic traditions and histories that rank among the top national universities in Russia. Overall, the factors related to the Siberian and Far Eastern regional context are contradictory in character. On the one hand, the geographic, historical and socio- economic characteristics of the region make it peripheral and places universities located there at a disadvantage. On the other hand, the unique geographic location of Siberia and the Far East offers universities unique opportunities for regional engagement within the rapidly developing Asian higher education space.

189

CHAPTER 8. Conclusion

This study investigated the factors influencing internationalisation in regional universities located in the Eastern part of Russia. The aim was to shed light on internationalisation in a less examined context of Russia and provide some insights on international perspectives from universities located in the national periphery. The Adaptive Theory approach provided a useful mechanism guiding the interchange between the data emerging from the two phases of the study and the existing frameworks and concepts around higher education internationalisation (Layder, 1998).

The study began by reviewing existing concepts and frameworks around higher education internationalisation. Analysis of the literature highlighted the dominance of the Western and Anglophone perspectives in the field of international higher education and pointed to the uneven nature of the global higher education landscape, where only a small group of higher education institutions are positioned in the centre of the global academe while the rest remain at the periphery (e.g. Altbach & Salmi, 2011; Klemenčič, 2017). With a growing number of countries actively pursuing internationalisation, there appears to be an increasing tension around the centre-periphery dynamic (Altbach et al., 2009, p. 10). The perspectives from the periphery are slowly gaining more attention and challenging the existing dominance of the centre in the discourse on internationalisation (de Wit, Gacel-Ávila & Jones, 2017).

An analysis of the Russian higher education context suggested that the State’s aspirations to modernise and internationalise the national higher education system and the challenges associated with this process, are to some extent underpinned by the Soviet legacy. The Russian government aspires to re-establish the former international prestige of its higher education system and bring a group of selected universities closer to the centre of the global academe by increasing their positions in the international rankings. These aspirations, however, are challenged by educational reforms that followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union and initiated the process of internal transformation shaping Russian higher education to its current state. The post-Soviet period of transition

190 to a market-oriented economy was hindered by the economic crisis, which diminished the nation’s capacity to support the decentralisation of educational responsibilities from State to regional authorities (Polyzoi & Dneprov, 2015). As pointed out by some Russian scholars, the ‘legacy of centralized planning and command administration’ lies in the uneven regional development that created large disparities in the quality of education in different regions (Bain, Zakharov, & Nosova, 1998, p. 60).

In addressing the primary research question – what are the factors influencing the internationalisation process in Russian regional universities in Siberia and the Far East? – the study produced several major findings. Most importantly, the study found that many of the challenges of internationalisation in regional universities are rooted in the local contexts, in particular their geographic, historical, cultural and socio-economic characteristics. This study has argued, that while initiatives to internationalise higher education provide important incentives for the universities, they do not affect universities across the country in the same way due to various regional characteristics. Within a selected group of leading Russian universities, regional universities find themselves at a disadvantage due to their peripheral location in relation to Russia’s ‘centre’ in Moscow and to a lesser extent Saint Petersburg.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle facing universities in this region is their peripheral location. This peripherality is reflected not only in the remoteness of the region from Russia’s centre in Moscow but also in its socio-economic underdevelopment, severe climate conditions and demographic decline. Despite the seemingly common view that in today’s globalised world, developments in transportation has shrunk the distance between places, this is not the case for some peripheral localities in Russia that still face many challenges with regards to the lack of appropriate infrastructure enabling internationalisation.

In addition to the challenges brought by the peripheral location, internationalisation in Siberian universities is hindered by the negative, stereotypical image of the region as being ‘a place of eternal winter’ or ‘a place of political exile’. This image created over time continues to persist among people who lack knowledge about the region. While some

191 universities in Siberia are ranked in the top 10 universities in Russia, foreign students are likely to choose less prestigious universities in other regions that may be less-known but do not have a negative image.

Another challenge faced by universities in Siberia and the Far East is related to its historical characteristics of the region that include the fact that during the Cold War, foreigners except for those from Communist countries, were not allowed to visit cities where most of the universities are located, due to the proximity of these cities to places where secretive research was being conducted. While the cities were open after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, this period of isolation in combination with the overall poor socio-economic situation in the region, has affected the development of the city and infrastructure of universities as well as their ability to host foreigners.

Another obstacle to internationalisation that perhaps stems from the challenges discussed above concerns the attitudes of university staff towards internationalisation. The interviews with university administrators as part of this study revealed that the legacy of the Soviet mentality, lacking flexibility and openness, is one of the hindrances to higher education internationalisation. The lack of exposure to the outside world and the absence of appropriate infrastructure in Siberia and Far East seem to have slowed down the opening up of the region after the years of isolation. This might have also exacerbated the overall negative attitudes of staff towards internationalisation. Surprisingly, although cultural factors appear to be one of the major obstacles for internationalisation, they have not yet been given much attention in the literature on higher education internationalisation in Russia.

The proximity of Russia’s capital to Europe explains the vector of the Russian foreign policy and the national elite’s perception of Russia as a quasi-European nation. In addition to the economic and political affairs, such a Eurocentric mindset has influenced the orientation of Russian higher education towards the European Higher Education Area. This study has revealed that universities in Siberia tend to find themselves at a crossroads between East and West. This is not so much the case for the universities in the Far East of Russia due to their unique geographic location, the large distance from the capital on

192 the one hand and proximity to Asia on the other hand. Despite a recent political shift towards more economic and political cooperation with the East, there is still much that needs to be done by universities in Siberia and the Far East of Russia to take a more active role in promoting cooperation between Russia and Asia-Pacific and many opportunities remain largely untapped.

8.1 Contribution of the study

This thesis has presented qualitative research that investigates internationalisation within an institutional setting, which is important given that studies on internationalisation, in particular those on emerging economies, tend to focus on the national level policies and reforms in higher education, including internationalisation (Shahjahan & Kezar, 2013). The contributions of this study are three-fold. Firstly, this study contributes to our understanding of the factors influencing internationalisation in Russian regional universities and, more specifically, the motives and obstacles of internationalisation among leading universities in Siberia and the Far East.

Secondly, although this study was conducted in seven leading universities in Siberia and the Far East, the findings hold broader significance and shed light on the state of internationalisation of higher education in Russia. As discussed in Chapter One, the literature on higher education internationalisation has been largely dominated by perspectives and conceptions from developed and mainly Anglophone countries. Interpretation of internationalisation varies across the world, and scholars increasingly question whether various global contexts have been sufficiently explored (Jones & de Wit, 2012, p. 35). Therefore, by providing insights on the international developments in Russia, this study adds to the body of knowledge on internationalisation in less explored regions emerging in the international higher education landscape.

Thirdly, this thesis also contributes to the general discussion on how the centre-periphery dynamics in an uneven global higher education space affect the process of internationalisation. More specifically the study offers a different perspective on the internationalisation process and challenges associated with it from the universities that

193 are located in the academic periphery, not only at an international level, but also at a national one. The findings from the study provide some useful points of consideration for the analysis of higher education internationalisation in other countries with large centre- periphery disparities.

Finally, the methodological contribution of this thesis lies in the application of Klemenčič’s (2015) conceptual framework of integrated internationalisation to study internationalisation in Russian regional universities. Given the development gap between the ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’, the conceptual frameworks for institutional internationalisation produced by scholars from developed countries could not always be applicable in the contexts of peripheral universities. This study has demonstrated that Klemenčič’s (2015) conceptual framework of integrated internationalisation has the potential to be used to guide the internationalisation process in the universities in the periphery. Based on this approach, peripheral higher education institutions need to focus on international profiling and international institutional collaboration, as well as building an institutional culture supportive of internationalisation. International profiling can assist higher education institutions in selecting an appropriate niche that will distinguish them within the international academic space and international institutional collaboration can potentially compensate for the lack of certain resources. Finally, creating an academic and organisational culture supportive of institutional international engagement is crucial for successful internationalisation.

However, it is important to note that this framework does have some limitations, as it does not address the ‘periphery’ and ‘centre’ tensions that exist within countries themselves. As a result, this framework fails to consider additional challenges faced by higher education institutions situated at the national periphery in their pursuit of internationalisation. In the case of the universities examined in this study, the peripherality on a national level adds additional challenges to the cross-cutting internationalisation function.

194

8.2 Implications for policy and practice

The study has highlighted a number of areas needing further consideration in the development of Russian higher education policies and institutional strategies for internationalisation.

8.2.1 Policy considerations

The study has revealed a lack of alignment between the ambitious aspirations of government leaders and the different levels of capacity among the universities in various regions to deliver the goals identified by the State. An analysis of the national higher education internationalisation initiatives and existing obstacles for internationalising at the institutional level, shows that while the state policy is uniform across the country, regional disparities produce a combination of specific contextual conditions influencing internationalisation process. The study has pointed to an imperative for the Russian government to consider regional differences in developing national policies and initiatives related to higher education internationalisation.

Pressure to make Russian universities more globally competitive needs to be balanced against their local realities and the current needs. National internationalisation initiatives should not be limited to a group of the most promising universities such as those participating in Project 5-100. Rather, the government should provide opportunities to a broader range of universities and support their proactive engagement in internationalisation.

State financial support is important for the internationalisation of universities, in particular those in peripheral locations. However, there is a need to develop a state funding system that recognises different levels of socio-economic development across the regions. This will help to ensure that additional funding provided to the universities in Siberia and the Far East is not being spent simply on catching up with the universities in Russia’s academic centre – Moscow. As state funds confer specific obligations to the universities to meet the development targets, international dimensions prioritised by the

195 universities are designed around these indicators. It is important, however, that universities are not being limited in their ability to innovate and find context-sensitive and context-specific approaches to internationalisation, which is the key to effective internationalisation of Siberian and Far Eastern universities.

In addition, it is important for the government to work on creating a more attractive image of the region or so called ‘regional brand’ with favourable environment for national and international investment. The study suggests that policy makers should consider hosting international events in peripheral regions in order to redirect some state investment from the centre towards the development of the infrastructure of peripheral territories and boost their international visibility. The events organised with the active involvement of universities or hosted on their campuses, such as the APEC forum held at the newly built campus of Far Eastern Federal University in 2012 or the World Winter Universiade that will be hosted in Krasnoyarsk in 2019 with the active involvement of the Siberian Federal University, may help to attract attention and raise a more positive international profile. Promotion of such international events, incorporating educational and cultural aspects, are important as it draws international attention to these universities and make them known to a wider international community.

Furthermore, the study emphases the need for the Russian government to prioritise the development of research centres and high-tech industries in the region over extracting natural resources. Siberian and the Far Eastern universities can contribute to the Eastern Vector of Russian foreign policy and enhance country’s engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. This, however, requires a shift in the mentality of national leaders the majority of whom continue to view the regions as a ‘colonial appendage of the European centre’ (Larin, 2017, n.p.) or ‘Russia’s economic colony’ (Zhdanov, 1995).

8.2.2 Practical considerations

In terms of institutional practice, findings from this study have highlighted that more can be done to address the cross-cutting institutional internationalisation functions that are especially important for peripheral higher education institutions. These functions include

196 establishing an international profile of the institution, building a network of international partnership, in particular with the universities in neighbouring countries, and fostering an institutional culture supportive of internationalisation.

International profiling is particularly important for universities in the periphery as the places where they are located are either not well-known or lacking appeal internationally and they only have limited resources available for a strategic investment in the selected areas of institutional strength. With the increasing importance of international university rankings for Russian government, universities need to conduct more institutional research and benchmark their performance with similar universities in order to show their performance and justify or apply for state funding.

The study has shown that in addition to the international visibility, universities in Siberia and the Far East are also challenged to gain more attractiveness at a national level. Therefore, it is important that universities take a more proactive role in building an attractive image of the region. This can to some extent be achieved through stronger collaboration between universities in the region, as well as stronger cooperation between universities and their municipal government. In particular, the group of leading Siberian universities should consider sharing their knowledge and combining the available resources to create not only an attractive institutional image but also an appealing regional one.

International cooperation within regional networks and partner institutions is seen as an opportunity for peripheral higher education institutions to increase their international profile. Given the geographic position of the universities in this study, it is argued that more strategic cooperation with higher education institutions in Asia-Pacific may benefit universities in Siberia and the Russian Far East. The development of regional cooperation can be enhanced by the State’s aspirations to integrate into the Asia-Pacific regions. The investment in the development of Siberia and the Russian Far East can alleviate some internationalisation challenges related to transport infrastructure in the region.

197

In terms of institutional culture, there is a need for better communication of the purpose and values of higher education internationalisation across the institution. The findings of this study have implications for strategic leadership of the universities. Internationalisation should not be implemented as a top-down order from the institutional leadership. It has to be embraced by students, academic and professional within the institution (Hudzik, 2011). Therefore, it is important that university staff members understand the value and benefit of this process for all aspects of the work of the institution, as well as their own role. There are multiple ways in which this can be achieved. The study argues that internationalisation should be more explicit in institutional strategic documents. There is also an imperative for the universities to provide appropriate training and professional development opportunities for staff. While the latter was mentioned in the institutional strategic development plans, the study shows that in practice the lack of experience and language proficiency of staff still present a challenge for the internationalisation of universities. Finally, universities may benefit from regularly collecting information from professional and academic staff on their understanding of internationalisation and their attitudes towards this process.

8.2.3 Research considerations

Examining factors affecting higher education internationalisation in all seven leading universities located in Siberia and the Far East has proven difficult in several respects. First, the characteristics of each university, such as institutional size and type, have been considered on a meta level only. However, it is important to acknowledge that each university has its own unique and specific institutional context and different factors will influence the internationalisation process in each of these institutions. Second, the research has highlighted the importance of considering institutional location in relation to the national academic ‘centre’ in studying internationalisation. Siberia and the Far East are two heterogenous and very diverse regions. It is suggested that in large countries or countries with significant regional disparities, a case study approach should be taken to analyse internationalisation in higher education institutions in a specific region on a sub- national level. Conducting in-depth case studies of each institution separately could have

198 revealed more institution-specific factors affecting internationalisation process based on each university’s unique internal context and location. However, for this study it would have been practically difficult to analyse such differences in great detail, considering limited research timeframe, the challenges of recruiting study participants, and the overall scope of this explorative study.

The information collected through conducting semi-structured interviews provides valuable insights into the administrators’ perspectives on challenges and motives of the internationalisation process. However, one of the key challenges of this study was the recruitment of participants for the interviews, which resulted in a small sample size. Therefore, careful consideration needs to be given to the development of a strategy for selecting and approaching the key informants. Establishing contact with the universities in early stages of the research and receiving support from the senior leadership to engage administrative or academic staff as study participants could be a useful strategy for approaching the recruitment of participants.

8.3 Limitations of the study and directions for further research

This study was conducted in seven leading universities in Siberia and the Far East selected by the Russian government, as part of reforms to modernise and internationalise Russian higher education and reshape the landscape of higher education institutions. While the findings have a strong regional focus, they may not be representative of other institutions within the region that were not granted special status and did not receive additional state support for their strategic development.

Another limitation was related to sampling and the level of participant response. This study examined the perspectives of administrative staff engaged in various international dimensions of universities. This participant selection was underpinned by their experience and knowledge about the emerging international agenda. However, the lack of consideration of academic and student perspectives limited the comprehensive analysis of the research question. There were also constraints related to recruitment of potential participants, which resulted in a small number of interviews. Despite the small

199 number, the information collected through the interviews conducted in this study were able to provide useful insights into staff perceptions of the drivers and barriers of internationalisation in their institutions.

The limitations of the study reveal some areas in need of further investigation and opportunities to conduct useful studies that will deepen our understanding of the research topic. This study was limited in scope to examining leading universities in Siberia and the Far East. Further research could be carried out to investigate the drivers and challenges associated with the internationalisation process in smaller and less prestigious universities in the region that do not receive additional financial support from the government for their international development.

Given that the attitudes of some academic and professional staff present a challenge to the internationalisation process, the study points to the need for further investigation into the perspectives towards internationalisation of the academics and administrators, who are not directly engaged in international activities. A more detailed exploration of these perspectives can help to gain a better understanding of what the institutional leaders could do to better support and motivate staff to engage in international initiatives. This could provide the institutional leadership with some useful steps for promoting a supportive international culture among the wider university community.

Furthermore, further research could include a more in-depth investigation into various gears of Klemenčič’s (2015) framework for integrated internationalisation. As can be seen from this study, universities that are not part of a special program targeting internationalisation do not seem to pay enough attention to the international institutional profiling and international cooperation in the strategic development plans. An in-depth exploration of these internationalisation gears conducted as case studies of particular universities would lead to practical advice for particular institutions on how to achieve more integrated internationalisation.

Finally, as there is a growing interest in higher education internationalisation in less explored emerging economies and peripheral localities, this study offers possibilities for

200 future comparative studies of internationalisation drivers and challenges in universities located in peripheral regions within other countries. Such a study could also explore in- depth the factors influencing internationalisation in the academic periphery.

In conclusion, in 2008 Saltykov described the Russian higher education system as an unstable transitional system searching for its own model where ‘institutions from the Soviet past are found side by side with elements copied from the best educational models from around the world’ (2008, p. 22). Ten years later in 2018, it appears that, while some progress has been achieved, the system is still in transition and in search for effective models of development. It will probably take a number of years for the outcomes of the current education reforms to be revealed and for the universities to show not only quantitative but also qualitative changes, including the transformation of institutional cultures and staff attitudes towards the internationalisation process.

201

REFERENCES

Abankina, I., Filatova, L., & Nikolayenko, E. (2018). Polarization of universities in the Central Federal District of Russia under reform. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(4), 410-429.

Adams, J., Pendlebury, D., & Stembridge, B. (2013). Building bricks: Exploring the global research and innovation impact of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Korea. Thomson Reuters.

Agranovich, M. (2010). Internatsionalizatsiya vysshego obrazovaniya: tendentsii, strategii, stsenarii budushego [Internationalization of Higher Education: Trends, Strategies and Future Scenarios]. Moscow: Logos.

Akaha, T., & Vassilieva, A. (2014). Russia in regional integration processes. In T. Akaha & A. Vassilieva (Eds.), Russia and East Asia: Informal and gradual integration (pp. 272-282). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Alekseev, O. (2014). First steps of Russian universities to top-100 global university rankings. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 1, 6-7. Retrieved from https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/05/16/1321296879/HERB_01_Spring.pdf

Altbach, P. G. (2004) Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3-25.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3/4), 290-305.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., & Rubmbley, L. (2009). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. A Report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO.

Altbach, P.G. (2014). The value of the “Top 100” program. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 1, 7-8. Retrieved from: https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/05/16/1321296879/HERB_01_Spring.pdf

Altbach, P.G. (2016). The university as center and periphery. In P.G. Altbach (Ed.), Global perspectives on higher education (pp. 149-170). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Altbach, P.G., & Hazelkorn, E. (2017, January 8). Why most universities should quit the rankings game. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170105122700949&q uer=altbach

202

Arkoudis, S., Baik, C., Marginson, S., & Cassidy, E. (2012). Internationalising the student experience in Australian tertiary education: Developing criteria and indicators. Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/internationalisation/inter_student_ex p.html

Arum, S., & van der Water, J. (1992). The need for a definition of international education in U.S. universities. In C. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the futures: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 191-203). Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators.

Arzhanova, I. (2012). Competitiveness of Russian Higher Education as its Priority Development. Izvestiya of the Russian State Pedagogical University, 151, 48-58.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. (2012). 2012 Leaders' Declaration. Annex D – Promoting Cross-Border Education Cooperation. Retrieved from https://www.apec.org/Meeting-Papers/Leaders- Declarations/2012/2012_aelm/2012_aelm_annexD

Avrus, A. I. (2001). Istoriya rossiskih universitetov: Ocherki [Essays on the history of Russian universities]. Moscow: MION.

Bain, O. B. (2003). University autonomy in Russian Federation since perestroika. New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bain, O., Zakharov, I., & Nosova, N. (1998). From centrally mandated to locally demanded service: The Russian case. Higher Education, 35(1), 49-67.

Bartell, M. (2003). Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework. Higher Education, 45(1), 43-70.

Beck, K. (2012). Globalization/s: Reproduction and resistance in the internationalization of higher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(3), 133-148.

Bedenlier, S., Kondakci, Y., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2018). Two decades of research into the internationalization of higher education: Major themes in the Journal of Studies in International Education (1997-2016). Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 108-135.

Beelen, J., & Jones, E. (2015, December 4). Defining 'Internationalisation at home'. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20151202144353164

Beerkens, H. J. J. G. (2004). Global opportunities and institutional embeddedness: Higher education consortia in Europe and Southeast Asia. University of Twente. Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/50803/1/thesis_Beerkens.pdf

203

Block, M., & Khvatova, T. (2017). University transformation: Explaining policy-making and trends in higher education in Russia. Journal of Management Development, 36(6), 761-779.

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Brandenburg, U. & de Wit, H. (2011). The end of internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 15–17.

Brandenburg, U. (2009). Measuring quality in internationalisation – le intouchable. In J. Beelen, A. Boddington, B. Bruns, M. Glogar, & C. Machado (Eds.), Guide of good practices (Vol. I, pp. 17-35). Tempus: European Commission. Retrieved from http://tempuscorinthiam.org.il/home/tempus/products/Handbooks/HANDBOOK_ FINAL_DIGITAL_VERSION_APRIL_2013.pdf

Bremer, L., & van der Wende, M. (Eds.) (1995). Internationalizing the curriculum in higher education: Experiences in the Netherlands. The Hague, The Netherlands: Organization for International Co-operation in Higher Education.

Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A Synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Busygina, I. (2018). Russia-EU relations and the common neighborhood. Abingdon: Routledge

Carnoy, M., Loyalka, P., Dobryakova, M., Dossani, R., Froumin, I., Kuhns, K., Tilak, J.B.G., & Wang, R. (2013). University expansion in a changing global economy: Triumph of the BRICs? Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 311-330). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Childress, L. K. (2009). Internationalization plans for higher education institutions. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(3), 289-309.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

204

Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities shaping the European higher education area. EUA, Brussels.

Davies, J. L. (1992). Developing a strategy for internationalization in universities: Towards a conceptual framework. In C. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the future: Strategies for internationalizing higher education (pp. 177-190) Carbondale, IL: Association of International Education Administrators. de Wit, H. & Merkx, G. (2012). The history of internationalisation of higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. d. Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of International Higher Education (pp. 43–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. de Wit, H. (2002). Internationalization of higher education in the United States of America and Europe: A Historical, comparative and conceptual analysis. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. de Wit, H. (2007). Ten years of editorial policy of the Journal of Studies in International Education: Overview, challenges, and opportunities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 251-259. de Wit, H. (2011a). Internationalization of higher education: Nine misconceptions. International Higher Education. 64, 9-12. de Wit, H. (2011b). Trends, issues and challenges in internationalisation of higher education. Amsterdam: Centre for Applied Research on Economics & Management, School of Economics and Management of the Hogeschool van Amsterdam. de Wit, H. (2016, April 22) Competition or collaboration for change? University World News. Retrieved from: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20160421103022691 de Wit, H. (2017, February 24). Internationalisation of HE may be accelerating. University World News. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20170220232342276 de Wit, H., & Hunter, F. (2015). The future of internationalization of higher education in Europe. International Higher Education, 83, 2-3.

Deardorff, D., de Wit, H. & Heyl, J. (2012). Bridges to the future: the global landscape of international higher education. In D. K. Deardorff, H. d. Wit, J. D. Heyl, & T. Adams (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of international higher education (pp. 457-486). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

205

DeLyser, D. (2001). “Do you really live here?” Thoughts on insider research. Geographical Review, 91, 441-453.

Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: For small-scale social research (4th ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. (2003). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Druzhilov, S. (2013), Vuzovskaya i akademicheskaya sreda v Rossiyi nachala XX veka [University and academic environment in Russia in the beginning of 20th century]. Voprossi Obrazovaniya, 2, 270-280.

Egron-Polak, E., & Hudson, R. (2014). Internationalization of higher education: Growing expectations, fundamental values. Paris: IAU. Retrieved from https://www.iau- aiu.net/IMG/pdf/iau-4th-global-survey-executive-summary-2.pdf

Egron-Polak, E., & Marmolejo, F. (2017). Higher education internationalization: Adjusting to new landscape. In J. Gacel-Avila, E. Jones, N. Jooste, & H. de Wit (Eds.), The globalization of internationalization: Emerging voices and perspectives (pp. 99-109). Internationalization in Higher Education series. London: Routledge.

Elliott, R., & Timulak, L. (2005). Descriptive and interpretive approaches to qualitative research. In J. Miles & P. Gilbert (Eds.), A Handbook of research methods for clinical and health psychology (pp. 147–159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://nideffer.net/classes/GCT_RPI_S14/readings/interpretive.pdf

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix – university-industry- government relations: A Laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review 14, 14-19.

Eurasian Association of Universities. (n.d.). About EAU. Retrieved from www.eau- msu.ru/eng/about

Eurasian Economic Union (n.d.). About the Union. Retrieved from www.eaeunion.org

Far Eastern Federal University. (2013). Plan meropriyatii po realizatsii Programmy povysheniya konkurentosposobnosti (“dorozhnaya karta”) federalnogo gosudarstvennogo avtonomnogo obrazovatelnogo uchrezhdeniya vysshego professionalnogo obrazovaniya “Dalnevostochniy federalniy universitet” na 2013– 2020 gody (2 etap – 2015-2016) [Action Plan for the Program to Increase Competitiveness (“Road Map”) of the Federal Public Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Far Eastern Federal University” for the period of 2013-2020 (Stage 2 – 2013-2014)]. Retrieved from https://www.dvfu.ru/program/documents/

206

Far Eastern Federal University. (2015). Roadmap 2015-2016. Retrieved from https://www.dvfu.ru/program/documents/

Frazier, I. (2010). Travels in Siberia. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Froumin, I., & Kouzminov, Y. (2015). Supply and demand patterns in Russian higher education. In S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro, & P. Pillay (Eds.), Higher Education in the BRICS Countries (pp. 97-123). Springer.

Froumin, I., & Leshukov, O. (2016). The Soviet flagship university model and its contemporary transition. In J. A. Douglass (Ed.), The new flagship university: Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy (pp. 173-179). Basingstoke UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

Froumin, I., & Povalko, A. (2014). Top down push for excellence. Lessons from Russia. In Y. Cheng, Q. Wang, & N. C. Liu (Eds.), How world-class universities affect global higher education. Global perspectives on higher education, vol 26 (pp. 47–63). SensePublishers, Rotterdam.

Froumin, I., Kouzminov, Y., & Semyonov, D. (2014). Institutional diversity in Russian higher education: Revolutions and evolution. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(February 2015), 209-234.

Frumina, E. & West, R. (2012). Internationalisation of Russian higher education: The English language dimension. Moscow: British Council.

Gacel-Avila, J., Jones, E., Jooste, N., & de Wit, H. (Eds.) (2017). The globalization of internationalization: Emerging voices and perspectives. Internationalization in Higher Education series. London: Routledge.

Galkin, I. (2005, May 31). Diploma as a burden. Russian Business Magazine, 18.

Garusova L.N., & Piginesheva, A.P. (2013). Strategiya mezhdunarodnogo sotrudnichestva universitetov otechestvennyy i zarubezhnyy opyt. Territoriya Novykh Vozmozhnostey [Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Russian and international experience]. Vestnik Vladivostokskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta Ekonomiki i Servisa, 4(22), 134-152.

Gladkov, G. (2005). Bologna process in Russia: The road map. In Pursiainen, C., & Medvedev, S. A. (Eds.). The Bologna Process and its implications for Russia. The European integration of higher education (pp. 62-74). Russian-European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP).

Government of the Russian Federation. (December 28, 2009). The Strategy of Social and Economic Development of the Far East and the Baikal Region up to 2025.

207

Government of the Russian Federation. (July 5, 2010). Strategy for social and economic Development of Siberia through 2020.

Green, W., & Whitsed, C. (2015). Introducing critical perspectives on internationalising the curriculum. In W. Green & C. Whitsed (Eds.), Critical perspectives on internationalising the curriculum in disciplines (pp. 3–22). Sense Publishers.

Gustafson, T. (1980). Why doesn’t Soviet science do better than it does? In L. L. Lubrano & S. G. Solomon (Eds.), The social context of Soviet science (pp. 31–67). Boulder, CO: Westview.

Hadaev, A. (2013, August 26). Tomsk i Novosibirsk stali liderami po chislu inogordnih studentov [Tomsk and Novosibirsk became leaders in the number of interstate students]. Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Retrieved from https://rg.ru/2013/08/26/reg- sibfo/studehty-anons.html

Hammersley, M., & Gomm, R. (2008). Assessing the radical critiques of interviews. In M. Hammersley (Ed.), Questioning qualitative inquiry: Critical essays (pp. 89-100). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Harari, M. (1989). Internationalization of higher education: Effecting institutional change in the curriculum and campus. Long Beach, CA: Center for International Education, California State University.

Healey, N. (2008). Is higher education in really ‘internationalising’? Higher Education, 55(3), 333-355.

Hettne, B., & Söderbaum, F. (2000). Theorising the rise of regionness. New Political Economy, 5(3), 457-473.

Holmes, B., Read, G. H., & Voskresenskaya, N. (1995). Russian education: Tradition and transition. New York, NY: Garland Pub.

Huasheng, Z. (2016). Sino-Russian economic cooperation in the Far East and central Asia since 2012. Eurasia Border Review, 6(1), 103-121.

Hudzik, J. (2011). comprehensive Internationalisation: From concept to action. Washington, DC: NAFSA, Association of International Educators.

Hudzik, J. (2015). Comprehensive internationalization: Institutional pathways for success. New York, NY: Routledge.

ICEF Monitor. (2012, 6 September). One in five Russian universities to close by 2014. Retrieved from http://monitor.icef.com/2012/09/one-in-five-russian-universities- to-close-by-2014/

208

Johnson, M. S. (2008). Historical legacies of Soviet higher education and the transformation of higher education systems in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia. In A. Wiseman & D. Baker (Eds.), The worldwide transformation of higher education (pp. 159–176). Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Johnson, M. S. (2015). The federal state, regional interests, and the reinvention of Russian universities. In S. Schwartzman, R. Pinheiro, & P. Pillay (Eds.), Higher education in the BRICS countries (Vol. 44, pp. 291–311). Springer.

Jooste, N., & Heleta, S. (2017). Global: Changing the mindset in internationalisation research. In G. Mihut (Ed.), Understanding higher education internationalization (pp. 5-7). Sense Publishers.

Josephson, P.R. (1997). New Atlantis revisited: Akademgorodok, the Siberian city of science. Colby College.

Kälvermark, T., & van der Wende, M. (Eds.). (1997). National policies for internationalisation of higher education in Europe. Stockholm: National Agency for Higher Education.

Kandel, I. L. (1956). Problems of comparative education. International Review of Education, 2(1), 1-13.

Karaganov, S. (Ed.). (2014). Toward the great ocean – 2, or Russia’s breakthrough to Asia. Moscow: Valdai Discussion Club Report.

Karaganov, S., & Bordachev, T. (2018). Toward the great ocean – 6: People, history, ideology, education. Rediscovering the identity. Moscow: Valdai Discussion Club Report.

Karaganov, S., Barabanov, O., & Bordachev, T. (2012). Toward the great ocean, or the new globalization of Russia. Moscow: Valdai Discussion Club Report.

Karavayeva, Y. V, & Kovtun, Y. N. (2013). Adapting the tuning programme profiles to the needs of Russian higher education. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1(1), 187- 202. Retrieved from: http://www.deusto- publicaciones.es/deusto/pdfs/tuning/tuning44.pdf

Karelina, I. (2018). University Cooperation within the Association of Global Universities. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 1(15), 6-7.

Keating, M., & Loughlin, J. (1997). The political economy of regionalism. London: Routledge.

Klemenčič, M. & Zgaga, P. (2013). Internationalisation at the European periphery and academics’ geographic preferences for partnership: Focus on the Western

209

Balkans. In A. Labi (ed.), Weaving the future of global partnerships: A conversation starter for the EAIE 2013 Annual Conference (pp. 41-46). Amsterdam: European Association for International Education.

Klemenčič, M. (2015). Internationalisation of higher education in the peripheries: The ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagements. In E. Beerkens, M. Magnan, M. Söderqvist & H.- G. van Liempd (Eds.), Handbook of internationalisation of higher education (A 2.1– 11), 22nd supplement (pp. 1-22). Berlin: European Association of International Education and Raabe Verlag.

Klemenčić, M. (2016a). Epilogue: Reflections on a new flagship university. In J. A. Douglass (Ed.), The new flagship university. Changing the paradigm from global ranking to national relevancy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Klemenčič, M. (2016b). The role of institutional research in positioning universities. In R. M. O. Pritchard, A. Pausits, & J. Williams (Eds.), Positioning higher education institutions (pp. 3–18). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Klemenčič, M. (2017). Internationalisation of higher education in the peripheries: The ‘gear effect’ of integrated international engagements. In J. Gacel-Avila, E. Jones, N. Jooste, & H. de Wit (Eds.), The globalization of internationalization: Emerging voices and perspectives (pp. 99-109). Internationalization in Higher Education series. London: Routledge.

Knight, J. (1994). Internationalization: Elements and checkpoints (Research Monograph, No. 7). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Bureau for International Education.

Knight, J. (2003). Updating the definition of internationalization. International Higher Education, 33, 2–3.

Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definitions, rationales, and approaches. Journal for Studies in International Education, 8(1), 5-31.

Knight, J. (2007). Internationalization: Concepts, complexities and challenges. In J. Forest & P. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 207– 227). Dordrecht: Springer.

Knight, J. (2011). Doubts and dilemmas with double degree programs. Globalisation and internationalisation of higher education. [Online Monograph]. Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC). 8(2), 297–312. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.7238%2Frusc.v8i2.1067.pdf

Knight, J. (2011). Five myths about internationalization. International Higher Education, 62, 14-15.

210

Knight, J. (2013). Towards African higher education regionalization and harmonization: Functional, organizational, and political approaches. In A. Wiseman & C. Wolhuter (Eds.), The development of higher education in Africa: Prospects and challenges. International perspective on education and society series. Bingley: Emerlald Publishing.

Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education: Historical and conceptual perspectives. In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for the internationalisation of higher education. A comparative study of Australia, Canada, Europe and the United States of America. Amsterdam, Netherlands: European Association for International Education.

Konstantinov, G. N, & Filonovish, S. R. (2008). The transformation of the Russian system of higher education. In W. Blum (Ed.), Russia and globalization. Identity, security, and society in an era of change (pp. 139-152). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press and Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Krause, K.-L., Coates, H., & James, R. (2005). Monitoring the internationalisation of higher education: Are there useful quantitative performance indicators? International Perspectives on Higher Education, 3, 233-253.

Kuraev, A. (2014). Internationalization of higher education in Russia: Collapse or perpetuation of the Soviet system? A historical and conceptual study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Boston College Lynch School of Education. Retrieved from http:// hdl.handle.net/ 2345/ 3799

Kuraev, A. (2016). Soviet higher education: An alternative construct to the Western university paradigm. Higher Education, 71, 181–193.

Kuraev-Maxah, A. (2004). International higher education in Russia: Missing data. International Higher Education, 36, 20-21.

Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lacey, A., & Luff, D. (2001). Trent focus for research and development in primary health care: An introduction to qualitative analysis. London: Trent Focus.

Latova, N. V., & Latov, I. V. (2013). “Capital cities centrism” as the cause of social inequality in the Russian system of higher education. Russian Education & Society, 55, 53–83.

Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice. London: SAGE Publications.

Layder, D. (2013). Doing excellent small-scale research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

211

Leask, B. (2009). Using formal and informal curricula to improve interactions between home and international students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(2), 205-221.

Leask, B. (2015). Internationalizing the curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Lindberg, L. N. (1963). The political dynamics of European economic integration. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lo, B. (2014). Russia’ s Eastern direction — distinguishing the real from the virtual. Russie.Nei.Reports No. 17. Paris/Brussels: IFRI.

Lumby, J., & Foskett, N. (2016). Internationalization and culture in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44(1), 95-111.

Maloo, R., Altbach, P. G., & Agarwal, P. (2016). India: Rankings, mass higher education and world-class universities. In E. Hazelkorn (ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society (pp. 178 – 189). London and New York, NY: Routledge.

Marginson, S. (1999), After globalization: emerging politics of education. Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1), 19-31.

Marginson, S. (2004). Competition and markets in higher education: a ‘glonacal’ analysis. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 175-244.

Marginson, S. (2016). The role of the state in university science: Russia and China compared. Centre for Global Higher Education working paper series. (Working paper no. 9). London: UCL Institute of Education, Centre for Global Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp9.pdf

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281-309.

Marginson, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Ideas for intercultural education. London: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. Education Working Paper No. 8. Paris: OECD.

212

Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2009). The new global landscape of nations and institutions. In OECD (ed.), Higher Education to 2030. Volume 2, Globalisation (pp. 17-57). OECD Publishing.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Maslennikova, O. (2017). Internatsionalizatsiya vishego obrazovaniya kak factor vliyauschiy na povishenie konkurentnosposobnosti universiteta [Internationalization of higher education as a factor influencing the enhancing of the university competitiveness]. Problemy Sovremennogo Pedagogicheskogo Obrazovaniya, 55(3), 123-129.

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, London.

Mau, V. (2013). Human capital: Challenges for Russia. Moscow: Publishing House Delo.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Medvedev, D. (2013, July 5). Dmitry Medvedev attends a meeting of the Council for Promoting the Competitiveness of Russia's Leading Universities among the World’s Leading Research and Education Centres. Retrieved from http://government.ru/en/news/2798/

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Miklavič, K., & Komljenovič, J. (2014). Between Western ideals and post-conflict reconstruction. Meaning and perceptions of higher education in the Western Balkans. In J. Branković (Ed.), Global challenges, local responses in higher education (pp. 209-228). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Ministry of Education and Science and State University – Higher School of Economics. (2007). OECD thematic review of tertiary education. Country background report for the Russian Federation. Moscow. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/40111027.pdf

Murphy, M. (2007). Experiences in the internationalization of education. Strategies to promote equality of opportunity at Monterrey Tech. Higher Education, 53(2), 167- 208.

Neave, G. (1992). Managing higher education international cooperation: Strategies and solutions. Unpublished reference document. Paris, France: UNESCO.

213

Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson International.

Nguyen, Q. (2010). Beyond centre-periphery: Higher education development in South- East Asia. Journal of the Pacific Circle Consortium for Education, 22(2), 21-36.

Nikolaev, D., & Chugunov, D. (2012). The education system in the Russian Federation: Education brief 2012. A World Bank study. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Nilsson, B. (2000). Internationalising the curriculum. In P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens, & B. Wächter (Eds.), Internationalisation at home: A Position Paper (pp. 21-28). European Association for Internationalisation at Home. Retrieved from: https://www.internationalisering.nl/wp- content/uploads/2015/04/Internationalisation-at-Home-A-Position-Paper.pdf

North-Eastern Federal University. (n.d.). University. Retrieved from https://www.s- vfu.ru/en/university/

Novosibirsk State University. (2013). Plan meropriyatii po realizatsii Programmy povysheniya konkurentosposobnosti federalnogo gosudarstvennogo byudzhetnogo obrazovatelnogo uchrezhdeniya vysshego professionalnogo obrazovaniya “Novosibirskii natsionalnyi issledovatelskii gosudarstvenniy universitet” (Novosibirskii gosudarstvenniy universitet, NGU) sredi veduschih mirovih nauchno- obrazovatelnih centrov na 2013–2020 gody. [Action Plan on the implementation of programme for promoting the competitiveness of the National Research Novosibirsk University among the world's leading scientific and educational centres for 2013-2020]. Novosibirsk. Retrieved from https://www.nsu.ru/n/university/project-5-100/

Nye, J. (2003, January 10). Soft power: Propaganda isn't the way. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/10/opinion/10iht- ednye_ed3_.html

OECD. (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.

Ogachi, O. (2009). Internationalization vs regionalization of higher education in East Africa and the challenges of quality assurance and knowledge production. Higher Education Policy, 22(3), 331–347.

Ohanyan, A. (2011). Westernization in the Post-Soviet World: Risks and Benefits of the Bologna Process. Internaitonal Higher Educationn, (63), 9–11. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cihe/pdf/IHEpdfs/ihe63.pdf

214

Ohanyan, A. (2011, April 3). Europe: The Bologna process in the post-Soviet world. Retried from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20110401185949485

Orlikowski, W.J., & Baroudi, J.J. (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28.

Osipov, P., & Ziyatdinova, J. (2017). Prepodavateli i studenti kak subiekti internatsionalizatsii obrazovniya [Faculty and students as participants of internationalization]. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, 3, 64-69.

Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V. & Pausits, A. (2015). One and two equals three? The third mission of universities. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 233-249.

Platonova, D., & Semyonov, D. (2018). Russia: The institutional landscape of Russian higher education. In J. Huisman, A. Smolentseva, and I. Froumin (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries: Reform and continuity (pp. 337-362). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Polyzoi, E., & Dneprov, E. (2015). A framework for understanding dramatic change: Educational transformation in post-Soviet Russia. International Perspectives on Education and Society, 14, 155–179.

Proctor, D. (2015). Faculty and international engagement: Has internationalization changed academic work? International Higher Education, 83(special issue), 15-17. Retrieved from https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/view/9082

Proctor, D., & Rumbley, L. (2018). The future agenda for internationalization in higher education. Next generation insights into research, policy, and practice. London: Routledge.

Program of the development of the state educational institution of higher education "Irkutsk State Technical University" in 2010 – 2019 (2010). Irkutsk State Technical University. Retrieved from http://www.istu.edu/eng/deyatelnost/niu/programma_razvitiya

Program of the development of the state educational institution of higher education "Tomsk Polytechnic University" in 2009 – 2018 (2009). Tomsk Polytechnic University. Retrieved from http://www.istu.edu/eng/deyatelnost/niu/programma_razvitiya

215

Prokofiev, M.A., Chilikin, M.G., & Tulpanov, S.I. (1961). Higher education in the USSR. Paris: UNESCO.

Pursiainen, C., & Medvedev, S. A. (2005). The Bologna process, Russia and globalization. In Pursiainen, C., & S. A. Medvedev (Eds.), The Bologna process and its implications for Russia. The European integration of higher education (pp. 16-26). Russian-European Centre for Economic Policy (RECEP).

Putin, V. (2017). The 25th APEC economic leaders' meeting in Danang: Together towards prosperity and harmonious development. Retrieved from http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56023

Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing educational policy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Robertson, R. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In M. Featherstone, S. Larch, & R. Robertson (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Romanenko, K. R., & Lisyutkin, M. A. (2018). University mergers in Russia: Four waves of educational policy. Russian Education and Society, 60(1), 58-73.

Rudzki, R. (1998). The strategic management of internationalisation: Towards a model of theory and practice. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Newcastle, Tyne. Retrieved from: https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/149/1/rudzki98.pdf

Russian Academic Excellence Project. (n.d.). The goal of Project 5-100. Retrieved from http://5top100.com/

Rykun, A., Yuzhaninov, M., & Vychuzhanina, E. (2015). Universities and local communities: Problems and perspectives of interaction. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200, 359-365.

Sadovnichii, V. (2004) Vysshaia shkola Rossii: traditsii i sovremennost [Higher education in Russia: tradition and modernity]. Alma Mater, 12, 7-13.

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Saltykov, B. (2008). Higher education in Russia: How to overcome the Soviet heritage? Paris: Ifri. Retrieved from: https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/ifri_ed_sup_Saltykov_ENG_avr il_2008.pdf

Sanderson, G. (2008). A foundation for the internationalization of the academic self. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3), 276-307.

216

Siberian Federal University. (2016). Roadmap 2016-2018. Retrieved from https://www.dvfu.ru/program/documents/

Siberian Federal University. (2016). Roadmap for the competitiveness enhacement program of Siberian Federal University, for the period 2016-2020 (Stage 1 – 2016- 2018). Krasnoyarsk. Retrieved from http://about.sfu-kras.ru/docs/

Silicon Taiga can become a reality to drive Russia forward, Vladimir Putin urged. (2018, April 12). The Siberian Times. Retrieved from http://siberiantimes.com/science/others/news/silicon-taiga-can-become-a- reality-to-drive-russia-forward-vladimir-putin-urged/

Silova, I. (2012). Contested meanings of educational borrowing. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012. Policy borrowing and lending in education (pp. 229-245). London: Routledge.

Silova, I., Millei, Z., & Piattoeva, N. (2017). Interrupting the coloniality of knowledge production in comparative education: Postsocialist and postcolonial dialogues after the Cold War. Comparative Education Review, 61(1), 74-102.

Slobodchikov, V.I., Korolkova, I.V, Ostapenko, A.A., Zakharchenko, M.V., Shestun, Y.V., Rybakov, S.Yu., Moiseyev, D.A., & Korotkikh, S.N. (2018). The Systemic Crisis in Education as a Threat to Russia’s National Security. Russian Education & Society, 60(5), 439-462.

Smart, D., & Ang, G. (1993). Exporting education: From aid to trade to internationalization? IPA Review, 46(1), 31-33.

Smolentseva, A. (2003). Challenges to the Russian academic profession. Higher Education, 45, 391-424.

Smolentseva, A. (2004). International students in Russia. International Higher Education, 36, 18-20.

Smolentseva, A. (2007). Russia. In J. Forest & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher education (pp. 951–969). Dordrecht: Springer.

Söderbaum, F. (2005). Exploring the links between micro-regionalism and macro- regionalism. In M. Farrell, B. Hettne, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Global politics of regionalism: Theory and practice (pp. 87-103). Pluto Books. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18fs9dj.10

Söderqvist, M. (2002). Internationalization and its management at higher education institutions: Applying conceptual, content and discourse analysis. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.

217

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Starygina, A. (2017). Internationalization of higher education in Russia in the context of bilateral relations with China. Humanities of the South of Russia, 6(2), 280-290.

Sumsky V.V., Kanaev E.A., Koldunova E.V., Zavadsky M.S., Zinovyeva E.S., Iontsev V.A., Kireeva A.A., Likhachev V.L., Lukonin S.A., Menzhulin G.V., Novikov A.V., Prokhorova Yu.A., Sevastyanov S.V., Stapran N.V. (2013). Russia’s Guiding Landmarks in the Asia-Pacific after the APEC Summit in Vladivostok. Moscow: Spetskniga.

Sumsky, V, Koldunova, E., & Kanaev, E. (2012). Russia’s Interests in the Context of Asia- Pacific Region Security and Development. Report/RIAC, RSC APEC. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Prospect.

Taradina, L., & Yudkevich, M. (2017). Russia: Ranking fever – do we know the remedy? In E. Hazelkorn (Ed.), Global rankings and the geopolitics of higher education. Understanding the influence and impact of rankings on higher education, policy and society (pp. 144–161). London: Routledge.

Taylor, G. (1993). A theory of practice: Hermeneutical understanding. Higher Education Research and Development, 12(1), 59-72.

Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5–26.

Telegina, G., & Schwengel, H. (2012). The Bologna Process: Perspectives and implications for the Russian university. European Journal of Education, 47(1), 37- 49.

Terskikh, M., & Malenova, E. (2015). Metaphorical conceptualization of the concept of Siberia in modern American mass media discourse. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 214, 1125 – 1133. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815060814

The Ministry of Education and Science and State University – Higher School of Economics (2007). OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education. Country Background Report for the Russian Federation. Online: http://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/40111027.pdf

The Russian Federation Decree Government No. 967 at 28.12. (2013). Measures to develop the Human Resource Potential of the Russian Federation.

The Russian Federation Government Decree No. 220 at 09.04. (2010). Measures to attract leading scientists at Russian higher education institutions.

218

The Russian Federation Government Decree No. 550. (2009). About the competitive selection of university’s development programs assigned as National Research University.

The Russian Federation Government. (2015). Russian Language Federal Targeted Programme for 2016−2020.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Timofeev, I., Makhmutov, T., Teslya, A., Chimiris, E., & Kuznetsova, A. (2016). Web Internationalization of Russian Universities. Moscow.

Tomsk Polytechnic University. (2013). Plan meropriyatii po realizatsii Programmy povysheniya konkurentosposobnosti (“dorozhnaya karta”) federalnogo gosudarstvennogo avtonomnogo obrazovatelnogo uchrezhdeniya vysshego obrazovaniya “Natsionalnyi issledovatelskii Tomskii politekhnicheskii universitet” na 2013–2020 gody [Action plan on the implementation of National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University programme for promoting the competitiveness (“roadmap”) for 2013–2020]. Moscow. Retrieved from https://tpu.ru/university/strategy/development/viu

Tomsk State University. (2013). Plan meropriyatii po realizatsii Programmy povysheniya konkurentosposobnosti (“dorozhnaya karta”) federalnogo gosudarstvennogo byudzhetnogo obrazovatelnogo uchrezhdeniya vysshego obrazovaniya “Natsionalnyi issledovatelskii Tomskii gosudarstvenniy universitet” na 2013–2020 gody (1 etap – 2013-2014)[Action Plan for the Program to Increase Competitiveness (“Road Map”) of the Federal Public Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “National Research Tomsk State University” for the period of 2013-2020 (Stage 1 – 2013-2014)]. Retrieved from http://viu.tsu.ru/documents/

Tomusk, V. (2006). Pizza Bolognese Á la Russe. In V. Tomusk (Ed.), Creating the European Area of Higher Education (pp. 227–249). Springer Netherlands.

Tsvetkova, N. (2008). International education during the Cold War: Soviet social transformation and American social reproduction. Comparative Education Review, 52(2), 199–217.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Ushkalov, I., & Malakha, I. (2000). The “brain drain” as a global phenomenon and its characteristics in Russia. Russian Education and Society, 42(12), 18-34.

219

Van Dijk, H., & Meijer, K. (1997). The internationalization cube: A tentative model for the study of organizational designs and the results of internationalization in higher education. Higher Education Management, 9(1), 157-167.

Van Vught, F. A, & Huisman, J. (2013). Institutional profiles: Some strategic tools. Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 1(1), 21-36.

Van Winden, W. (2014). EUniverCities: City & university – Co-creating a more attractive city. URBACT II Programme. Retrieved from http://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/media/eunivercities- thematic_report_ii_cityuniversity_placemaking.pdf

Vodichev, E.G., & Lamin, V.A. (2008). Russian identity and Siberia’s self-identification. Historical traditions in the global World. In D. W. Blum (Ed.), Russia and globalization. Identity, security and society in the era of change (pp. 111–139). Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Watkins, A. (2003). From knowledge to wealth: Transforming Russian science and technology for a modern knowledge economy. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Welch, A., & Yang, R. (2011). A pearl on the Silk Road? Internationalizing a regional Chinese university. In J. Palmer, A. Roberts, Y. Ha Cho, & G. Ching (Eds.), The internationalization of East Asian higher education: Globalization’s impacts (pp. 63-89). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wirick, R. (2006). 100 Siberian Postcards. London: Telegram Books.

World Bank. (2002) Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education. Washington DC: The World Bank.

Yelyutin, V. P. (1959). Higher education in the USSR. New York, NY: International Arts and Sciences Press.

Yemini, M. (2015). Internationalisation discourse hits the tipping point. A new definition is needed. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, 19, 19-22.

Yepes, C. D. P. (2006). World regionalization of higher education: Policy proposals for international organizations. Higher Education Policy, 19, 111-128.

Yudkevich, M. (2014). The Russian university: Recovery and rehabilitation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(8), 1463-1474.

Zaionchkovskaya, Z., Mkrtchian, N.V., & Tyuryukanova, E.V. (2014). Russia’s immigration challenges. In T. Akaha & A. Vassilieva (Eds.), Russia and East Asia: Informal and

220

gradual integration (pp. 200-243). Routledge Contemporary Russia and Eastern Europe Series.

Zgaga, P., Branković, J., Klemenčič, M., & Lažetić, P. (2014). Global challenges, local responses in higher education: an introduction. In J. Branković, M. Klemenčić, P. Lažetić, & P. Zgaga, (Eds.), Global challenges, local responses in higher education (pp. 3-11). Rotterdam: SensePublishers.

Zhdanov, V.A. (1995). Contemporary Siberian regionalism. In S. Kotkin & D. Wolff (Eds.), Rediscovering Russia in Asia – Siberia and the Russian Far East (pp. 120-132). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Zinkovsky, K. V., & Derkachev, P. V. (2018). Restructuring the system of higher education. Russian Education & Society, 60(5), 402-421.

Zubarevich, N. (2002). Russia’s Regions and cities: Scenarios for 2020. In M. Lipman & N. Petrov (Eds.), Russia in 2020 (pp. 395-416). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

221

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Interview questions It is anticipated that semi-structured interviews will take 45 to 60 minutes and will be based on the following questions:

Please tell me about your role and experience in international education? Расскажите, пожалуйста, о Вашей роли и опыте работы в области международного образования?

In your opinion, what does internationalisation mean for your university? What are the key dimensions? Что по Вашему мнению означает процесс интернационализации образования для Вашего университета? Каковы основные направления этого процесса в Вашем университете?

In your view, how important is internationalisation of higher education for the development of your university? На Ваш взгляд, насколько важным является интернационализация высшего образования для развития Вашего университета?

What are the main drivers of internationalisation at your university? Каковы основные движущие силы интернационализации в Вашем университете?

How has the internationalisation agenda at your university changed since it became one of the leading (federal/national research) universities in Russia? Каким образом интернационализация Вашего университета изменилась, с тех пор как он стал одним из ведущих (федеральных / национальных исследовательских) университетов в России?

Please tell me about your university’s internationalisation strategy? Расскажите, пожалуйста, о стратегии интернационализации Вашего университета?

In terms of your university’s internationalisation strategy, are there any particular countries or regions your university is focusing on? С точки зрения стратегии интернационализации Вашего университета, есть ли отдельные страны или регионы, которым Ваш университет уделяет особое внимание?

To what extent does your geographical location influence your internationalisation strategy? Насколько Ваше географическое положение влияет на стратегию интернационализации Вашего университета?

What are the challenges of the internationalisation process at your university? Каковы трудности процесса интернационализации в Вашем университете?

What do you see as a possible outcome of internationalisation of your university? На Ваш взгляд, каков возможный результат интернационализации Вашего университета?

222

Appendix 2: Plain Language Statement

223

Appendix 3: Consent Form

224

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s: Uzhegova, Dina

Title: Internationalisation of higher education in Russia: looking East

Date: 2019

Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/222999

File Description: Internationalisation of higher education in Russia: Looking East

Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.