THE TRANSFER OF CULTURAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT AMERICAN HIGHER EDUCATION IN A GLOBAL SOCIETY: PERCEPTIONS OF VISITING RUSSIAN SCHOLARS
Gary C. Anderson
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2005
Committee:
C. Carney Strange, Advisor
Linda Petrosino Graduate Faculty Representative
Michael Coomes
Patricia Kubow
Craig Mertler © 2005
Gary C. Anderson
All Rights Reserved iii
ABSTRACT
C. Carney Strange, Advisor
This study examined the transfer of ideas about higher education gleaned from
Russian administrators and faculty members, who returned to home institutions in the
former Soviet Union following an exchange visit to the United States to gain insight into
the workings of our complex higher education model. At the core of this assessment were
these Russian educators’ perceptions of institutional output and process goals attributed
to the U.S. institutions that hosted them, and their comparative experiences and
expectations in the Russian system.
The instrument used in this study is an adaptation of the Institutional Goals
Inventory (IGI), a 95-item, Likert-type measure (Peterson, 1970) that assesses the importance attributed to 13 institutional output and 9 institutional process goals. For purposes of this study each goal was evaluated by respondents, as they perceived its associated items to reflect what they observed in the U.S., what they experience in their home institutions, and what they idealize for institutional aspiration in the Russian system. Data were gathered on-line through a Web-based survey, offered both in English
and Russian, with minor modifications for clearer cross-cultural understanding. Through
a combination of program participant lists, electronic networks, and direct solicitation,
this method yielded a usable sample of 70 respondents, all of whom were individuals
with careers in various disciplines from colleges and universities in the former Soviet
Union. iv
Most impressive to these Russian scholars were the U.S. emphases on the
Research, Advanced Training, and Meeting Local Needs output goals. Equally impressive were their perceived emphases on the Community, Democratic Governance, and Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment process goals. In similar fashion these scholars
attributed the greatest emphases in their own institutions to the output goals of Research,
Social Egalitarianism, and Academic Development, as well as the Accountability,
Miscellaneous, and Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment process goals. In addition to a
range of significant U.S.-Russia discrepancies, these respondents idealized greater
emphases for their own institutions on Research, Intellectual Orientation, Advanced
Training, Community, Democratic Governance, and Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment.
Conclusions were drawn and implications considered for the implementation of future
scholar exchange programs and the conduct of additional research to evaluate their
impact.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I must begin by acknowledging and properly thanking my advisor Dr. C. Carney
Strange who guided me through this journey. Carney, you convey what is good about higher education. I am hopeful that I will transmit your optimism, trust, and patience during my career to impact future students positively both in and out of the classroom as you have; you are truly a mentor. Thank you for your guidance as well as your patience.
I would also like to thank my committee, Drs. Coomes, Kubow, Mertler, and
Petrosino for their support and input during this process. Dr. Kubow, thank you for the opportunity to work as your research assistant and for sparking my interest in global education.
To Andrew, Cheryl, Marshall, and Tom, you will always be a part of my life. It was a great adventure that would not have been possible without your support and friendship.
To John Evascu, Karen Johnson, Mitch Miller, Timothy Pogacar, Natalia
Prokhorova, and Penny Turner—thank you for your technical assistance throughout this project.
Finally, special thanks are due to the Higher Education Department at Bowling
Green State University for this opportunity, your support, and your camaraderie.
vi
TABLE ON CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM……. 1
Preface………………………………………………………….…….. 1
Globalization in Education…………………………………… 3
The Case of Russia…………………………………………… 6
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………….. 10
Significance of the Study…………………………………………….. 11
Research……………………………………………………… 12
Academic Capital…………………………………………….. 13
Organizational Culture……………………………………….. 15
National Prominence…………………………………………. 18
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………… 20 Russian Higher Education…………………………………...…….…. 20
Kievan Transition (862-1613 C.E.)…………………………... 21
Imperial Period (1613-1917)…………………..……..…….… 25
The Soviet Experiment 1917-1980…………………………... 37
Russia after the Soviet Union…………………….………….. 45
Russian Higher Education Today……….………………….... 47
Empirical Research…………………………………………..….…… 50
Summary……………………………………….………..…… 57
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY...... …... 58
Participant Selection……………………………….…………...…….. 58
vii
Major Variables and Instrumentation……………….……….……..… 58
Procedures…………………………………………………..…..……. 70
Research Questions……………………………….…………...……... 74
Data Analysis………………………………………………….……… 75
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS………………………………..…………..……… 77
Sample Demographics…………………………………..……………. 77
Output and Process Goals in the U.S…………………………...…..… 83
Output and Process Goals in Russia…………………………………... 83
Differences in Perceptions: U.S. vs. Russia………………………..…. 88
Ideal Output and Process Goals in Russia………………………..…… 91
Differences in Perceptions: Russia – Reality vs. Ideals………...…..… 91
Differences in Perceptions: Russia – U.S. vs. Ideals……………..…… 96
Miscellaneous and Student Affair Scale Items………………………… 99
Summary…………………………………………………………….… 104
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………….….……….. 108
Discussion of the Results……………………………………..……….. 108
Demographics……………………………………….….……... 108
Perception of the U.S. System……………………….………... 110
Perception of the Current Russian System………….………… 112
Comparisons of U.S. and Russian Systems…………………… 116
Implications for Policy and Practice………………………..………… 119
Implications for Future Research……………………………………... 120
Conclusion………….…………………………………………………. 123 viii
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………… 126
APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT……………………………………. 138
APPENDIX B. HUMAN SUBJECT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL…….… 153
APPENDIX C. SURVEY SOLICITATION (RUSSIAN)…………….………. 155
APPENDIX D. SURVEY SOLICITATION (ENGLISH)………………….…. 157
APPENDIX E. SURVEY SOLICITATION (LOTTERY)……………..……... 159
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals
Inventory ……………………………………………….……..………. 61
2 Russian Scholar Respondent Characteristics…………………….……. 78
3 Instructional Scholar Visitation Experiences………………..……..…. 80
4 Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
U.S. Institutional Output……………………………………..….……. 84
5 Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
U.S. Institutional Process Goals……………………………..…….…. 85
6 Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
Russian Institutional Output Goals……………………………..…..… 86
7 Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
Russian Institutional Process Goals…………………………..…..….. 87
8 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Output Goals (U.S. vs. Russia)…..……..… 89
9 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Process Goals (U.S. vs. Russia)…………… 90
10 Russian Scholar Ideal Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
Russian Institutional Output Goals………………………..……….….. 92
11 Russian Scholar Ideal Perceptions of Importance Attributed to
Russian Institutional Process Goals…………………………….……. 93
x
12 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Output Goals
(Currently vs. Ideally in Russia)……………………………….…….. 94
13 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Process Goals
(Currently vs. Ideally in Russia)…………….……………………….. 95
14 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Output Goals
(U.S. vs. Ideally in Russia)……………………………………….…... 97
15 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance
Attributed to Institutional Process Goals
(U.S. vs. Ideally in Russia)……………………………………….…... 98
16 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Miscellaneous
Survey Question Means……………………………………………..... 100
17 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perception of Student
Affairs Survey Question Means………………………………………. 103
18 Russian Scholar Ranking of Importance of Institutional
Output Goals…………………………………………………….……. 105
19 Russian Scholar Ranking of Importance of Institutional
Process Goals……………………………………………………….… 106
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Preface
The current emphasis on globalization in national economies and
educational systems has emerged from a long history of cultural interactions
dating back to the beginning of recorded time. This has been especially apparent
in fruitful periods over the centuries when such activities, economic as well as
educational, were at their peak. In a significant way such was the case in 1100
C.E. when Baghdad developed as one of the first commercial centers along the historic trade route spanning eastward from Spain toward China. Baghdad was not only a commercial center for Europe and Asia during this epoch, but it was also an educational Mecca for the region, anchored by the Academy of Science located within its walls. This institution developed the Arabic numbering system, confirmed theories of Greek and Roman scholars, initiated a hospital system performing delicate surgery with wards similar to those in use today, and established central banking allowing the use of akks (checks) in a system of extensive trade (Gardner, 2001). Furthermore, at a time when Northern Europe had yet to use parchment, Middle-eastern tribesmen studying in Baghdad developed paper to transcribe findings within their considerable realm of influence spanning Northern Africa, Spain, Turkey, Pakistan, and India (Gardner,
2001).
Northern Europe learned of this socioeconomic progress from the returning Crusaders and their importation of many technological advancements— running water, sewers, and gunpowder. However, advancement slowed as Turkish 2
renegade tribes eventually overran Baghdad at the end of the first Crusades (1144
to 1187 C.E.), burning the city to the ground and decimating its culture and
education (Gardner, 2001).
Over the next 500 years this global center slowly drifted northward as
Europe emerged from the Renaissance (1200-1650 C.E.). Subsequent to this
period Adam Smith developed his theory of Absolute Advantage in 1776 (Ball,
2005), which became the cornerstone of all trade theories used today. Smith’s
theory promoted trade in lieu of mercantilism (i.e., collection of gold), stimulating
Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands to expand their influence
globally through trade and acquisition, extending eventually to the Americas and
the East (Hill, 2005). However, it was the Industrial Revolution in the mid-1800s
that led to the development of a market economy as civilizations grew from an
agrarian culture into an age of industry and commerce. During this time, currency
controls did not exist and people migrated at will, unencumbered by formal
national borders. With the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the
steamship, telegraph, railroad, Transatlantic cable, and subsequently the
telephone, the world became much smaller. Moreover, the trends during this
period were quite similar to current ones in which volumes of trade and capital
flow across national borders, relative to GNPs, as well as labor relative to
populations (Friedman, 2000). However, such global expansion, or globalization
as it began to be called, came to a halt with the beginning of World War I (1914 to 1918) and the Russian Revolution (1917), and remained stagnant in Eastern 3
Europe until the end of the Cold War (c. 1989), inhibited by diminished contact with the liberal West (Ziegler, 1999).
Globalization and Education
Globalization, a term now over a century old, has more recently become
an essential component in the development of nations and their status in the world economy. Steger (2003) surmised:
It [globalization] can best be thought of as a multidimensional set of social
processes that resists being confined to any single thematic framework.
Indeed, the transformative powers of globalization reach deeply into the
economic, political, cultural, technological, and ecological dimensions of
contemporary social life. (p. xi)
As countries now move from an age of industrialization to an era driven by technology and communication, the climate for progress also changes for those who advance and proves critical for those who do not. Globalization, or the dissemination of ideas across national and cultural lines, is an important part of this process. For some it is an important infusion of ideas that can solve many significant problems; for others it may spell the demise of centuries of cultural and social structures (Norberg-Hodge, 1991). Regardless globalization seems inevitable in a world where distances have shrunk and communication has exploded.
While globalization is possible at any level of development, the technologically ready advance much faster. Those lagging behind fear being overrun by the electronic herd, described as “the democratizations of finance, 4 technology and information” (Friedman, 2000, p. 109), and falling to fourth- world status (Castells, 1993). Among industrialized nations—those moving toward fourth world status are predominantly found in South and Central
America, Africa, and some parts of Eastern Europe since the fall of Communism
(Castells, 1993).
Investment in higher education serves both as a stimulus for, as well as a consequence of, globalization. A critical component in developed nations has been the infusion of education in all forms. Larger countries like the United States have reached a new plateau in terms of technological prowess, and many smaller countries like Taiwan, Korea, and Singapore—referred to collectively as “The
Asian Tigers” (Hill, 2004, p. 204)—have as well. Ironically, some large countries, including Russia, India, and China, have not made the transition to technical proficiency because of the failure of their initiatives and efforts in education
(Morris, 1996). However, technological proficiency is rapidly changing in China and India, with the dissemination of knowledge through Multi-national corporations, and the return of highly educated professionals trained in Western
Europe and North America (Hill, 2004). The Asian Tigers had no ties to a previous industrial age, thus allowing them to move forward more quickly into the technological era by educating a large portion of their population and by emulating the higher education system of the United States (Friedman, 2000), where the Industrial Revolution could not have taken place without secondary schooling for the workforce. One can argue that technological competence in a free-market system cannot be reached without higher education for that same 5
workforce (Altbach, 1998), in addition to the flow of shared intelligence and
improved communication (Friedman, 2000). Economic growth is the consequence
of educational stimulation in an era of globalization. If a nation does not educate,
it cannot advance.
Conversely, Becher and Trowler have noted that this "globalized landscape has fundamental consequences for higher education. It is creating new patterns of incentives and disincentives, new opportunities and dangers, new
structures and constraints" (2001, p. 2). Slaughter and Leslie (1977) have also
argued that "the changes taking place currently [in higher education] are as great
as the changes in academic labor which occurred during the last quarter of the
nineteenth century" (p. 1). They concluded their analysis with reference to four
purported far-reaching implications resulting from this current round of
globalization:
First is the constriction of monies available for discretionary activities
such as postsecondary education; second is the growing centrality of
techno-science and fields closely involved with markets, particularly
international markets; third is the tightening of product development and
innovation; fourth is the increased focus of multination relationships
between multinational corporations and state agencies concerned with
established industrial countries on global intellectual property strategies.
(pp. 36-37)
Such implications are apparent in the United States educational system but
seem more vague and compromised in the case of Russia which, among other 6
economies in the former Soviet block, is operating for the first time in a market-
driven system. One can also argue that many of the current problems in Eastern
Europe and in Russia arose because democracy arrived before economic reform,
making it more difficult to introduce the policies of a free-market society (Hill,
2005). However, many Russians believe that choosing democracy implies more
than adopting a political ideology of personal freedom; it also involves opening
their culture to Western ideas as well as their economy to market forces, and they
are suspicious of the consequences of globalization, of which democracy is a part.
“Their fear of globalization is heightened by the perception that the process is not
driven by the impersonal forces of the information revolution and the market, but controlled by the United States as part of a hegemonic project” (Carothers &
Ottaway, 2000, p. 4). For now Russia may seek to “participate in globalization” and gradually associate itself with the community of democracy to allow effective use of its still-strong scientific assets, technological achievements, and higher educational potential, all with the view of building a modern post-industrial
economy and society. However, the future may bring a return to some form of
totalitarianism, be it Communist or Fascist, to facilitate the “special Russian way”
or “otherness” embedded in Russian culture (Fedorov, 2000).
The Case of Russia
The consequences of globalization for higher education in Russia are far
different from those found in the United States, as well as other developed
nations, and are far less definable except in manifestations of inadequate state
funding and a market system not yet in place to give financial support. 7
“Consequently, of the nearly six hundred higher education institutions functioning
in Russia today, only under a dozen can properly be called research oriented, and the Academy of Science traditionally responsible for the production of knowledge is crumbling” (Bucar & Eklof, 1999, p. 389). This research configuration is significant because, prior to the end of the Soviet era and the Cold War in the
1980s, the Soviet Union was comparable to the United States in many areas of
science and military research. Currently, however, the Russian research and
development system has not contributed significantly to the market reforms
instituted under then President Boris Yelstin (Freeze, 2002). In contrast, civilian
research in the United States and other industrialized nations has contributed
significantly to economic development. “In dollars, the United States invested 130
billion and Russia 1.2 billion on research in 1996, channeled through their
respective higher educational systems” (Mazurek, Winzer, & Majorek, 2000, p.
218). Of the $130 billion invested in the U.S., only 31% came from the federal
government; in contrast, nearly 60% of the Russian investment came from the
government instead of private investors, and a majority of the balance came from
international assistance (Mazurek, Winzer, & Majorek, 2000).
It can be argued that if a nation’s economy is neither making an
investment in education, nor supporting its major research institutions, further
diminution in global status is inevitable. Such erosion can be substantiated in
Russia, as higher education in the once Communist nation is moving through a
difficult transition and searching for leadership. State funding now must be 8
replaced in order for this educational system to succeed in the form of market- driven institutions.
The quandary facing Russian higher education is the culmination of
significant changes in funding, shifting enrollment patterns, and shortages of
academic labor for research. University enrollment was expected to decline after
1991, but instead it surged. New fee-paying students have replaced those enrolled
with merit-based stipends, which have dwindled to the point that most high school
graduates have to continue to live at home and commute to a local campus (Bucar
& Eklof, 1999). This has had an ironic effect: student enrollment has increased in local institutions, and applications have dwindled in prestigious institutions located in costly major cities (e.g., Moscow State University). “Once the state covered all tuition fees, but now fewer than half of the students receive scholarships [sic] and tuition has become an essential part of public institutions”
(Bucur & Eklof, 1999, p. 389). To meet this challenge, student loans were
introduced in 1992 as part of the Law on Education (Holdsworth, 1998); however,
no practical solution has been found for the loss of state aid. Average tuition is
200% of the annual income of most workers. Because of the uncertainty caused
by the growth of unregulated employment, in contrast to the customary state-
controlled system, education has increasingly come to be regarded as having great
value in society as “the acquisition of knowledge has enjoyed almost unswerving
priority” (Schmidt, 2001, p. 129).
Russia has responded to this problematic enrollment growth and funding
challenge by trying to emulate other systems of higher education functioning in 9
market-driven economies. Seeking opportunities for its institutional leaders to
observe and experience directly the successes of other systems, most particularly
the United States (U.S.), it has devoted increasing resources to the support of
faculty development programs. In the past 14 years over 500 Russian scholars
have come to the U.S. to study its complex system of advanced education through
a variety of sponsoring agencies (e.g., Fulbright Scholar Program, International
Civic Education Exchange Program, and the U.S. State Department) each driven
by its own mission that has evolved to its current programming. These scholars
have come to glean from participation in U.S. programs of higher education new
ideas that can be used to organize and stabilize higher education systems in their
homeland. Many have come to explore American research institutions, some to
enroll in U.S. business colleges to study the economics and workings of a free
market system, and others have come exclusively to study the entire American
system of higher education. Their interest lies in how American higher education
is organized and managed, how faculty and students relate to one another, how
the curriculum is designed, and how elements of this culture might be transferred
to benefit Russian higher education. In these programs students are exposed to
ideas about the history and philosophy of higher education in the U.S.,
organizational and administrative management practices, models of leadership,
curriculum design, application of legal parameters, and the design and practice of
educational research. It can be inferred that they seek all of these exposures with the promise that what they learn might prove helpful to their home institutions as a source of creative innovation, focused on institutional transitions and “setting of 10
the three pillars of the new social order: political pluralism, the rule of law and a
market economy through education” (Birzea, 1996, p. 674).
Statement of Problem
This study examined the cultural transfer of ideas about higher education
gleaned through the eyes of Russian administrators and faculty members,
individuals with careers in university disciplines from colleges and universities in
the former Soviet Union, who came to study the system in the United States,
intending to gain new insight into the workings of our complex higher education
model. More specifically, this study focused on attitudes and perceptions of
institutional outputs and processes from the perspective of a select sample of
Russian educators, following their exposure to the U.S. system. What is their
perception of our system? How does it compare to their home institutions? Most
importantly, what do they consider to be key output and process goals they
believe should be infused or implemented in their own higher education system?
This study intended to capture, through survey research, the acquisition of
key ideas about American higher education gained by these visiting scholars
under the aegis of formal study in the United States, with the intention of implementing such concepts and practices in an institution in their homeland.
While this study did not monitor the applications of these concepts and practices
as such, it did examine the extent to which these visiting scholars deemed various
aspects of the U.S. system important. Thus the transfer of culture in this context
refers to the conceptual application rather than the programmatic implementation
of these processes. In doing so, it was the expectation that through such a study 11
more could be learned about how this educational exchange might eventually
transform their own system of higher learning, stimulating changes necessitated
by globalization and the fall of Communism.
Numerous U.S. organizations have seen the necessity for cultural
exchange through education including but not limited to the aforementioned
sponsors: Fulbright Scholar Program, International Civic Education Exchange
Program and the U.S. State Department. Some are concerned about learning
democracy, as well as the kind of entrepreneurial teaching required for market
economies to flourish; others are interested in bringing higher education to larger
segments of their population, to augment the marginalized. Still others are
concerned about the mechanisms necessary to promote the knowledge transfer needed for a global community, which in turn promotes a higher standard of living for many inhabitants—socially, economically, and educationally. It is from these groups that I studied Russian scholars, participants who have returned to
Russia in the past five years after exposure to the complexities of our higher education system with the aim of identifying reform for their homeland system presently being challenged by entry into the market society.
Significance of the Study
The focus of this study carries with it a sense of urgency to evaluate the status of Russia for reasons of its institutions’ abilities to carry out scientific research, maximize academic capital, and restore national prominence. Each of these goals is currently in jeopardy in the Russian system and risks the success of future institutional development. In addition it is important to gain further 12
understanding of the effects of educational exchanges in these programs in terms of the ideas, strategies, and methods that seem to have impressed those who came to learn, as well as those who have funded such interactions.
Research
From 1992 through 1997, the United States government stepped up its investment in research in Russia with funding from the National Aeronautical
Space Association (NASA) in the amount of $912 million; the Department of
Defense for nuclear threat reduction, $205 million; the Department of Energy,
$150 million; the International Science and Technology Center, $135 million; the
Civilian Research and Development Foundation, $16 million; and, other programs, including the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) totaling another $127 million over the five-year period (Boesman,
1999). Such investment did not stem the loss of an estimated 25,000 researchers who left Russia in 1992 and 1993 and the approximately 600,000 scientists and engineers who have entered the developing market economy in a variety of new positions (e.g., bankers and entrepreneurs—all trying to become a part of the new global society). These professionals realized that “a system of quality would result from the growing intensity of the economic, political, cultural, and communication ties uniting modern societies but were unwilling to remain statuesque for this transformation in their research institutions” (Bonnell &
Breslauer, 2000, p. 54). Pursuit of the kind of information solicited in the present study promises to generate insight into the complex phenomena of cultural 13 transfer in higher education, a factor that most likely will continue to impinge upon Russia’s program of scientific research.
Academic Capital
The idea of academic capitalism, or the transition of the academy from its own protected form of feudalism to a predatory capitalist entity important for functioning in a free market economy (Jones, 1994), has yet to reach higher education in Russia, where funding still comes primarily from limited government participation and foreign sources. In terms of governance, this transition has effected the transfer of autonomy from the state to the universities. In doing so, academic freedom has been achieved and in limited locations such change has created vibrant institutions of higher learning with funding from the United States and other market-driven economies. Conversely, while new programs in business, marketing, and law have become prevalent, their facilities are in shocking disrepair, according to the Organization of Economic Co-Operative Development
(OECD) and World Bank specialists (Bucur & Eklof, 1999), leaving many universities without heat, light, or running water.
Furthermore, with Russia’s limited number of research universities, the country has yet to respond to the complexities of a market economy by pursuing relationships with multinational corporations and international markets, except at the state level with the Academy of Science. Russia is not a county that is educationally homogeneous; rather it is one with levels of education that vary greatly from the metropolitan to the rural areas (Mazurek, Winzer, & Majorek,
2000). One can hypothesize that Russia is simultaneously in a variety of stages of 14 development—agrarian, industrial, and to a limited degree technological—which affects its placement in a globalized society and causes some of its difficulties in transforming to a market-driven society. Developed countries trade with other developed countries as they produce the goods and services desired by their populace. One could infer that Russia is not a developed country in the grand scope of globalization and the world economy, which would make collaboration on other than pure science difficult at this point in its development. Russia’s underdeveloped status, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
World Bank, and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and subsequent placement on the Generalized System of Preference (GSP)—providing funding to increase export earnings, to promote industrialization and to accelerate rates of economic growth—explains the lack of funds from local private sources and the influx of monies from the United States. Furthermore, as Bazgariv (1999) pointed out:
[In] contrast to the popularity of Western-inspired ideas in the early 1990s,
by the middle of the decade attitudes towards Western influence in Russia
became more negative and at the same time, interest in the history and
cultural tradition of Russia was growing. The second half of the 1990s
can be characterized as a period reflecting the past and in search of a new
ideology and a new identity. (p. 89)
This reflection speaks to the internal conflict in the Russian populous throughout its history. “On the one hand, [they have been] fascinated with the more developed Western cultures, but on the other, they have always been 15 convinced of their otherness and the special mission of Russia in the course of the history of nations” (Mezhuev, 1997, p. 7). Fedorov (2000) continues:
It is this traditional culture that is characterized by a paternalistic model of
relationship between the individual and the state, by communalism, by the
prevailing spiritual values of the Orthodox church over material ambitions,
and by the tendency to give greater weight to state interests than to the
private interests of individuals [and] suggests to many that Russian
political culture is inherently incompatible with Western liberalism,
necessitating the need for a multi-polar world, as an alternate to
globalization. (p. 3)
This does not suggest that Russia will not again become a leader in scientific research but does warn of difficulties which may arise in funding a very complex educational system without Western multinational assistance.
Organizational Culture
Globalization, the infrastructural force of change that is the industrialization process was not a key part of Russian society prior to the fall of
Communism (Jarvis, 2000). This can be seen as a deficit in the structure and culture of the Russian educational system prior to the 1990s, as was the State response to the social and political transformation of the era. However, in 1996 the State Law of Higher Education, passed in 1992, was finally adopted, with the
State Duma (i.e., legislative body of government) identifying the principal policies on education to be: 16
1. the humanistic charter of education and the priority of general human
values;
2. the unity of the cultural and educational space of the Federation;
3. the accessibility of education to all people;
4. the existence of lay (Church free) education in the state institutions;
5. freedom and pluralism in education; and,
6. the democratic administration of education and the autonomy of
institutions.
These principles were designed to correct the injustices of a 70-year-old
education system which, along with Soviet society and industry, toiled under
centralization; they also sought to rescue a rich cultural history and tradition from
the ineffective vestiges of the former Soviet Union (Dailey & Cardozier, 2001).
According to Schein (1992), organizational culture allows external adaptation to
changing environments, and identifies what groups must do to function internally.
In the case of Russian culture, it has failed to evolve to a level at which it can
adapt to changing global circumstances. This is due in part to the inability of its
higher education system to accommodate such changes. Higher education has
neither provided the spark to ignite changes in Russia toward democracy and the market economy, nor has it endorsed a cultural evolution sufficient for supporting such a goal. Rather, the cumulative reactions of Soviet youth toward education and training in this period of transition have been described by Kitaev (1994) as consisting of the following: 17
1. an orientation toward secondary, rather than higher, professional
levels;
2. a decline in the prestige of knowledge and a diminished interest in
education;
3. a decline in the quality of learning and in the qualities of specialists
being graduated; and,
4. a belief that one does not need to learn much to acquire an occupation.
(p. 320)
Despite these negative responses, the spirit of change and entrepreneurship continues to escalate in Russian education as in life. Public universities, the private sector, and self-learning methods via Western authors are addressing the vacuum in market competence. However, many managers and entrepreneurs now operating businesses in Russia have no formal education in economics and business administration. Links are not established to higher education institutions, and the shortage of resources fails to make private investment in formal education cost effective (Kitaev, 1994).
Several studies (Bass, 1981; Harbison & Myers, 1959; Likert, 1967;
Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 1958; Vroom &Yetton, 1973) supporting “typologies emphasizing the degree of absolutism of authority” (i.e., delegating tasks, responsibility, power and control, as cited in Schein, 1992, pp. 106-107) have implicated Russia’s failure to develop a flexible system of preparing specialists in accordance with the changing character of its economy and labor force (Balzer,
1994). A 1991 poll among secondary-school graduates showed that 96% were not 18
aware of the term cost effectiveness exemplifying the need for an innovative curriculum (Kitaev, 1994).
Nevertheless, Russia throughout its history has emulated other systems of
higher education to capture and maintain its superpower status. This started
during the reign of Peter the Great with vocational institutions that provided
skilled labor to build a Navy and bear the Empire’s expansion east. It continued
with German influenced institutions under Stalin, that championed the Sputnik
initiative and Communist doctrine, and more recently transitioned to a three-tiered
state system similar to the California model (Kerr, 2002), that combine with
expanded private options. A state system with 44% of its first year students
paying tuition indicates that privatization continues as a major cultural challenge
for a system in transition (T. Pogacar, personal communication, November 2004).
Research corroborates that 91% of faculty members surveyed prefer government
direction over autonomy (Boyer, Altbach, & Whitelaw, 1994). Knowing more about how ideas garnered from a system fed by different cultural assumptions, such as those in the United States, can inform their own is an important step in
understanding the continuing evolution of higher education in Russia.
National Prominence
V. Sadovnichii (2000)—president of the Russian Union of Rectors, rector
of Moscow State University and a member of the Political Consultative
Council—stated his fear that without a sense of urgency Russia will likely fail in addressing its problem of a currently diminished higher education system: 19
In the years that have passed, fundamental changes have taken place in the
very foundations of the Russian system of education and science. In
education, unfortunately, these changes have not always proceeded in the
desired direction. We have been squeezed especially hard by foreign
competitors in the markets of science-intensive products of a civilian
character. And another thing, for the first time in 200 or 300 years, Russia
has come up against the real threat of finding itself in the 2nd if not the 3rd
echelon of the countries of the world. (as cited in Mater, 2000, p. 75)
The transition of Russia to a market economy is alone significant reason for this study. Recognizing that the cultural transfer of ideas in higher education can be a valuable asset in reforming the Russian higher education system to restore its former level of preeminence also adds significance. 20
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The problem focus of this study entails an examination of the history and trends of Russian higher education, as well as insights from recent empirical research on the system; both lend understanding to the dynamics of complexities of the knowledge and culture transfers assessed here. Currently, Russian higher education is undergoing, with limited success, a major transformation as its national economy continues to move toward a market society with reservations about joining a post-industrial model of globalization and becoming a member of a community of democracies (Fedorov, 2000). Although this complex set of overlapping strategic interests has accounted for some rather dramatic shifts in academic personnel and institutional missions, the Russian system has attracted only a small body of empirical research about its organization and implementation. The influx of Russian scholars passing through U.S. institutions during the past decade presents an opportunity to examine this transformation through the perceptions of scholars who have returned to their home institutions.
Russian Higher Education
The history of Russian higher education can best be understood through the course of four distinct eras: the Kievan Transition, the Imperial Period, the
Soviet Experiment, and Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union. Particularly in each of the latter three periods the relationship between the government and institutions of higher learning was closely interconnected to the mission of a nation closed to the outside world. The course of this history also portrays an on- again off-again relationship with the emerging civilizations of the West. 21
Kievan Transition (862-1613 C.E.)
Following Viking advances, the Slavic tribes and their Scythian neighbors eventually coalesced in the Christian state of Kievan Rus with development of an urban society. Instrumental in the emergence of this rudimentary state was the development of institutions to support learning. “It seems obvious that Kievan culture could not have developed without an elevated layer of education, which has been shown in historical sources, such as the Primary Chronicle and Vladimir
Monomakh’s Testament, which express a very high regard for learning”
(Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 60). Kievan Rus culture reflected a variety of foreign influences in the complexity of its cultural heritage. It had the good fortune of being situated on the crossroads of cultures, linking it to the Iranian epic, the musical scales of the East Slavs and Turkish tribes, as well as the ornamentation of Scythian, Byzantine and Islamic motifs. “Soviet discoveries indicate that schools were present in Kiev and other towns, of monasteries fostering learning and the arts, and of princes who knew foreign languages, collected books, patronized scholars and generally supported education and culture” (Riasanovsky,
1984, p. 60), while the bulk of the population, especially in rural areas, remained ignorant.
During this transition, the Riurikid dynasty came to power and oversaw higher levels of the political complexity associated with geographic growth and gained through frequent warfare, only to be defeated eventually by Mongol invaders. “During the ensuing Mongol era a junior dynastic branch extended its authority and laid the foundation for a new state—Muscovy” (Martin, 2002, p. 1). 22
Built upon territorial, economic, military, and ideological foundations that
displaced both the traditional heritage of Kievan Rus and Tatar authority, “the
new state of Muscovy was thus poised to exploit the disintegration of the Golden
Horde (subordinates of the Great Khan of the Mongol Empire [Martin, 2002, p.
15]) and the reduction of Lithuanian expansion to become a mighty Eastern
European power” (Martin, 2002, p. 28). The rise of Moscow was a fundamental
development in Russian history. “The ultimate success of the principality meant
the end of the appendage period [appendages had multiplied as princes divided
their holdings among their sons, which eventually became so numerous that some
sons were not provided for] and the establishment of a centralized state”
(Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 109). “Prince Ivan I, known as Kalita or Moneybags,
persuaded the Metropolitan [leader of the Russian Orthodox Church appointed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople] to move the seat of the Church from Vladimir to Moscow, gaining dignity for the city as the spiritual center of Russia”
(Harcave, 1964, p. 39). Through bribes and the use of force against his neighbors, he then gained the confirmation of himself as Grand Prince of Vladimir and All
Rus. By the middle of the fifteenth century, the princes of Muscovy had gone far toward establishing their preeminence among the Russians, and their strength had gained a widening respect (Harcave, 1964).
“These first centuries after the Mongol invasion seem to have been the nadir for Russian education” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p.131). Education was non- existent for the masses with only minimal learning skills remaining to support the cultural development of the country. These skills were preserved and promoted 23
largely by not only the monasteries surrounding Moscow but also distant ones on the White Sea and in the White Lake regions. “With the rise of Moscow, education and learning in Russia likewise began a painful ascent” (Riasanovsky,
1984, p.131).
“Sixteenth-century Muscovy was a diverse ensemble of regions, ethnic
groups, cultures, historical traditions, and geographic differences” (Kollmann,
2002, p. 27). Muscovy’s expansion along lucrative trade routes equaled that of
other empires expanding towards the Baltic, along the Volga, and to the fur
bearing regions of Siberia and the rest of the north, dividing the country into three
large divisions—the north, the center, and the frontier (Kollmann, 2002).
As the territory of Muscovy expanded, the status of the ruler, a descendant of Ivan
I, was transformed from that of a grand prince with limited power to that of a
sovereign, autocratic monarch. This change evolved from the bloodless battle of
the Ugra River in 1480. This was a triumphant event where Russians overthrew
the Tatar yoke (Russia’s first Patriotic War) and began to make territorial gains
against the Mongols themselves. This autocratic form of government, in
combination with rapid geographical expansion and enserfment of the agricultural
population, is closely integrated with the reigns of Ivan III (the Great, 1462-1505
C.E.), Basil III (1505-1533 C.E.) and Ivan IV (the Terrible, 1533-1594 C.E.), who
each helped orchestrate the country into an East European force. The Rurik
dynasty came to a tragic end in 1598 with the death of Feodor I, the feeble son of
Ivan IV, who left no heirs. Now without a ruler, a period of crisis evolved where 24
it appeared that Russia might not survive as a state, convoluted by three years of
famine (Harcave, 1964).
In sum, during the Kievan transition period, education was “in eclipse”
(Riasanovsky, 1984, p.131). The Mongol invasion had taken an urban society into
an age of diminution in culture and learning. The few learning skills that did
remain, preserved and promoted largely by monasteries, emulated earlier learning
in the West. Though Russia was a pious country, Harcave (1964) pointed out the
following:
Few of the clergy had the knowledge to read the important books in
religious philosophy and theology and even if they had acquired the skills,
they would still have lacked the intellectual preparation necessary to a full
appreciation of such works. (p. 84)
It was this lack of appreciation that caused the Church to lose its position
as literary and artistic leader of the country. Consequently, its influence passed to
an upper class which soon became worldly and showed an inclination to turn to
Western Europe for guidance and inspiration. This was the same time, c. 1589, that the Church became Russian Orthodox rather than Eastern Orthodox, reflecting its independence from Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire, and making the Russian state the dominant power in the relationship. This was important as the influence of the church pervaded all of Russian life—including art, literature, music and education. “Contact with those outside the faith was to
make one unclean, and Russians, therefore, were not ordinarily permitted to go
abroad” (Harcave, 1964, p. 80). This isolation led to a departure from early 25
Mongol supremacy creating an internal conflict between the desire for the West
and the otherness instilled by the control of the Orthodox Church for many
Russians (Kollmann, 2002; Riasanovsky, 1984).
Imperial Period (1613-1917)
Already lagging from the transitions from Kievan culture, higher
education during the Imperial Period found Russia focusing on emulating the
already well established higher education systems of Poland, Germany and
Austria, in order to compete militarily in their expansion east (Martin, 2002).
Nearly half of Russia rejected Muscovite control during the first 15 years
following Feodor’s death until “in 1613 an Assembly of the Land, made up of
representatives of clergy, the boyars [upper nobility that originally obtained
influence and government posts through their military support of the Kievan
princes], the service nobility and some peasant and urban delegates, elected
Michael Romanov as Tsar” (Harcave, 1964, p. 57). Thereafter, the Romanov
dynasty would rule until 1917.
The enormous Muscovite state, and in particular its immense bureaucracy, required as a minimum some education of officials during this period. This education was possible, mostly from clergy, in the developed towns of the early
Kievan state. More advanced schools did not appear until well into the seventeenth century, following the acquisition of the Ukraine by Muscovy, when
Kiev was more open to the West and where the Orthodox Church had to defend itself against Catholicism. Schools were established to teach Greek and Latin, protect the faith and both control and disseminate knowledge, with Kiev and 26
Moscow clearly the centers of enlightenment. The curriculum resembled closely that of Medieval Europe, absent the study of science and technology
(Riasanovsky, 1984).
In 1682, Peter I came to the throne and rose to the stature of Peter the
Great through a 43-year reign, one of the most controversial and famous in
Russian history. Proponents of Peter asserted that Russia, thought to be lagging behind, needed an injection of Westernization. Peter provided for it in the form of
“Western sciences, shipbuilding, military organizations, and statecraft” (Harcave,
1964, p. 117). His plan for a system of practical secular education for the upper
class, however, was not realized, and many of the schools which he did create
collapsed after his death. Opponents to Peter’s Westernization argued that Russia
needed nothing from the outside world as it was the bastion of Eastern Orthodoxy,
having developed a unique European civilization, and as such should be allowed
to follow its preordained path (Harcave, 1964). Nonetheless, the Renaissance had
begun. Russia’s capital was moved to the new cultural center of St. Petersburg,
“the tsar’s Paradise” (Alexander, 2002, p. 104), a city created and built by Peter
with forced labor in what seemed to most a desolate swamp, “a city that became a
lasting symbol of the Europeanization of Russia” (Harcave, 1964, p. 113).
After Peter’s death the controversy over Westernization continued as
described by Kirchner:
The period between the death of Peter the Great and the accession of
Catherine the Great in 1725 to 1762 has been considered by some
historians as an era of shallowness, confusion, and decay, whereas others 27
attribute to it much of Russia’s spiritual growth and political advancement.
The truth seems to lie on both sides. Rapid and violent changes, as under
Peter, were discontinued, but slowly the process of Westernization went
on, gaining in depth and leading to a better proportion between the
ambitions and the actual potentialities of the country. (as cited in
Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 268)
Higher education was part of this slow Westernization, which had
previously spread through Europe after the Crusades, beginning with the
University of Bologna (1140 C.D.) and moving onward into France, Germany,
and England, where Oxford was founded in 1168. However, higher education did
not reach the unsettled Russian frontier until 1755, then under the reign of
Elizabeth, and it expanded slowly after the establishment of the University in
Moscow (LeDonne, 1996). In 1786, Catherine the Great founded a teachers’
college in St. Petersburg that, during its 15 years of existence, produced 415
teachers, proceeding to put elementary education into district towns reaching
20,000 students by the end of the century (Riasanovsky, 1984). Russia had
already established an Academy of Science by 1735. Nonetheless, foreigners led
intellectual activity in Russia during the first half of the 18th century, exemplified by “the Academy of Sciences, which had in its first years one Russian, two
French, two Swiss, and twenty German members” (Harcave, 1964, p. 177). The imitative efforts of Catherine the Great did not impede the privileged from seeking education outside the country, but her focus was clearly on education in
Russia. Most importantly, she did recognize that education was essential during 28
this dynamic time of eastward expansion. Catherine also realized the significance
of the Industrial Revolution, by this time gaining momentum in the Western
regions, and of education as an essential element in developing a workforce.
In the eighteenth century Michael Lomonosov promoted higher education
in Russia, but this was seen as something of a paradox. However, in the
nineteenth century it was Nicholas Lobachevsky who brought a broader and more incessant character to Russian schools in thought, traditions and contributions of the intellectual effort of Western civilization under the reign of Alexander I.
“Even philosophical, political, social, and economic doctrines grew and
developed in a remarkable manner in spite of autocracy and strict censorship”
(Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 349). Although the lower classes began to acquire some
status, Russian culture was essentially a privilege of the gentry, not unlike the
character of the antebellum South in the United States. Its tone and charm are
preserved in the works of Tolstoy’s War and Piece, and Turgenev’s A Gentry
Nest. The educated gentry enjoyed a cosmopolitan, literary upbringing, with
emphasis on the French language, and more and more of the elite population
attended universities at home and abroad.
The expansion of higher education in Russia under Alexander’s reign—
with the establishment of universities in Kazan, Kharkov, and St. Petersburg, as well as the transformed academy in Vilna and a revived German university in
Dorpat—allowed the rich opportunities to attend universities in other major cities
of the empire other than Moscow (Riasanovsky, 1984). These first six institutions
had similar missions, primarily for gentlemen, including leadership for 29
government and commerce positions, and cultural appreciation for young women
of nobility. “Following a traditional European pattern, Russian universities
enjoyed a broad measure of autonomy” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 150). Moreover,
the private sector became involved and created two institutions of higher
education, which eventually became the Demidov Law School in Iaroslavl and the
Historico-Philological Institute in Nezhin. With such expansion, science and
scholarship grew. Mathematics led by Nicholas Lobachevsky, the “Copernicus of
geometry” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 352), whose formulation of a non-Euclidian
system prevailed. Astronomy, physics, chemistry and the natural sciences grew as
well, exemplified by the discovery of the Antarctic continent under this early
Romanov rule (Riasanovsky, 1984).
Following its destruction during the Napoleonic War (1812), the
university in Moscow was promptly rebuilt within two years. The university
complex that burned, already the second location for the institution, moved across
the river from the Kremlin, to accommodate a growing number of faculty and
students. Into this new multiple-building complex an expanded curriculum of
progressive scientific and social ideas was initiated toward a new mission of general education for members of the raznochinets (those who were not of gentry birth) (Riasanovsky, 1984) or nobility. All six Russian universities at this time
enrolled students of varied backgrounds, except those of serf extraction. “The
regime began the century in a reformist spirit and met the challenge of the
Napoleonic invasion, but thereafter abjured far-reaching reform and, especially,
the emulation of Western models” (Ransel, 2002, p. 143). 30
The period after the War of 1812 also brought conservative reform to
Russian universities. Under the influence of a religious revival following
Napoleon’s defeat and Alexander’s spiritual conversion, the Ministry of
Education evolved into the Ministry of Education and Public Worship in an
attempt to make Christian piety the basis of true education (Ransel, 2002).
“Obscurantists gained the upper hand in the educational system and began to
change its character” (Harcave, 1964, p. 221). At the University of Kazan, for
example, professors were dismissed, textbooks purged and its administration converted into one resembling a combination of monastery and military garrison.
Similar developments followed at other institutions. “The obscurantists [nitpicker] also gained the upper hand in literature and journalism through the application of censorship” (Harcave, 1964, p. 221). Harcave (1964) reiterated the dangers of these external threats:
The reaction in education was not the direct work of Alexander, although
it did reflect his spirit. It was the work of the anti-foreign, anti-intellectual
members of the court, bureaucracy, and Church, who were regaining the
power, which they had lost in his liberal days, and using it to pay off
scores against antisympathetic persons and ideas. (p. 221)
During the four decades following the victory over the Napoleonic army,
Europeans regarded Russia as the continent’s most formidable power, which was
soon to change. “Alexander died childless and confusion about which of his two
brothers should succeed to the throne gave insurgents an opportunity to strike”
(Ransel, 2002, p. 156). Nicholas I had not expected to become ruler and had 31
prepared for a military career but endured through two insurgencies, including the
unsuccessful Decembrists revolt, “surpassing the reform accomplishments of
those of his older brothers” (Ransel, 2002, p. 157). Nicholas, however, failed to recognize the need for technological and weapons development, for education and industry, became most evident in the Crimean War. Railways spread through
Western Europe in this era, and Russia had just completed its first line between
Moscow and St. Petersburg. Russia had defeated the French at their most
powerful, but it would be nearly a century before they could defeat anyone but
Ottoman Turkey (Ransel, 2002).
This decline in international position occurred during the reign of Nicholas
I when in October 1853 the Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia. Russia
quickly destroyed the Turkish fleet in the Black Sea and occupied the Danubian principalities. The later occupation convinced England and France to intervene, declaring war on Russia in 1854. “Russia had one million men at her disposal but the technological and administrative backwardness of Russia and the uninspired leadership dissipated the potential advantages” (Harcave, 1964, p. 273). Nicholas died in 1855 and thus the task of finishing the war was left to his son Alexander
II, who was unwilling to accede to the terms offered. At this time Austria,
Russia’s long time ally, threatened to enter the war against her if Alexander would
not agree to the terms, which he finally did in early 1856 with the signing of the
Treaty of Paris.
After Alexander II’s ominous defeat by the British and French, he set
about to bring Russia into closer alignment with the monarchies of Central 32
Europe. In short, he created an economy based upon free labor. While retaining the political and economic superiority of the nobility and cleaning up the legal system he did not forfeit any of the supreme legislative and administrative power of the crown. In doing so, he rendered the era of “his reign [to] be considered the second greatest watershed in Russian history, [after] that of Peter the Great”
(Harcave, 1964, p. 277).
Following the emancipation of the serfs in 1862 and other important
governance reforms, universities were also allowed to become autonomous
corporations with far greater faculty rights and even some recognition of student
rights. In addition, reforms took place in judicial statutes, the military, censorship
and the Russian Orthodox Church, which by then had internalized many norms,
structures and problems of state and society (Freeze, 2002). While some lauded
these reforms, others believed that an autocratic system with modification was
more ideal for Russia. For several months the terrorists of the People’s Will
(Harcave, 1964) attempted to assassinate Alexander II and finally succeeded in
March 1881 when a bomb thrown by a terrorist reached its mark, thus removing the catalysis of reform.
“Alexander III came to the throne a man fitted by both temperament and
training to assume the role of defender of autocracy. He viewed the reforms of his
father with distaste and believed the autocratic system without modification was
ideal for Russia” (Harcave, 1964, 307). He contended that the power of central
government, and especially the police, should be enhanced and that “institutions
which governed opinion would be required once more to mold the people to 33
uniform specifications: Orthodox in faith, Russian in speech, and loyal in heart”
(Harcave, 1964, p. 311).
Tolstoy, dubbed the “evil genius” by Alexander II, the Minister of
Education and subsequently the Minister of the Interior, encouraged the
elimination of laxity and the establishment of curbs on any educational activities
of which the government disapproved (Zelnik, 2002). Previously frustrated by
Alexander II, he could achieve his goal by issuing a new university statute that
totally did away with autonomy and gave full control to the Minister of
Education, an office that would henceforth appoint all professors and other
university administrative officers. Students were forbidden to join clubs or other
organizations under penalty of conscription. The government had returned.
Higher education showed some expansion during this period but was often
hindered by the lack of facilities. Only three new institutions were opened before
the end of the 19th century—Odessa, Warsaw, and Tomsk—bringing the total to nine. By 1899, the University of Moscow remained the largest with enrollment of
4,400 students out of 16,500 countrywide (Harcave, 1964). Many students still went abroad to foreign universities, particularly in Germany and Switzerland, as they were denied entrance to Russian institutions because of their religious beliefs or because they desired a less severe atmosphere. Scholarship after the counter- reforms of Alexander III was caught in the crossfire of political conflict. The official ideology had little attraction for most scholars, and governmental supervision limited free research and study (Harcave, 1964). 34
This period of counter-reform, which witnessed reversals in the areas of local government (1881), censorship (1882) and higher education (1884), was also a time that saw major changes take place in society, the economy and government policy, moving more toward the Western model (Zelnik, 2002). This change was in part due to the capitalist economy, developed during the reform in response to the Industrial Revolution. It was then that the development of state railways and industry, through high tariffs, state contracts, and subsidies, would allow Russia to experience a rate of industrial growth (1890s) of 8% per annum, higher than even the U.S.A. “As Russia’s national economy closed the gap somewhat with other European countries, the rapid growth also caused conflict in
Russian cities as the telltale warning signs of urban blight, working-class dissatisfaction, and social tensions grew” (Zelnick, 2002 p. 208).
In response to these dynamics, the working class increased in size and divergence, expanding its arena of radical activity and opening the door to a
Marxist perspective. “Nicholas II became the last autocratic ruler of Russia after his father’s death in 1894” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 438). Insisting that the government continue to apply and extend his “temporary regulation,” to supervise the press and control education, Nicholas was looked upon as a good man but a miserable ruler, often compared to Louis XVI. “As Trotsky and other determinists have insisted, the archaic, rotten Russian system, which was about to collapse, could not logically produce a leader much different from that ineffective relic of the past” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 439). 35
The Revolution of 1905 came about because of the decades that followed
the “great reforms,” and capitalism at last emerged in Russia. The bourgeoisie
(middle class) began to come into its own. Even as commercial and industrial
enterprises remained underdeveloped and faltered, professional people seemed
eager to participate in politics. The turmoil evidenced by frequent strikes and
student protests that continued from 1898, prohibited Nicholas II and his
government from conducting the essential activities of the empire and forced his
surrender in October 1905 (Riasanovsky, 1984). The first Duma [the elective
legislative assembly established by Tsar Nicholas II in 1905) convened in 1906 after a free election. Over the next decade it remained locked in a power struggle with the emperor, who continued to oversee foreign policy—the making of war and peace, control of the armed forces, as well as succession to the throne, the court, and his dominating position in relation to the Russian Church
(Riasanovsky, 1984).
In spite of the all the vicissitudes of this era, higher education still expanded, although slowly. Three additional institutions were founded—the
University of Saratov (1910), The University of Perm in (1915), and the
University of Roostov-on-Don in (1917). This gave Russia a total of 12 universities belonging to the state. Furthermore, at the end of this period in 1917,
Russia possessed more than 100 other specialized institutions of higher learning
(e.g., pedagogical, technological and agricultural). “Literature, however, continued to be the chief glory of Russian culture, and it also became a major 36
source of Russian influence of the west, and indeed on the world” (Riasanovsky,
1984, p. 440).
In sum, during the reign of Alexander the Great, the Imperial Age
witnessed the establishment of the first state educational institutions, which were
designed to emulate the West and to promote military prowess essential for
expansion. Higher education also lowered its barriers by allowing all but the
lowly serfs to attend, thus stimulating economic growth within the country. This
was also an era of geographic expansion, of renaissance and of rebellion within
Russia’s borders. As education expanded for the upper classes, this proved a difficult time, with the first sparks of the revolution springing from St. Petersburg in 1749, and unrest continuing through Napoleon’s defeat in 1812. Internal strife persisted for the next century, with secret societies campaigning for the abolition of serfdom and external conflict erupting in a number of wars outside its borders
(i.e., the Crimean War of 1854-56 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05) prior to the revolution of 1917. During this same period, Westernization became the
dominant perspective in the evolution of Russian scientific thought, education and culture. It began with the reign of Alexander II, whose reforms, though short- lived, made Russia a significant European power. Science and scholarship amazingly prevailed through a spiral of autonomy and government censorship dictated by the reforms and counter-reforms of this autocratically governed society; thus a capitalistic economy developed in conjunction with the Industrial
Revolution. Following the fall of the Romanov Dynasty (1915), which had ruled for more than 300 years, education reached a new middleclass, and higher 37
education enrollments spiraled to as high as 180,000 students in the twelve
universities and assorted technical and pedagogical institutions. However, “a
combination of military occupation and economic disorder bled the country for
three years until the Bolsheviks triumphed and began to establish the new order”
(Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 202). This marked the beginning of a new era.
The Soviet Experiment 1917-1980
The Soviet Experiment and the development of a classless society opened
the doors of higher learning to a broader citizen base under Lenin’s leadership.
However, this expansion and access were soon trodden with suppression,
regulation and restriction under Joseph Stalin. Initially though, the split in society
that occurred during the Revolution had a very negative effect on higher
education. Some students, prominent scholars and scientists were exiled for
failure to abide by party regulations, and faculty members were looked upon as
the “old educated professionals,” becoming victims of the new Communist
insurrection. Designated the bourgeois intelligentsia, they were asked to step
down. Admission policies were changed to encourage students of worker and
peasant origins from rural as well as urban areas to attend. Research was changed
from an individual to a group approach, and with autonomy forfeited, faculties
were expected to serve as watchdogs against one another (The Heart of Russian
Education, 2001).
Some successes emerged. In addition to receiving increased access to higher education rabfak (special institutions for workers) provided an equivalent of secondary education, with workers then constituting a third of the entrants into 38
institutions of higher education by 1928. The Communist Academy and the
Institute of Red Professors were founded in 1921 for the training of Marxist scholars for careers in the social sciences (Husband, 2002). The National
Economic Policy was introduced with a broad focus to ease resentment against the emergency measures of the civil war. This measure reestablished the market, if only on a limited basis, and replaced the renewed barter system, invigorating the rural economies, generating investment capital for industrialization and most importantly laying the foundation for the transition to socialism at some unspecified future date.
Whereas the Great October Revolution catapulted the Communist party to
power, it led to the destruction of entire social classes—the land owning gentry,
as peasants seized their land, and the upper bourgeoisie, similarly eliminated with
emergence of a nationalized finance, industry and trade. The clergy, monks, nuns,
and other individuals associated with the Church were nearly annihilated, as were
the intellectuals, many of whom had emigrated. “In fact, although some of its
members remained, the intelligentsia as a cohesive, articulate, and independent
group was no more” (Riasanovsky, 1984, p. 571).
It is impossible to estimate the number of refugees who left Russia after
the Revolution. However, “in line with statements made by Lenin at the third
Congress of Communist International in 1921, Soviet writers set the number of
émigrés at between 1.5 and 2 million” (Raymond & Jones, 2000, p. 8). Many
were intelligentsia, former relatives of the tsars or landowners. According to estimates of the International Labor Office, 400 thousand were in France, 150 39 thousand in Germany, 90 thousand in Poland, with smaller distributions in Latvia,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, China, Latin America, Africa, Australia, and the United States, where 20 thousand eventually settled. This first Russian diaspora led to the creation of eight Russian higher education institutions in
France: the Russian departments of Paris University, the Orthodox Theological
Institute, the Commercial Institute, the Russian Polytechnical Institute, the Higher
Technical Institute and the Rakmaninov Musical Academy (Boris & Jones, 2000).
The hope of keeping the Russian culture alive to return to the homeland in better times was lost in a few generations as the youth were absorbed into the French culture.
Lenin's death in 1924 was followed by an extended and extremely divisive struggle for power in the Communist Party. By the latter part of the decade,
Joseph Stalin, who ruled from 1928 to 1953, had emerged as the victor and immediately set the country on a much different course. The National Economic
Policy was replaced by an economic plan dictated from the top. Agricultural lands were collectivized, creating large state-run farms. Industrial development was pushed along at breakneck speed, and production was almost entirely diverted from consumer products to capital equipment. Universities were purged of all non-party supporters, and by the end of the 1930s the Soviet Union had become a country in which life was more strictly regulated than ever before.
“Whereas in 1914 about 57% of the university students in Russia were
children of nobles, merchants, priests and officials, in 1928 about 77%
were workers, peasants or children of workers or peasants—most of them 40
with inadequate preparation for the work previously expected of university
students” (Harcave, 1964, p. 590).
A conflict with religion could not be avoided in an attempt to mold the
new generation. The government promoted both the natural and social sciences as
aids in reforming society, providing a substitute for what they considered the
mystical and impractical conceptions represented by religion. However, because
of the nature of the use of the natural and social sciences, a great difference
existed in the freedom accorded to scholars; the natural scientists were given more
latitude as their work did not offend the philosophy of Marxism (Husband, 2002).
Ideological and administrative pressures from Party authorities during this
span stood in the way of creative work at many universities and research institutions. The system restricted contacts with foreign scientific centers, and many scientists and scholars were subjected to unjust reprisals while entire sectors of research—particularly in social sciences, philology, cybernetics and biology— were closed nationwide in favor of the hard sciences. As a whole, however, hard
sciences had made great headway by the early 1940s in conjunction with the
Academy of Science that was working as a partner in many of the research
institutions then being funded by military research (MSU, 1996). Experimentation
had ended, and discipline was the rule of the day prior to and during their third
“Patriotic War” (World War II) (Pervova, 1997, p. 67).
As was the case with the Napoleonic War, the Soviet Union emerged from
World War II considerably stronger than it had been before the war. Although the
country suffered enormous devastation and lost more than 20 million people, it 41 had gained considerable territory and now ranked as one of the two great world powers, along with the United States. As the Cold War ensued, an increasing proportion of the Soviet Union's resources were funneled into military projects, expanding a research initiative lasting well into the late 1980s. In the last years of
Stalin, social differentiation was growing sharper despite the Soviet definition of no classes in the USSR, but the fees introduced for higher education in 1940 as an alleged emergency measure were continued, again limiting access to higher education to only the socially favored (Harcave, 1964).
Reconstruction began immediately after the end of the war and lasted nearly two decades. During the reconstruction, the University of Moscow found a new home, south of the city in one of the new Seven Sisters. Seven similarly shaped complexes built in and around Moscow conveying Stalin’s perception of
Art Deco skyscrapers. Like the new subway system of Moscow and other civic expansions, the university system was built after the War by forced labor, specifically Germans (Vladimir Eronshin, personal communication, June, 2000).
George Bereday, a noted scholar on Soviet higher education, wrote on the spread of education in the Soviet Union during this time as compared with that of the situation in the United States (as cited in Riasanovsky, 1984):
In 1958, approximately 10% of the appropriate age group attended
institutions of higher education, which included 39 universities and 730
institutes of higher education, the second largest proportion in the world
after the United States, with 33% of its youth in colleges. (p. 580) 42
In sum, autonomy disappeared during this era with the State dictating
curriculum in the universities as well as the national agenda in industry and
agriculture. The age of the classless society was short lived after Lenin’s death and soon was replaced by a militarily driven economy under Stalin’s dictatorial rule. However, the major Communist contribution of the era had been the dissemination of education at all levels and on a vast scale, even while limiting its access in the waning decades of Stalin’s rule. Stalin died in 1953 and left behind a country with many structural faults. “But neither the spasmodic reformism of
Khrushchev nor the systematic stand-pattism of Brezhnev had much effect”
(Freeze, 2002, p. 347).
In 1957 Khrushchev attempted two structural reforms. One was the
democratization of government, shifting the responsibility directly to the people; the second, decentralization, quickly healed the structural failures of Stalin. This de-Stalinization and decentralization fueled opposition to Khrushchev, but by the late 1950s the economy was bolstering high rates of growth in the industrial and agricultural sectors “with labor productivity rising by 62% and the return on assets at 17%” (Freeze, 2002, p. 360). The launching of Sputnik seemed to demonstrate the might, if not the superiority, of the Soviet system to both the nation and the world (Freeze, 2002).
Khrushchev, concerned that 80% of the university students were coming
from the intelligentsia, abolished university tuitions and dramatically restructured
secondary schooling to subscribe all children to the labor force for two years to learn a trade. He also increased educational opportunities by raising expenditures 43
by 8% from 1956 through 1965. Furthermore, he mandated that Russian be taught
in all schools to forge closer ties and to assimilate the entry of the small nations into the Soviet Russian culture (Freeze, 2002).
When the 22nd Party Congress took place in 1961, reform was evident.
Stalin’s body was removed from the mausoleum where he had lain next to Lenin
because of his “serious violations of Leninist precepts, and abuse of power, his
mass repression of honest Soviet people and his other actions during the cult of
personality” (Freeze, 2002, p. 362). The Congress also set 16 year term limits for
members of the Central Committee, and sought to replace full-time functionaries
with volunteers. The latter especially did not raise Khrushchev’s popularity
among the “partocrats” (Freeze, 2002, p. 363).
Khrushchev slipped from grace in part because of imposed term limits, the
Cuban missile crisis, his cultural policy, and an economic downturn which created
8% unemployment in the cities and 30% in the outlying areas. Others have
identified the main causes as the massive defense spending in lieu of
modernization of industry and the extreme centralism and lack of democracy in
economic matters (i.e., investment dropped from 16% in 1958 to 4% in 1961).
Khrushchev was forced from power in 1964. With his removal the “old guard”
including Brezhnev, who had previously served under Stalin, sought to restore
stability and order to the system (Freeze, 2002).
“Brezhnev’s stewardship also brought sharp economic decline” (Freeze,
2002, p. 373). Within this inefficient state economy, a black market emerged in
which 20 million people worked to supply over 80% of the general population’s 44
consumer demands. The country continued to develop political and social elite,
“nomenklatura” (Orlovsky, 2002, p. 252), who monopolized key positions in
government and industry. In 1980 it was estimated that this group was comprised
of 800,000 people and together with their families made up three million people
(1.2% of the Soviet population). While this was a golden age for the
nomenklatura, Brezhnev also attempted to improve the lot of the general
population by expanding Khrushchev’s social welfare. Despite this, Soviet society
exhibited signs of acute stress with alcoholism, infant mortality, and changing
demographics with Muslin families growing at nearly three times the rate of the
traditional Orthodox core (T. Pogacar, personal communication, November 2004).
Neither Brezhnev nor his immediate successors, Andropov and Chernenko,
survived long enough to address years of internal stagnation. Domestically,
Russia’s economy had ground to a halt, paralyzed by profound structural
problems in agriculture and industry, and now deprived of lucrative revenues from the export of energy and raw materials, found itself asking for assistance from the West (McCauley, 2002).
Mikhail Gorbachev, a gifted politician, then became the most
revolutionary leader since Lenin. He believed that the only way to stop the
malaise that gripped the country was to return to Leninist roots. Gorbachev’s
“Perestroika (reconstruction and reform), glasnost (publicity and openness) and
demokratizatsiia (democratization) were to rejuvenate the socialist system and make it more efficient” (McCauley, 2002, p. 383). His achievement was, however, to unwittingly dismantle the Soviet Union, earning him admiration 45
abroad and enmity at home. His legacy established, Gorbachev called for a
nationwide election for president in 1991. An election in which Boris Yelstin won
57% of the votes. “Yelstin, a weak president in a strong presidency, presided over
economic depression, loss of superpower status, and a state taken over by corrupt
economic elites” (McCauley, 2002, p. 383).
In sum, despite an unstable economy, education had been one of the successes of the Soviet Experiment; it provided a basic education for each child with particular strengths in math, science, and foreign languages. Moscow State and St. Petersburg (formally Leningrad) graduates were considered equals of those of Harvard and Oxford. Education was offered at no or very little expense except during a few decades at the end of Stalin’s reign, and after graduation students were guaranteed employment where they were expected to work for a minimum of three years as remuneration to the state for their education (Ziegler,
1999). Unfortunately, however, many of the efforts of the educational system were directed toward military research and the spread of Communism in developing countries but not to the economy where it struggled most.
Russia after the Soviet Union
As an independent nation, freed of the constraints of its former federation,
Russia assumed the Soviet seat on the UN Security Council, took control of all the Soviet embassies and accepted responsibility for a 60 billion dollar Soviet debt. Russia by this time had a population of 148 million, comprising 51% of the former Soviet population. Russia and the other states appeared poised to construct a market economy that would be more productive than the State system of the late 46
Soviet era. The transition was not easy, as shock therapy attempted by a young
economist named Egor Gaidar created inflation that initially reached levels over
2500% in 1992 but declined to below 25% by 1996. Privatization was riddled
with miscalculation and corruption, driven more by the government’s attempts to raise money than by the market. Russia had become a country with less than one- third of the labor force receiving its compensation on time, “Catastrophic economic decline, internal political instability, and loss of superpower status—all fueled domestic disenchantment and disillusionment with the post-Soviet order”
(McCauley, 2002, p. 383).
The effect of all this on higher education in Russia was the emergence of a
system challenged by the influences of globalization, lack of financial support,
and an inbred mistrust of the West. This was illustrated at the start of 1992 when
Russia embarked on a series of dramatic Western economic reforms, including the floating of prices on most goods which led to an immediate economic downturn.
A national referendum of confidence necessary for President Yeltsin and his economic program, which included encouraging the privatization of higher education, took place in April 1993, as there was neither money nor a tax plan in place to finance the system. The consequences of privatization encompassed the entire Russian higher education enterprise and created a system that needed to make major adaptations to fulfill the needs of its populace and to negotiate its transition to a technologically based global society, all in the absence of sufficient funding.
47
Russian Higher Education Today
Although basic research has now been restored, the 700 institutions,
including about 150 private colleges, are at a crossroad (Dailey & Cardozier,
2003). They must teach a market system, long since rejected under Lenin’s ideology, and do so with an uneducated and unproductive workforce. However, with the fall of Communism, internationalization (i.e., globalization) had achieved new currency in Russian schools and universities, and by 1989 new principles of
“humanization, democratization, and rationalization in education had brought about an emphasis on values such as pluralism, openness and publicity” (Laihiala-
Kankainen, 2000, p. 80). In 1995, more than 2.5 million students studying on a full-time basis were enrolled in Russian institutions of higher education, and
nearly 1.7 million were studying in part time, evening, correspondence or distance
learning programs (Nikandrov, 1995). Fortunately, continuing education is not
new to Russian higher education with its long tradition since Alexander II of
evening school and correspondence study. At one time enrollment numbers in
such programs were much larger than the numbers of full-time students.
Currently, two ardent and partially contradictory trends in Russian higher
education have emerged from this new freedom. Both have their roots in the
culture and heritage of the perceived role and place of Russians among the nations
of the world. On one hand the Russian people are fascinated with the more
developed Western cultures and globalized economy; on the other hand they are
convinced of their otherness and the special mission of Russia in the course of
world history. Consequently, “the ideas of internationalization and nationalization 48
can be understood as complementary or conflicting for developing and expanding
the current Russian higher education system for most Russians” (Laihiala-
Kankainen, 2000, pp. 78-79) in their current transition.
Russia is also taking a step back in education as mandatory secondary schooling has been reduced to nine years from the previous 11, a change that affects higher education where standards are already falling. In 1997, 600 private institutions (universities and colleges [technical schools]) of higher education were in place and constituted the top level of a two-tiered system for “those who can pay” (Pervova, 1997, p. 280). Coupled with new tuition expenses, the major institutions (e.g., Moscow State University) have seen enrollments drop as students shift to regional and private schools near their homes because of the higher cost of room and board in the major cities. Russian higher education, private or public, has become a system that lacks autonomy, research, and direction, and it is constrained by deficits that can produce a variety of consequences for development, such as insufficient labor, obsolete industrial technology and limitation of monies available for postsecondary education (Hare,
1999; Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). Under such conditions a second Russian
diaspora has taken place with scientists, researchers, and other members of the
intelligentsia leaving for better employment elsewhere (Boris & Jones, 2000).
In summary, higher education in Russia today is a system challenged by the influences of globalization and a lack of financial support, stemming from an ideological swing to capitalism. The privatization of industrial and educational agendas has not yet resulted in the development of a technically proficient 49
workforce, even with increased enrollment trends. Unlike Yelstin, his successor
Vladimir Putin has displayed a cautious but positive attitude toward the Soviet
legacy, praising Soviet accomplishments while advancing corrective measures
and improvements to reform education. Putin also has considered the implications
of recent opinion polls indicating that 58% of the people support nostalgia for the
Soviet era. This has led to his creation of a “sentiment capsule” by not moving
Lenin’s body from the mausoleum on Red Square and making an effort to bolster
ties with the Russian Orthodox Church (Freeze, 2002).
In the context of its own history as a nation, Russia was a latecomer to
higher education, much like the United States. While the original nine Colonial
colleges were being founded in the Americas from 1636 through 1789, many by charter from the Crown in England and Scotland, czarist Elizabeth Romanova was establishing Moscow University in 1755, the first such institution in Russia. Its mission was to train teachers to go to the wilderness to educate the population as
Russia moved eastward. In the course of four eras, Russian society had moved,
from one of nomadic tribes, autocratic leadership, a brief classless society, and a
Communist dictatorship, to its current unclear ideological status. Rulers like Peter
the Great and Alexander II were challenged by conservative politicians (i.e.,
Count Dmitri A. Tolstoy) as well as the Russian Orthodox Church, who promoted
the status quo. Khrushchev then later championed the expansion of the system,
but waivered it its transition since the fall of European Communism. Faculty
agency has moved from unlimited autonomy to party mandates and financial
restraints, and funding has shifted from the state to a model of privatized tuition. 50
The nation has shifted from an economy based on military research, power and expansion to one contracted by the diffusion of the Soviet Union and the collapse of global Communism and driven by markets. These shifts, coupled with this sense of otherness in their cultural heritage, have resulted in a complex framework difficult to decipher. It is within this context that a number of researchers have been drawn to examine the unique problems of the Russian higher education system today, a system that does not currently appear to have the catalyst to respond efficiently to the extreme pressures of a global economy developing within its borders.
Empirical Research
The empirical research on Russian higher education depicts a long history of development and revolution evolving around an unstable economy and a culture steeped in tradition. Much of this research, though, was relegated during the Soviet era to the purview of the Russian Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.
Its role was to concentrate on research, as a guide to government policy, while other institutions concentrated on teaching. With the return to a Russian polity in
1992, the Academy “could no longer serve as a branch of total planning in an engineered society” as its “members floundered when faced with educational implications of new political authority and social relations” (McClean, 1996, p.
125). Consequently, Russian institutions of higher learning today have returned once again to a research imperative with new questions of teaching and learning, ideological change, and cultural diversity. 51
Within this new effort a small but growing subset has begun to foray into
the specifics of the Russian/Soviet higher education system. Its focus has been on
three primary domains—financing (i.e., Farrington, 1998; Hare, 1999; Konecny,
1994; Quddus, 2000; Tolz, 1998); demographics and enrollment trends (e.g.,
Kullberg, 1993; Park, 1999; Pervova, 1997; Popovecz, 1976; Sharp, 1995; Zhu,
1997); and studies of faculty and student expectations, experiences and outcomes
(i.e., Hawkins, 1999; Markovic, 1990; Marsh, 1998; McIlveene, 1996; Merkureiv,
1991). Tucked within the contours of this research landscape are five studies
(Bain, 1999; Boyer, Altbach, & Whitelaw, 1994; Crow, 2000; Girlando, 1998;
Smith, 1998) that share, in essence, a common focus on understanding Russian higher education by examining the varying dimensions of institutional culture, faculty perceptions, and institutional goals through a cultural lens.
Boyer, Altbach, and Whitelaw (1994), in research sponsored by the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, reported on one of the
first international studies of the academic profession. Chapters concerning 14
countries on all continents except Africa are included. Among the countries are
the United States, Germany, England, Japan, and Russia, where survey statements
measured proportions of positive responses by faculty to various items. The U.S.
and Russian faculty were fulltime, made up of approximately 70% males, of
whom 35% had traveled to teach or study. There were several similarities between the groups, such as teaching preference, declining respect for education and the need to consult financially. However, there were many more perceived differences of greater than 20% between the samples, concerning the value of 52
publications, student evaluations, and administrative support for academic
freedom amid the U.S. faculty, and unfair salaries and government control of
higher education policy amid the Russian faculty. Academic freedom and
government control showed nearly an 80% discrepancy in the perspectives of the
surveyed faculty four years after the fall of the Soviet Union, with the Russian
faculty clinging to an expectation for government intervention.
Girlando (1998) concerned himself with the impact of globalization on
national culture, examining whether value orientations of Russian students
changed following an extended exposure to U.S. culture and its educational
system. In his key hypothesis he presumed that globalization would significantly
affect national and local cultures. Two contrasting propositions, convergence theory and divergence theory, were employed to address this dynamic. On one
hand, convergence theory holds that, as national boundaries erode in the political,
technological, and business arenas, so too do local differences, with an end result
being a single ‘global’ culture. On the other hand, divergence theory maintains that cultural diversity will persist or even be reinforced in the rejection of superficial commonality. In essence, as the global culture is introduced, the national culture becomes more resistant to the shared aims. Each view has implications for human resource management insofar as each concerns the management of culture.
According to this study, comparative groups of Russian students in Russia,
Russian students in the U.S., and U.S. students were assessed to determine if
Russian value orientations changed significantly following exposure to a U.S. 53
educational environment. Based on studies supporting divergence theory, the
general expectation was that U.S. students would differ in value orientations from
both of the Russian groups. Five sub hypotheses were generated; each was tied to
one of five dimensions in Hofstede’s (1997) value model—masculinity,
individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation.
A sample of 189 respondents yielded findings that the Russian students’ value
orientations differed from those of the U.S. students and apparently were not
affected by exposure to the U.S. environment. Accordingly, these findings upheld
a divergence theory of culture, and implications for intercultural management
practices were considered. The data also suggested the need for culturally
sensitive techniques if globalization is to be successfully initiated into the Russian
culture, as participants showed little deference to the Western educational
experience.
A third study in this line of inquiry (Smith, 1996) used standardized, open- ended questions to gather data from ten professors who taught in the first cycle of a Russian business training program at the University of Alaska at Anchorage in
1994. Ten participants were asked to make observations about differences between teaching in the business training program and teaching in a typical university classroom. Questions were asked about overall organization of the program, teaching and classroom procedures, student and teacher relationships, and components of language and culture. The biggest differences reported by the participants were in the program’s format and the lack of a common cultural base between the participants and the students; specifically, the behaviors, attitudes, 54
cultural expectations, and language of the students in the program differed from those providing the instruction, negatively affecting the overall goals of the program, because the students were not at the same level of cultural understanding.
Current theories and perspectives in adult education were examined to make recommendations that would benefit from the cultural diversity found in the program, rather than having it hinder the outcomes. For example, it was suggested that faculty participants in the program be provided with an orientation to the students’ cultures to provide a mechanism to help students make use of their own backgrounds as learning tools. In addition, faculty participants were encouraged to learn about the educational, social, and economic systems of the students’ culture to help overcome obstacles created by differences in behavior, attitude, and culture, all of which may be useful for those teaching in future programs such as English as a Second Language.
Crow (2000) focused her research on five Russian university faculty
members who participated in the U.S. sponsored Junior Faculty Development
Program (JFDP). The purpose of the study was to determine if and how their exchange experience had subsequently affected their professional lives and their motivation to influence educational reform at their home university. A qualitative
research design grounded in the naturalistic paradigm was adopted for this study,
with data gathered through interviews with the participants and observations at
the participants’ home university in Russia. Crow’s analysis of the data indicated
that the experience positively impacted the participants’ attitudes toward 55
educational reform at their home university, lending insight to the exchange
program. This post-Soviet period of educational transition presented significant
challenges for Russian regional higher education, and the participants were
motivated to identify and implement educational reform in their home university
such as: developing successful regional, national, and international funding
proposals; making the university accessible to the local and regional community,
with adjunct administrative centers; providing for student centered teaching
methodologies enhanced by technology; establishing programs of faculty
development; implementing an internationalized curriculum in economics and
concomitant specialization. Reforms emanated from auditing classes, observing,
researching, attending conferences, presenting lectures, and processing their
American experience.
Bain (1999) focused on national higher education policies and institutional
strategies that foster or hinder individual Russian universities ability to apply
new-found principles of autonomy under three conditions: decentralization of
power from a center to disparate localities; transition to a market economy; and
severe state austerity. Her research reported on the capacity of regional
governments to support education, recent trends in Russian higher education, and
specific case studies of three universities that varied in size, mission, reputation,
culture, and regional ambiance—St. Petersburg State University, Novosibisrsk
Technical University, and Kemerove State University. One important finding
among her observations was the unwillingness of universities to rely exclusively
on local governments for revenues, in view of the precarious financial state of 56
most localities. Rather, she observed that universities preferred to enhance their
autonomy and, at the same time, seek a reasonable level of state support. This study suggested a model of a university that retained its own discretion to institute
innovations, building on its potential for overcoming adverse constraints. Implicit
in her data is the claim that adaptive universities can and must find distinctive
paths of change if they seek to rise to the top tier of institutional strata. Bain
concluded that while much of the recent debate on higher education policies tends
to view the autonomous university as a threatened species, its autonomy is a
valuable institutional resource in times of extreme change.
Collectively, although only five, these studies seem to imply that culture is
at best a resistant backdrop to change and one that needs to be negotiated if institutional goals of a different nature are to be implemented. This research also suggests that resistance to cultural change might be a function of the differences of how various contiguous groups construct the fundamental purposes, goals, and processes of higher education. When these fundamentals are at risk, such as they might be in the current Russian system, then the tendency may be to hold on to what is familiar. These studies disclosed that a lot was at stake—what is familiar was gone, what is present is not clear, and what was coming is in doubt. The research demonstrates that people do differ in times when traditional structures are dissolving, discrepancies are heightened, and sensitivities toward differences are exaggerated—suggesting that people often disagree and might be most resistant to the influx of ideas from other places when fundamental purposes, goals, and processes are at risk. 57
Summary
In conclusion, what we do know about the problem focus of this present
study is that there is an influx of ideas from Western Culture to the Russian
Higher Education system currently underway. The historical view has been a complicated dance across long periods of time when Russia has been both receptive and resistant to internal influences from nomadic tribes, the Orthodox
Church, the Czars, and the Soviet experiment. The same might also be argued about the external influences of the Napoleonic War, the Industrial Revolution, the World Wars, the space race, the Cold War, and now global capitalism.
Throughout its history, Russian higher education has attempted to fulfill the
mission set forth by the evolving ruling body for the good of mother Russia.
However, in its current state, as evidenced by the aforementioned research,
attempts to infuse new perspectives seem to fail for the most part, perhaps
because of the resistant nature of culture and/or the lack of consensus of purposes
and goals.
The Russian system is experiencing a certain loosening, a certain breaking away from previous structures, necessitating the need for clarification and assessment of expectations. It is not quite sure where it is going, and in an attempt to come to some consensus on a system undergoing change, created by ideological events and supported by a culture of otherness, the present study sought further understanding of its institutional goals and purposes.
58
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this study is described in this section, beginning with a description of the participants and demographic characteristics of the total sample. Next, the instrumentation and data collection procedures are addressed, followed by the guiding research questions and statistical analyses.
Participant Selection
The 84 participants for this study were Russian faculty or administrators currently working at Russian Universities (i.e., Moscow State, Mari State, St.
Petersburg, and Vladivostok Universities). Most visited a U.S. college or university through faculty exchange programs sponsored by a U.S. agency (i.e.,
U.S. Department of State Junior Faculty Development initiative, Fulbright
Scholars, and the International Civic Education Exchange Program). All participants had first-hand experience with the U.S. higher education system in the five years prior to this study. They were individuals chosen for convenience as well as diversity to allow for a broad perspective on desired changes in Russian higher education.
Major Variables and Instrumentation
Descriptive demographic variables were assessed for each participant in this study and include: gender, age, current status (faculty, administrator, or other); type of institution in Russia in which each is employed (research, university, college, technical school or other); position held (rector, assistant rector, department chair, professor, associate professor, senior instructor, instructor, or other); nature of experience pursued in the U.S. system (research, 59
faculty, student or other); and type of institution visited (university, college,
technical school or other). Faculty were further asked to identify their discipline and/or research area (from biological sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, social sciences, humanities, fine arts, performing arts, education, business, engineering, law or other) and their current teaching assignment (full-time, part- time, evening only, off-campus/extension only, and other).
In addition to their current status, participants were asked about their
association with the U.S. higher education system, including: the length of time
spent studying or conducting research in the United States within the previous
five years (never, less than 1 month, less than 3 months, less than 6 months, less
than 12 months, more than 12 months); area of study or research while in the U.S.
(biological sciences, physical sciences, mathematics, social sciences, humanities,
fine arts, performing arts, higher education, secondary education, business, engineering, law, or other); level of study or research (doctoral program, research, exchange program, other); and, sponsor (U.S. Department of State’s Visiting
Faculty Program, International Civic Education Exchange Program, Scholarship
[i.e., Fulbright] or Other).
The dependent variables for this study are the perceptions of output and process goals associated with higher education, experienced or observed by these
Russian scholars and administrators while in the United States, as well as their perception of experiences, observations, and expectations of Russian higher education at their home institution following exposure to the U.S. system. Output goals focus on various outcomes of educational purposes associated with an 60
institution; process goals attend to the mechanisms institutions use in pursuit of
those outcomes. These perceptions are drawn from 95 three-part questions linked
to individual emphases and measured by a Likert-type scale in the survey
instrument (see Appendix A).
The instrument used is an adaptation of the Institutional Goals Inventory
(IGI), and Gross and Grambsch’s (1968) pioneer work on goals for higher education used initially in the U.S. California system (Peterson, 1970). The IGI is based on a prototype through use of a Delphi Technique invented in the early
1950s by Olaf Helmer and his colleagues at the Rand Corporation to replace nominal group processes which required face to face contact. It is capable of providing an institution with a range of ideas about these goals, priority ranks of the goals, and a degree of consensus about their goals. Peterson, along with
Morstain in 1971, revised the experimental form to employ Is and Should Be
ratings along a five-point Likert-type scaled response to each item: 1 = no
importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 =
high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. On each item respondents
indicate their perception of how important a particular goal currently is on an
identified campus and also their opinion about how important it should be.
Peterson’s modified IGI contained 90 goal statements that were incorporated into
21 goal areas, 20 with four goal statements each and one, the 21st goal area, a grouping of 10 miscellaneous goal statements as described in Table 1.
In 1972 Educational Testing Services, Inc., during a time when cultural
change encountered high resistance—particularly when traditional practices, 61
Table 1
Description of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goals Description ______
Academic Development Acquisition of general and specialized knowledge,
preparation of students for advanced scholarly
study, and maintenance of high intellectual
standards (Items 1, 4, 6, 9).
Intellectual Orientation Relates to an attitude about learning and intellectual
work. It means familiarity with research and
problem solving methods, the ability to synthesize
knowledge from many sources, the capacity for
self-directing learning, and a commitment to
lifelong learning (Items 2, 5, 7, 1).
Individual Development Identification by students of personal goals and
development of means for achieving them,
enhancement of sense of self-worth and self-
confidence (Items 3, 8, 11, 13).
Humanism/Altruism Reflects a respect for diverse cultures, commitment
to working for world peace, consciousness of the
important moral issues of the time, and concern
about the welfare of man generally (Items 14, 17,
20, 23). 62
Table 1 (Continued)
Description of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goals Description ______
Cultural/Aesthetic Entails a heightened appreciation of a variety of art
Awareness forms, required study in the humanities or arts,
exposure to forms of non-Western art, and
encouragement of active student participation in
artistic activities (Items 15, 18, 21, 24).
Traditional Religiousness Intended to mean a religiousness that is orthodox,
doctrinal, usually sectarian, and often fundamental-
in short, traditional rather than “secular” or
“modern” (Items 16, 19, 22, 25).
Vocational Preparation Offering of specific occupational curriculums (e.g.
accounting, nursing), programs geared to emerging
career fields, opportunities for retraining or
upgrading skills, and assistance to students in career
planning (Items 26, 30, 36, 38).
63
Table 1 (Continued)
Descriptions of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goal Description ______
Advanced Training Availability of postgraduate education, developing
and maintaining a strong and comprehensive
graduate school, providing programs in the
professions, and conducting advanced study in
specialized problem areas (Items 27, 31, 32, 41).
Research Involves doing contract studies for external
agencies, conducting basic research in the natural
and social sciences, and seeking generally to extend
the frontiers of knowledge through scientific
research (Items 28, 34, 35, 37).
Meeting Local Needs Defined as providing for continuing education for
adults, serving as a cultural center for the
community, providing trained manpower for local
employers, and facilitating student involvement in
community-service activities (Items 29, 33, 39, 30).
64
Table 1 (Continued)
Descriptions of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goal Description ______
Public Service Working with governmental agencies in social and
environmental policy formation, committing
institutional resources to the solution of major
social and environmental problems, training people
from disadvantaged communities, and generally
being responsive to regional and national priorities
(Items 44, 47, 50, 51).
Social Egalitarianism Open admissions and meaningful education for all
admitted, providing educational experiences related
to the evolving interest of minority groups and
women, and offering remedial work in basic skills
(Items 42, 45, 48, 52).
Social Criticism/Activism Providing criticisms of prevailing national values,
offering ideas for changing social institutions
judged to be defective, helping students learn now
to bring about change (Items 43, 46, 49, 53).
65
Table 1 (Continued)
Descriptions of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goal Description ______
Freedom Defined as protecting the right of faculty to present
controversial ideas in the classroom, not preventing
students from hearing controversial points of view,
placing no restrictions on off-campus political
activities by faculty and students and ensuring
faculty and students the freedom to choose their
own life styles (Items 54, 57, 60, 63).
Democratic Governance Decentralized decision making arrangements by
which students, faculty, administrators, and
governing board members can all be significantly
involved in campus governance, opportunity for
individuals to participate in all decisions affecting
them and governance that is genuinely responsive to
the concerns of everyone at the institution (Items
55, 58, 61, 64).
66
Table 1 (Continued)
Descriptions of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goal Description ______
Community Defined as maintaining a climate in which there is
faculty commitment to the general welfare of the
institution, open and candid communication, open
and amicable airing of differences, and mutual trust
and respect among students, faculty, and
administrators (Items 56, 59, 62, 65).
Intellectual/Aesthetic A rich program of cultural events, a campus climate
that facilitates student free-time involvement in
intellectual and cultural activities, an environment
in which students and faculty can easily interact
informally, and a reputation as an intellectually
exciting campus (Item 66, 69, 73, 76).
Innovation A climate in which continuous innovation is an
accepted way of life, established procedures for
readily initiating curricular or instructional
innovations, experimentations with new approaches
to individualized instruction and to assessment of
student performance (Item 67, 70, 74, 77).
67
Table 1 (Continued)
Descriptions of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goal Description ______
Off-Campus Learning Time away for travel, work-study, studying on
several campuses during undergraduate programs,
awarding degrees for supervised study off-campus,
awarding degrees entirely on the basis of
performance on an examination (Items 58, 72, 75,
78).
Accountability/Efficiency Defined to include use of cost criteria in deciding
among program alternatives, concerns for program
efficiency, accountability to funding sources for
program effectiveness, and regular submission of
evidence that the institution is achieving stated
goals (Items 79, 81, 83, 87).
Miscellaneous A measurement of consensus about institutional
goals, emphasizing literacy, long term planning,
community programming, institutional autonomy,
academic standings, program evaluations, as well as
the importance of intercollegiate athletics (Items 12,
71, 80, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90).
68
Table 1 (Continued)
Description of the 22 Goal Areas in the Institutional Goals Inventory ______
Goals Description ______
Student Affairs Relationship between faculty and students outside
the classroom, maintenance of student organizations
on campus, learning communities, an emphasis on
diversity, and a consensus among shareholders on
campus (Items added for this survey 91, 92, 93, 94,
95).
______
(Institutional Goals Inventory, 1970)
69
expectations, systems, and methods were at risk, perhaps similar to conditions one
also finds in the current Russian higher education system—made the IGI available to colleges and universities in the U.S. and Canada. The information generated by its application was believed essential because birth rates had declined, potentially
risking future institutional enrollments; public displeasure against universities had
mounted "seen through radicalism and campus disorder” (Peterson, 1970, p. 3);
and taxpayers had become increasingly reluctant to support colleges, as the public found itself facing economic realities of both inflation and recession (Peterson,
1971). At stake here are the fundamental goals of higher education, which are not at all clear and often lack consensus for many Russian institutions during the
current time of transition. Such discrepancies suggest a need to understand
perceptions of where an institution is headed, its fundamental purpose, and the
proper procedures that need to be followed—all of which support the relevance of
this particular instrument for this research.
Some renewed interest has occurred in the use of the IGI in the U.S. since
its conception—several studies compare current results with the original findings
(e.g., the California College and University System [Butler, 1980] and at Seattle
University [Beil, 1996]) and others to measure a U.S. institutions’ current
viewpoint (e.g., University of California at Berkley [Ure, 1981], East Tennessee
State [Butler, 1982], and the University of Toledo [Pesek, 1985]). Additionally, a
number of higher education systems internationally, perhaps undergoing a
dynamic similar to that found in U.S. higher education in the late 1960s (e.g.,
Republic of Rwanda [Bahimba, 1984], Saudi Arabia [Suhaibani, 1984], Brazil 70
[Lima, 1985], Venezuela [Llanos-De La Hoz, 1990], and Malaysia [Thong,
1995]) found the profiles beneficial in measuring their institutional effectiveness.
Finally, it is noted that the Educational Testing Services, Inc. of Princeton, NJ,
has generously given permission for the use, as well as the modification, of this
instrument for the present study (Thomas Jacobs, personal communications,
October 2003).
Procedures
The Web-based survey used in this research incorporates the original 90 statements plus an additional five related to student affairs, translated into Russian and with modifications for a more international fit (e.g., item 52, “respected under-represented populations” in lieu of “African Americans”). In addition, the is and should be responses were modified to reflect specific foci: as perceived in
U.S. higher education; is in Russian higher education; and should be in Russian higher education for each statement, allowing assessment against a five-point
Likert-type scale, emulating the initial studies.
Babbie (1995) proposed that “survey research is probably the best method available to the social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to observe directly” (p. 257). Zanutto (2001) recently added, “There is no other method of collecting survey data that offers so much potential for little cost as a Web survey” (as cited in Gunn, 2004). Data that had once been collected by other survey modes is now being collected with Web surveys (Dillman & Bowker, 2001). Web-based surveys are becoming commonplace and there is some speculation that such surveys will replace 71
traditional methods of data collection in the near future, according to Couper’s study in 2000 (as cited in Gunn, 2004).
Response rates for all types of surveys have been on the decline since the
1990s and, although the response rate for Internet surveys is noted to be lower than mailed surveys, several ways to improve response rates have been developed. Personalized e-mail cover letters, follow-up reminders by e-mail, pre- notification of the intent of the survey, simpler formats, and plain designs have shown improved response rates (Solomon, 2001) and were implemented in the present study. Furthermore, the recent phenomenal growth in private and public electronic networks, as well as increased accessibility by faculty and university administrators to the Internet, made this electronic survey a viable option, given the distance involved between the researcher and the respondents.
As part of the data collection procedure, a pilot test was administered to two groups of five Russian graduate students, one group at Moscow State
University, and a second at Bowling Green State University. According to Fink
(1995), ten or more people are required to complete a pilot questionnaire and the pilot should be administered to two groups (i.e., two groups of five). Fink also asserted that the researcher should use respondents who are similar to those who will be asked to participate in the questionnaire. The purpose of the pilot testing is
“to establish face validity of an instrument and to improve questions, format, and scales” (Creswell, 1994, p. 121). In addition, Dillman (2000) stated that “a pilot test is designed to test the questionnaire as well as the questions” (p. 156), determining how much time it takes to complete, so that respondents in the actual 72
data collection phase can be informed prior to filling out the questionnaire. The
instrument, incorporating the Human Subject Review Board approval letter (See
Appendix B), was programmed in both English and Russian into the server located in the College of Education and Human Development of Bowling Green
State University (BGSU). The English text was translated into Russian utilizing the reverse translation technique to assure content and was made available for the pilot test at a designated website, constructed for this study and subsequently disengaged at the conclusion of data collection.
Upon completing the instrument and engaging the Submit tab, the individual results were electronically transmitted and stored in a secure PDP file for later tabulation and statistical analysis on the BGSU server. An extensive electronic debriefing, in which pilot participants identified problems, was conducted, allowing for revisions to the survey. Data on the server were also checked against submitted forms to assure the correct tabulation of responses. It was deemed unnecessary to resubmit the survey for consensus prior to the final data collection because problems were minimal in dealing with phrasing and numeric sequences.
After the final revisions, a population of 326 individuals from known electronic databases—gathered via the Internet and through personal conversations with individual program participants, who chose to remain anonymous, as well as agencies sponsoring the various exchange programs (e.g.,
U.S. Department of State and Fulbright Scholar Program)—was given electronic notification of the forthcoming survey. The notification was in Russian, and sent 73
from a primary account arranged for this study at Bowling Green State University
(BGSU). At this point their participation was requested (Appendix C). Further
distribution, facilitated through electronic databases directly from the participants’
sponsoring agencies, added another 20 recipients whose e-mail addresses were
not available (e.g., Council of Citizenship Education Agency). Requests
forwarded from local sources (i.e., Stephen L. Schechter, Director of the Council of Citizenship Education, and Jonathan Cebra at the U.S. Department of State) helped curtail what seemed to be potential suspicion toward the survey. It was also reported from several contactees that the Cyrillic text in the electronic notification was not compatible with a number of servers in outlying regions of
Russia, necessitating that notification be repeated in English. The survey instrument was then made available through a third electronic message (Appendix
D).
All prospective participants received the electronic message giving them
an opportunity to participate in the survey. Participants could only continue after acknowledging and agreeing to the terms of participation outlined and approved by the BGSU Human Subjects Review Board. Upon acknowledgement, the browser connected the participant to the same website used to distribute the pilot test for the completion of the survey, which remained in Russian. A fourth electronic message, in the form of a follow-up request/thank you, was sent to all parties ten days subsequent to the initial survey request to ensure maximum participation and to reinforce the confidentiality of the responses. 74
A poor initial response rate (15.3%), 50 out of over 326, led to a fifth
request (Appendix E), including a lottery, with potential for a $50.00 prize to a
respondent who completed the survey and then notified the researcher via e-mail that they had done so. No effect was observed as a result of the incentive, other than increased participation. However, this step brought the total respondents to
84, a final rate of 25.8% return. A sixth electronic message, in the form of a final follow-up/thank you, was sent ten days after the fifth transmission. No further responses were observed following this last transmission, marking the end of the data collection.
Research Questions
The data collected above addressed five research questions examining the perceptions of these Russian scholars and administrators who had studied in the
U.S.
1. What are the perceptions of these Russian scholars concerning their observations of U.S. institutional goals and processes?
2. What are the perceptions of these Russian scholars concerning their own institutions’ goals and processes in Russia? Do they differ by type of institution?
3. Are there differences in the perceptions these Russian scholars have concerning what they experienced in Russia and what they observed in the U.S.?
4. What are the perceptions of these Russian scholars concerning what should be their institutions’ goals and processes in Russia? Do they differ by type
of institution? 75
5. Are there discrepancies in the perceptions these Russian scholars have concerning what is and what should be in Russian higher education as well as what they observed in the U.S. and what should be in Russian higher education?
Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), as well as Mini-
Tab, was used to analyze the results. First, the data were screened visually for
missing information and outliers. Second, descriptive statistics, in the form of
means and standard deviations, were generated to allow the organization and summarization of the data. Third, after satisfying conditions of independence and
equal variance (Hartley F-max test was run due to unequal response sets)
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004) and the normality of difference score distribution,
the dependent samples t-test was applied to these data to assess the significance of
differences observed. A comparison of perceptions of output and process goals in
U.S. and Russian higher education was then completed, with a statistical
significance for group differences set at α = .05.
The final step, a criterion level of a one scale point difference was set to determine large discrepancies among the significant findings. This level was chosen as it corresponds well to Cohen’s d criteria for effect size (as cited in
Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004). Accordingly, the magnitude of effect size should be standardized by measuring the mean difference between two treatments in terms of the standard deviation. In this study, the most conservative measure of the one point criterion occurs on the Social Egalitarianism scale in Table 8, with a Mean of 3.51 (S.D. 1.00) found in the U.S. and 2.51(S.D. 1.00) in Russia with a pooled 76
standard deviation of 1.05 for the emphases, which translates into an effect size of
.95:
d = sample mean difference ÷ sample pooled standard deviation
d = (3.51-2.51) ÷ 1.05 = 0.95
The Likert-type scale used to organize these data provided a standard deviation of
approximately 1.0 for nearly all the emphases, eliminating the need to divide by
the pooled standard deviation, while providing a conservatively large criterion
level, but not an effect size, for these data. Although it is accurate to use the term large for these descriptions, care should to be taken to only compare like
emphases. Had the effect size of each emphasis been measured, 0.8 would be a
considered large (measuring 0.8 standard deviation) and 0.2 small (measuring 0.2
standard deviation) (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004).
77
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
This chapter reports the findings of this dissertation, organized around
these Russian scholars’ perceptions of importance (real and ideal) attributed to
these various institutional output and process goals in the U.S. and Russia. Prior
to examining these perceptions sample demographics and visitation experiences
of the respondents were compiled. Then perceptions of the output and process
goals of the U.S. higher education system are presented. This is followed by
differences between perceived goals in Russia and the U.S. and idealized goals for
Russian higher education. Last are differences between perceived output and
process goals of Russia and those ideally sought, and the differences between
output and process goals attributed to the U.S. system and those ideally sought in
Russia.
Sample Demographics
Prior to analysis of the research questions the raw data were screened, and a total of 14 respondents who failed to meet specific eligibility requirements for the survey (i.e., residence at a U.S. institution of higher education for at least 30 days in the previous five years), as well as cases with significant missing data points, were eliminated from the 84 original respondents, leaving a useable sample of 70 participants (21.4%) from an identifiable base of 326. The responses revealed an average age of 38.5 years for the participants. Additional demographics are presented in Tables 2 and 3. These data paint a picture of the targeted sample, identifying that more women (62.9%) than men took the survey, were from university settings in Russia (81.4%), most frequently appointed at the 78
Table 2
Russian Scholar Respondent Characteristics ______
Characteristics N = 70 Percentage ______
Gender: Male 26 37.1 Female 44 62.9 Type of Institution in Russia Research 2 2.9 University 57 81.4 College 8 11.4 Technical School 0 0.0 Other 3 4.3 Position Held Rector 0 0.0 Assistant/Vice Rector 2 2.9 Chair 7 10.0 Professor 8 11.4 Associate Professor 27 38.6 Senior Instructor 7 10.0 Instructor 0 14.3 Other 9 12.9 Current Teaching Full-time 55 78.6 Part-time 6 8.6 Evening only 3 4.9 Off-campus extension 5 7.1 Other 1 1.4
79
Table 2 (Continued)
Russian Scholar Respondent Characteristics ______
Characteristics N = 70 Percentage ______
Discipline/Research Area Biological 0 0.0 Physical Sciences 0 0.0 Mathematics 1 1.4 Social Sciences 18 25.7 Humanities 28 40.0 Fine Arts 0 0.0 Performing Arts 2 2.9 Education 6 8.6 Business 4 5.7 Engineering 1 1.4 Law 3 4.3 Other 7 10.0 ______
80
Table 3
Instructional Scholar Visitation Experiences ______
Characteristics N = 70 Percentage ______
Nature of Experience in the U.S. Research 33 44.6 Faculty 21 30.8 Student 11 16.9 Other 5 7.7 Type of Institution Visited University 61 86.2 College 0 0.0 Technical School 0 0.0 Other 9 13.9 Level of Study/Research in U.S. Doctoral 4 6.2 Research 19 29.2 Exchange Programs 47 64.6 Other 0 0.0 Length of Time in the U.S. Less than 1 month 21 32.3 1 to 3 months 30 41.5 3 to 6 months 2 1.5 6 to 12 months 17 24.6 More than 12 months 0 0.0
81
Table 3 (Continued)
Instructional Scholar Visitation Experiences ______
Characteristics N = 70 Percentage ______
Area of Study in the U.S. Biological 2 3.1 Physical Sciences 3 4.6 Mathematics 13 20.0 Social Sciences 7 10.8 Humanities 23 35.4 Fine Arts 0 0.0 Performing Arts 1 1.5 Higher Education 4 6.2 Secondary Education 1 1.5 Business 4 6.2 Engineering 1 1.5 Law 3 4.6 Other 8 10.8 Sponsor in the United States U.S. State Department 57 80.0 International Civic Education 4 6.2 Visiting Faculty Program 1 1.5 USAID 0 0.0 Scholarships 5 7.7 Other 3 0.0 ______
82
level of an associate professor level (38.6%), and taught full-time (78.6%) in the
Humanities (40.0%) or Social Sciences (25.7%). The scholars’ reported experiences identified that the participants visited the U.S. system for purposes of research (44.6%), at a university setting (86.2%), through an exchange program
(64.6%), sponsored by the U.S. Department of State (80.0%), but in a discipline not necessarily their own. The limited characteristics of the sample did not allow comparisons by institutional type or other demographic division.
The remaining data were separated into three distinct foci designed to display participants’ perceptions of U.S. higher education, Russian higher education, and what they perceive to be ideal for Russian higher education. A mean, standard deviation, and standard error were calculated for each item, based on the results generated from the Likert-type scale used in the instrument:1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. These items were then sorted into independent construct categories, parallel to the Output and Process
Goals Inventory scales described in Table 1. A total construct mean, standard deviation and standard error were then calculated at the 95% confidence interval and ranked in order of importance corresponding to group mean values. This analysis generated data in response to research questions one, two, and four. The normality assumption was not of concern with the relatively large samples (n >
30) (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2004); however, the homogeneity of variance assumption was still confirmed using Harley’s F-max test. Those failing to reject the null hypothesis, p = ≥.05, were interpreted as having equal variance in 83
determining significant differences of perceptions; in addition in response to research questions three and five. A one scale point criterion level was applied to determine large discrepancies among the significant findings for research questions three and five as well.
Output and Process Goals in the U.S.
Tables 4 and 5 examine group differences and ranking of the emphases addressed in the first research question. In Table 4 the Russian scholars’
perceptions of importance attributed to U.S. institutional output goals are
presented in the form of group means, standard deviations, and rankings of each
output scale. The results of the analysis revealed that Research (4.01), Advanced
Training (3.81), and Meeting Local Needs (3.79) of high importance in U.S.
higher education, and Traditional Religiousness (2.65), Cultural/Awareness
(2.84), and Social Criticism/Activism (3.19) of lowest importance.
In Table 5 the Russian scholars’ perceptions of importance attributed to
U.S. institutional process goals are examined in the form of group means,
standard deviations, and rankings of each process scale. The findings attributed
the highest importance to Community (3.76), Democratic Governance (3.73), and
Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment (3.63), and least importance to Accountability
(2.84), Off-Campus Learning (3.30), and Student Affairs (3.41).
Output and Process Goals in Russia
The second research question is addressed in Tables 6 and 7, which
present group differences and rankings of the perceptions of output and process
goals in Russia. In Table 6 Russian scholars’ perceptions of importance attributed 84
Table 4
Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to U.S. Institutional Output
Goals ______
Output Goals N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Academic Development 70 3.25 1.04 9 2. Intellectual Orientation 69 3.59 1.01 4 3. Individual Development 69 3.53 1.04 5 4. Humanism/Altruism 68 3.33 1.11 7 5. Cultural/Awareness 69 2.84 1.05 12 6. Traditional Religiousness 67 2.65 1.07 13 7. Vocational Preparation 65 3.26 1.05 8 8. Advanced Training 66 3.81 0.88 2 9. Research 65 4.01 0.96 1 10. Meeting Local Needs 66 3.79 0.99 3 11. Public Service 66 3.23 0.99 10 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 3.51 1.00 6 13. Social Criticism/Activism 67 3.19 1.02 11 ______
ª Calculated from a five-point Likert scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and 5 = extremely high importance.
85
Table 5
Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to U.S. Institutional
Process Goals ______
Process Goals N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Freedom 62 3.63 1.01 4 2. Democratic Governance 59 3.73 0.89 2 3. Community 61 3.76 0.87 1 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 66 3.63 0.95 3 5. Innovation 66 3.44 0.96 7 6. Off-Campus Learning 66 3.30 1.05 9 7. Accountability 65 3.62 1.03 5 8. Student Affairs 66 3.41 0.98 8 9. Miscellaneous 65 3.54 1.01 6 ______
ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and 5 = extremely high importance.
86
Table 6
Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Russian Institutional
Output Goals ______
Characteristics N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Academic Development 69 3.28 0.94 2 2. Intellectual Orientation 67 3.08 0.98 4 3. Individual Development 66 2.54 0.99 7 4. Humanism/Altruism 67 2.46 1.01 10 5. Cultural/Awareness 67 2.50 0.95 9 6. Traditional Religiousness 67 1.74 0.78 13 7. Vocational Preparation 67 2.88 1.03 6 8. Advanced Training 67 3.21 1.01 3 9. Research 68 3.54 0.98 1 10. Meeting Local Needs 68 2.94 0.96 5 11. Public Service 65 2.39 0.99 12 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 2.51 1.00 8 13. Social Criticism/Activism 66 2.46 0.97 11 ______ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and 5 = extremely high importance.
87
Table 7
Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Russian Institutional
Process Goals ______
Characteristics N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Freedom 67 2.58 1.02 6 2. Democratic Governance 67 2.46 1.02 7 3. Community 66 2.64 1.04 4 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 67 2.68 1.09 3 5. Innovation 67 2.44 1.01 8 6. Off-Campus Learning 67 2.40 1.07 9 7. Accountability 67 2.87 1.08 1 8. Student Affairs 67 2.61 1.04 5 9. Miscellaneous 68 2.71 1.11 2 ______
ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and 5 = extremely high importance.
88 to Russian institutional output goals are examined, highlighting group means, standard deviations, and rankings of each category. The sample found Research
(3.54), Academic Development (3.28), and Advanced Training (3.21) to the be the highest importance in Russian education, and established Traditional
Religiousness (1.74), Humanism/Altruism (2.45) and Cultural Awareness (2.50) of lowest to medium importance in their home institutions.
Russian scholars’ real perceptions of importance attributed to Russian institutional process goals are examined in Table 7, which displays group means, standard deviations, and rankings of each construct category. The sample found
Accountability (2.87), Miscellaneous Process Goals (2.71), and
Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment (2.68) of most importance and Off-Campus
Learning (2.40), Innovation (2.44) and Democratic Governance (2.46) of least importance.
Differences in Perceptions: U.S. vs. Russia
Tables 8 and 9 examine differences of the perceived goals in Russia and the U.S. addressed in the third research question. Statistical measures of the dependent-measures t-test, used to test the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the means of the output goals in the U.S and in Russian higher education are tabulated in Table 8. All the emphases but one, Academic
Development, were found to be significantly different, p ≤ .05 in favor of the importance attributed to the U.S. system, with Social Egalitarianism t(64) = 13.40 meeting the one-point difference criterion. Table 9 further examines results of the application a dependent-measures t-test to these data, focusing on differences 89
Table 8
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Output Goals (U.S. vs. Russia) ______
U.S. Russian Output Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Academic Development 70 3.25 1.04 69 3.28 0.94 68 -0.64 .521 2. Intellectual Orientation 69 3.59 1.01 67 3.08 0.98 66 6.94* .000 3. Individual Development 69 3.53 1.04 66 2.54 0.99 65 11.94* .000 4. Humanism/Altruism 68 3.33 1.11 67 2.46 1.01 66 11.56* .000 5. Cultural/Awareness 69 2.84 1.05 67 2.50 0.95 66 4.71* .000 6. Traditional Religiousness 67 2.65 1.07 67 1.74 0.78 66 13.72* .000 7. Vocational Preparation 65 3.26 1.05 67 2.88 1.03 64 4.51* .000 8. Advanced Training 66 3.81 0.88 67 3.21 1.01 65 7.70* .000 9. Research 65 4.01 0.96 68 3.54 0.98 64 7.29* .000 10. Meeting Local Needs 66 3.79 0.99 68 2.94 0.96 65 10.82* .000 11. Public Service 66 3.23 0.99 65 2.39 0.99 65 11.64* .000 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 (3.51) 1.00 65 2.51 1.00 64 13.40* .000 13. Social Criticism/Activism 67 3.19 1.02 66 2.46 0.97 65 9.97* .000
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05.
90
Table 9
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Process Goals (U.S. vs. Russia) ______
U.S. Russian Process Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Freedom 62 (3.63) 1.01 67 2.58 0.94 61 12.64* .000 2. Democratic Governance 59 (3.73) 0.89 67 2.46 0.98 58 16.68* .000 3. Community 61 (3.76) 0.87 66 2.64 0.99 60 14.57* .000 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 66 3.63) 0.95 67 2.68 1.01 65 12.33* .000 5. Innovation 66 (3.44) 0.95 67 2.44 0.95 65 13.04* .000 6. Off-Campus Learning 66 3.30 1.04 67 2.40 0.78 65 12.87* .000 7. Accountability 65 3.62 1.03 67 2.87 1.03 64 11.65* .000 8. Student Affairs 66 3.41 0.99 67 2.61 1.03 65 11.34* .000 9. Miscellaneous 65 3.54 1.01 68 2.71 1.11 64 18.52* .000
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05. 91
between the means of the process goals in the U.S and those in Russia. All the emphases
were found to differ significantly in favor of importance attributed the U.S. system of
higher education with four process goals met the one-point difference criterion: Freedom,
t(61) = 12.64; Democratic Governance, t(58) = 16.68; Community, t(60) = 14.57; and
Innovation, t(65) = 13.04.
Ideal Output and Process Goals in Russia
Tables 10 and 11 examine ratings and rankings of the dependent emphases
categories addressed in the fourth research question. Table 10 displays Russian
scholars’ perceptions of importance ascribed to output goals in an ideal Russian
system of higher education, and through means, standard deviations, and rankings
of each category. The sample found Research (4.34), Intellectual Orientation
(4.24) and Advanced Training (3.99) of highest importance in an ideal Russian
higher education system, and Traditional Religiousness (2.33) and Cultural
Awareness (3.19), and Social Egalitarianism (3.30) of lowest importance.
Russian scholars’ ideal perceptions of importance attributed to Russian
institutional process goals are evaluated in Table 11. Means, standard deviations,
and rankings are presented for each category. The sample found Community
(3.92), Democratic Governance (3.74), and Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment
(3.75) of highest importance in an ideal situation in Russia, and Off-Campus
Learning (3.24), Student Affairs (3.32), and Accountability (3.29) of lowest
importance.
Differences in Perceptions: Russia – Reality vs. Ideals
To address the fifth research question, Tables 12 and 13 examine group 92
Table 10
Russian Scholar Ideal Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Russian Institutional
Output Goals ______
Characteristics N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Academic Development 69 3.75 0.93 6 2. Intellectual Orientation 69 4.24 0.82 2 3. Individual Development 69 3.86 0.99 4 4. Humanism/Altruism 69 3.62 1.17 7 5. Cultural/Awareness 68 3.19 0.98 12 6. Traditional Religiousness 69 2.33 1.07 13 7. Vocational Preparation 67 3.73 1.13 7 8. Advanced Training 67 3.99 0.93 3 9. Research 66 4.34 0.81 1 10. Meeting Local Needs 67 3.82 1.01 5 11. Public Service 66 3.40 1.18 10 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 3.30 1.34 11 13. Social Criticism/Activism 68 3.40 1.07 9 ______
ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance.
93
Table 11
Russian Scholar Ideal Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Russian Institutional
Process Goals ______
Characteristics N Meanª SD Ranking ______
1. Freedom 67 3.69 0.99 4
2. Democratic Governance 66 3.74 0.92 2
3. Community 66 3.92 0.91 1
4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 65 3.75 0.98 3
5. Innovation 65 3.49 0.98 5
6. Off-Campus Learning 65 3.24 1.18 9
7. Accountability 62 3.39 1.07 7
8. Student Affairs 66 3.32 1.02 8
9. Miscellaneous 66 3.47 1.10 6
______
ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance.
.
94
Table 12
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Output Goals (Currently vs. Ideally in Russia) ______
Real Ideal Output Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Academic Development 69 3.28 0.94 69 3.75 0.93 68 -8.51* .000 2. Intellectual Orientation 67 3.08 0.98 69 (4.24) 0.82 66 -17.03* .000 3. Individual Development 66 2.54 0.99 69 (3.86) 0.99 65 -17.45* .000 4. Humanism/Altruism 67 2.46 1.01 69 (3.62) 0.99 66 -15.85* .000 5. Cultural/Awareness 67 2.50 0.95 68 3.19 0.98 66 -10.97* .000 6. Traditional Religiousness 67 1.74 0.78 69 2.33 1.07 66 -10.68* .000 7. Vocational Preparation 67 2.88 1.03 67 3.73 1.13 66 -13.88* .000 8. Advanced Training 67 3.21 1.01 67 3.99 0.93 66 -10.53* .000 9. Research 68 3.54 0.98 66 4.34 0.81 65 -13.23* .000 10. Meeting Local Needs 68 2.94 0.96 67 3.82 1.01 66 -13.07* .000 11. Public Service 65 2.39 0.99 66 3.40 1.18 64 -14.14* .000 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 2.51 1.00 65 3.30 1.34 64 -9.99* .000 13. Social Criticism/Activism 66 2.46 0.97 68 3.40 1.07 65 -13.36* .000
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05.
95
Table 13 Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Process Goals (Currently vs. Ideally in Russia) ______
Real Ideal Process Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Freedom 67 2.58 0.94 67 (3.69) 0.99 66 -15.54* .000 2. Democratic Governance 67 2.46 0.98 66 (3.74) 0.92 65 -16.65* .000 3. Community 66 2.64 0.99 66 (3.92) 0.91 65 -17.23* .000 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 67 2.68 1.01 65 (3.75) 0.98 64 -15.04* .000 5. Innovation 67 2.44 0.95 65 (3.49) 0.98 64 -14.29* .000 6. Off-Campus Learning 66 2.40 0.78 65 3.24 1.18 64 -12.55* .000 7. Accountability 67 2.87 1.03 62 3.39 1.07 61 -8.56* .000 8. Student Affairs 66 2.61 0.99 66 3.32 1.02 65 -11.59* .000 9. Miscellaneous 68 2.71 1.11 66 3.47 1.10 65 -18.01* .000
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05. 96
differences on the dependent construct categories of what is the case currently in
Russia and what is ideally desired in higher education there. The results of the
dependent-measures t-test application are displayed in Table 12. All construct
categories were found to differ significantly, p < .05, in favor of an ideal Russian
system of higher education with three emphases meeting the one-point difference
criterion: Intellectual Orientation, t(66) = -17.03; Intellectual Development, t(66)
= -17.45; and Humanism/Altruism, t(66) = -15.85.
Table 13 also details the results of the dependent-measures t-test assessing
the null hypothesis of no difference between the means of the process goals
perceived and those idealized in Russian higher education. All construct
categories were found to differ significantly, p < .05, in favor of an ideal Russian
system of higher education, with five meeting the one-point difference criterion:
Freedom, t(66) = -15.54; Democratic Governance, t(65) = -16.65; Community,
t(65) = -17.23; Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment, t(64) = -15.04, and
Innovation, t(64) = -14.29.
Differences in Perceptions: U.S. vs. Russia Ideals
The fifth research question also addresses perceptions of higher education
in the United States and idealized in Russia, Tables 14 and 15 look at the between
group differences of the dependent construct categories addressed in the fifth
research question. Table 14 details the results of the dependent-measures t-test
examining the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the means of the
output goals attributed to the U.S and those idealized in Russian higher education.
All the emphases, except Meeting Local Needs, were found to differ 97
Table 14
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Output Goals (U.S. vs. Ideally in Russia) ______
U.S. Ideal Output Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Academic Development 70 3.25 1.04 69 3.75 0.94 68 -8.65* .000 2. Intellectual Orientation 69 3.59 1.01 69 4.24 0.98 68 -12.00* .000 3. Individual Development 69 3.53 1.04 69 3.86 0.99 68 -5.60* .000 4. Humanism/Altruism 68 3.33 1.11 69 3.62 1.01 67 -4.56* .000 5. Cultural/Awareness 69 2.84 1.05 68 3.19 0.95 67 -5.65* .000 6. Traditional Religiousness 67 2.65 1.07 69 2.33 0.78 66 3.95* .000 7. Vocational Preparation 65 3.26 1.05 67 3.73 1.03 64 -6.37* .000 8. Advanced Training 66 3.81 0.88 67 3.99 1.01 65 -3.44* .001 9. Research 65 4.01 0.96 66 4.34 0.98 64 -5.83* .000 10. Meeting Local Needs 66 3.79 0.99 67 3.82 0.96 65 -1.24 .214 11. Public Service 66 3.23 0.99 66 3.40 0.99 65 -2.68* .008 12. Social Egalitarianism 65 3.51 1.00 65 3.30 1.00 64 2.63* .005 13. Social Criticism/Activism 67 3.19 1.02 68 3.40 0.97 66 -3.93* .008
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05.
98
Table 15
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Importance Attributed to Institutional Process Goals (U.S. vs. Ideally in Russia) ______
U.S. Ideal Process Goals N Meanª SD N Meanª SD df t p ______
1. Freedom 62 3.63 1.01 67 3.69 0.99 61 -1.41 .159 2. Democratic Governance 59 3.73 0.89 66 3.74 0.92 58 -1.31 .190 3. Community 61 3.76 0.87 66 3.92 0.91 60 -3.02* .003 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 66 3.63 0.95 65 3.75 0.98 64 -1.82 .071 5. Innovation 66 3.44 0.95 65 3.49 0.98 64 -0.71 .476 6. Off-Campus Learning 66 3.30 1.04 65 3.24 1.18 64 1.05 .293 7. Accountability 65 3.62 1.03 62 3.39 1.07 61 2.80* .006 8. Student Affairs 66 3.41 0.99 66 3.32 1.02 65 1.67 .096 9. Miscellaneous 65 3.54 1.01 66 3.47 1.10 64 2.08* .038
______Note. Values enclosed in parentheses indicate one-point criterion was met. ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. *p < .05. 99
significantly, p < .05. Twelve of 13 emphases significantly favored the ideal
Russian system, while the perception of Social Egalitarianism favored the U.S.
system of higher education, but none of the emphases met the one-point
difference criterion.
Lastly, Table 15 displays the results of the dependent-measures t-test
examining the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the means of the
process goals attributed to the U.S and those in an ideal Russian higher education
system. Interestingly, only three of the emphases differed significantly, with
Community in favor of an ideal Russian system, and Accountability and
Miscellaneous Process Goals supporting the U.S. higher education system, but
none met the one-point criterion of difference.
Miscellaneous and Student Affairs Scale Items
The Miscellaneous emphasis, in addition to featuring ten items, encompassed a broad range of topics that deserved closer examination. A composite of these finding are presented in Table 16. Application of a dependent- measures t-test on these data revealed that nine out of ten of these items differed significantly when comparing perceptions of the U.S. system to that of Russia, all at p < .05 level: Item 2, t(65) = 8.17; Item 3, t(64) = 5.00; Item 4, t(66) = 6.94;
Item 5, t(63) = 2.96; Item 6, t(65) = 8.04; Item 7, t(66) = 8.87; Item, 8, t(64) =
7.01; Item 9, t(66) = 6.33; and Item 10, t(66) = 6.38. Of these nine significant items four met the one-point difference criterion: Items 2, 6, 7, and 8. On all four items respondents attributed a greater importance to the U.S. system.
100
Table 16
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Miscellaneous Survey Question Means ______
U.S. Russian Ideal Item No. Question N Meanª SD N Meanª SD N Meanª SD ______
1. 12-Assure achievement of equal competency… 67 3.27 1.08 67 3.12 1.17 64 3.45 1.28
2. 71-Work to achieve university autonomy or independence… 67 3.37b 0.92 67 2.25c 0.99 66 3.53 0.95
3. 80-Maintain reputable standing in the academic world… 66 4.12 0.90 66 3.41 1.11 67 4.10 0.97
4. 82-Broad and vigorous program of extracurricular activities… 67 3.70 0.97 67 2.88 1.11 67 3.79 1.03
5. 84-Organized for short, medium, and long term planning… 66 3.64 0.94 64 3.34 0.95 66 3.85 0.90
6. 85-Include local citizens in program planning… 67 2.91b 1.06 66 1.77 0.91 67 2.53 1.13
101
Table 16 (Continued)
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Miscellaneous Survey Question Means ______
U.S. Russian Ideal Item No. Question N Meanª SD N Meanª SD N Meanª SD ______
7. 86-Excel in intercollegiate athletics… 67 4.06b 1.00 67 2.82 0.89 67 3.10 1.13
8. 88-To be accountable to funding sources… 65 3.62b 0.91 65 2.57c 0.87 66 3.67 .0.90
9. 89-To interpret the purpose of the institution to the public… 67 3.36 0.88 67 2.43 1.06 67 3.24 0.99
10. 90-Consensus regarding the goals off the university… 67 3.42 0.87 67 2.61 0.97 67 3.45 0.89
______ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. b Indicates one-point difference criterion was met between the U.S and Russian emphases. c Indicates one-point difference criterion was met between the Russian and Ideal emphases. 102
The data also revealed that there are significant differences between the means of the ten items attributed to Russia and those idealized in Russian higher education, all at the p < .05 level: Item 1, t(63) = -3.81; Item 2, t(65) = -8.83; Item 3, t(65) = -
4.46; Item 4, t(66) = -6.55; Item 5, t(63) = -4.43; Item 6, t(65) = -6.01; item 7, t(66) = -2.53; Item, 8, t(64) = -7.14; Item 9, t(66) = -6.89; Item 10, t(66) = -7.48.
Of theses ten significant items only two met the one-point difference criterion:
Items 2 and 8, with greater importance idealized on both counts. Lastly, this analysis revealed significant differences between the means of items attributed to the U.S. system and those idealized in Russian higher education on only three items at the p < .05 level: Item 5, t(65) = -2.42; Item 6, t(66) = 3.11; and Item 7, t(66) = 6.90; none of these significant items met the one-point difference criterion.
Five Student Affairs emphasis items were added to the survey and also deserved closer examination, primarily because of their uniqueness and prominence in the U.S. system. A composite of these finding are presented in
Table 17. Application of a dependent measures t-test on these data revealed that all five of these items differed significantly when comparing perceptions of the
U.S. system to that of Russia, at the p < .05 level: Item 1, t(65) = 4.06; Item 2, t(65) = 6.03; Item 3, t(65) = 4.02; Item 4, t(66) = 7.97; and Item 5, t(42) = 3.13. Of the five significant items though, only one met the one-point difference criterion:
Item 4 with greater importance attributed to the U.S. system.
The data also revealed that there are significant differences between the means of the five items attributed to Russia and those idealized in Russian higher education, all at the p < .05 level: Item 1, t(65) = -5.67; Item 2, t(65) = -4.56; Item 103
Table 17
Comparison of Russian Scholar Perceptions of Student Affairs Survey Question Means ______
U.S. Russian Ideal Item No. Question N Meanª SD N Meanª SD N Meanª SD ______
1. 91-Create relationships outside the classroom… 66 2.91 1.03 66 2.33 1.00 66 2.95 0.97
2. 92-Maintain student organ. on campus… 66 3.74 0.90 66 2.83 0.99 66 3.42 0.99
3. 93-Experimental learning communities… 66 3.20 0.90 66 2.62 0.91 66 3.12 1.02
4. 94-Build a climate of diversity… 67 3.75b 1.01 67 2.42c 1.03 67 3.69 0.99
5. 95-Consensus about the mission of Student affairs… 67 3.51 0.83 43 2.98 1.20 65 3.43 1.03
______ª Calculated from a five-point Likert-type scale: 1 = no importance or not applicable; 2 = low importance; 3 = medium importance; 4 = high importance; and, 5 = extremely high importance. b Indicates one-point difference criterion was met between the U.S and Russian emphases.
c Indicates one-point difference criterion was met between the Russian and Ideal emphases. 104
3, t(65) = -3.74; Item 4, t(66) = -7.93; and Item 5, t(42) = -4.33. Of the five
significant items only one met the one-point difference criterion: Item 4, with
greater importance idealized. Lastly, this analysis revealed one significant
difference between an item attributed to the U.S. system and idealized in Russian
higher education at the p < .05 level: Item 2, t(65) = 2.78. However, this item did
not meet the one-point difference criterion.
Summary
. As summarized in Tables 18 and 19 the rankings of the perceived
importance of all emphases in Russia, in the U.S. and those idealized for Russia
captures the perceptions of this group of Russian scholars who found Research,
Academic Development, and Advanced Training of highest importance in output
goals in Russia. The same group ideally would like to see a continued focus on
Research and Advanced Training in Russia, but looks to Intellectual Orientation
with a higher priority than Academic Development. The importance of each
emphasis in the U.S. system follows these perceptions closely with Research and
Advanced Training, but places a stronger emphasis on Meeting Local Needs.
The process goals were not so clearly differentiated: the current perception
in Russian higher education highlights Accountability, while the ideal perception
emphasizes Community and Democratic Governance processes, paralleling those
same emphases in the U.S. system.
It was observed that a number of emphases met the one-point difference
criterion for large discrepancies: Intellectual Orientation, Individual
Development, and Humanism/Altruism, favoring an idealized system in Russia, 105
Table 18
Russian Scholar Ranking of Importance of Institutional Output Goals ______Ranking Characteristics Russia US Ideally ______
1. Academic Development 2 9 6 2. Intellectual Orientation 4 4 2 3. Individual Development 7 5 4 4. Humanism/Altruism 10 7 7 5. Cultural/Awareness 9 12 12 6. Traditional Religiousness 13 13 13 7. Vocational Preparation 6 8 7 8. Advanced Training 3 2 3 9. Research 1 1 1 10. Meeting Local Needs 5 3 5 11. Public Service 12 10 10 12. Social Egalitarianism 8 6 11 13. Social Criticism/Activism 11 11 9 ______
106
Table 19
Russian Scholar Ranking of Importance of Institutional Process Goals ______
Ranking Characteristics Russia US Ideally ______
1. Freedom 6 4 4 2. Democratic Governance 7 2 2 3. Community 4 1 1 4. Intellectual/Aesthetic Environ. 3 3 3 5. Innovation 8 7 5 6. Off-Campus Learning 9 9 9 7. Accountability 1 5 7 8. Student Affairs 5 8 8 9. Miscellaneous 2 6 6
______
107
and Social Egalitarianism, favoring the U.S. system. The process goals were more
similarly related, with large discrepancies noted on Community, Democratic
Governance, Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment, and Freedom, all ideally favoring Russia, as well as, attributed to the U.S. system.
108
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This chapter is divided into four sections, beginning with a discussion of and reflection on the results. The second section addresses implications gained from these findings for educational policy and practice. In the third section, recommendations for future research are offered, followed by a conclusive section that considers the overall meaning and import of this study.
Discussion of Results
Sample Demographics
The composition of respondents who participated in this study suggest that this was a rather limited sample, both in terms of the range of demographic and disciplinary characteristics represented, as well as the nature of the experiences these educators encountered in their exchanges. Such observations are important for interpreting the perceptions of these educators and for considering the potential for impact of the intended goals of these exchange programs. For example, if the sample characteristics of the present study are truly representative of those who seek such opportunities, then organizers can expect to encounter mostly women with experience beyond the entry level, from a regional university in Russia, who teach or conduct research full-time in the arts and sciences. This profile accounted for a clear majority of the program participants here. Missing are those from other areas of the Russian academy, such as education, business, and engineering, and in addition, those from settings reflective of the broad range of institutional missions in Russia, including the major research institutes, certificate-granting colleges, and technical schools. 109
Another observation is that few of these respondents apparently hold
positions with potential for effecting policy and program changes in their home
institutions. Again, if this lack of decision-making authority represents the status
those participate in these programs, then perhaps one of the more important goals
of such an exchange might be at risk. Although these educators undoubtedly
benefit from the experiences and perspectives gained here, their capacity for
returning to home institutions to implement a specific change agenda could be in
jeopardy if their power to do so is limited. However, it might also be that they
represent a new wave of scholars in the Russian academy who will eventually be
in a position to significantly effect program initiatives. This suggests that
sufficient evidence of the impact of these exchanges might require additional time
to realize.
Limitations related to the distribution of respondents in this sample were also framed by the somewhat narrow focus and quality of their exchange placements in the U.S. According to the data, all but a few spent their time in a university setting (most likely with a large, public mission), for a duration of three months or less, and in the arts and science disciplines that reflected their immediate research or teaching responsibilities. Although it cannot be discerned directly from these data, learning about our particular system may have been secondary to their disciplinary interests. Further, as is argued below, the type of institution these exchange participants were introduced to represents only one, albeit important, segment of that system. Missing are the small liberal arts, community college, and church based-institutions that support the variety of 110
missions featured in our system. Conclusions drawn from this selective exposure
to large, research institutions, most often grounded in a traditional land-grant
model, would not reflect the richness of programs and purposes that characterize
our multi-layered system. Nonetheless, their observations of our system as
discussed here seem consistent with the kind of exposure they reported.
Perceptions of the U.S. System
In general, the perceptions of the U.S. higher education system identified
as most impressive to these Russian educators are consistent with the type of
institutions that formed the context of their exchange. For the most part their
experiences were gained in large university settings, and the nature of the goals
they perceived to be most important were highly appropriate to such a context.
For example, In regard to institutional output goals, three emphases were
perceived as most important in the U.S. system—Research (with a priority on
external agencies and basic research in the natural and social sciences), Advanced
Training (with an emphasis on post graduate education), and Meeting Local
Needs (focusing on continuing education, manpower for local employers, and
community-service). As suggested above, such emphases most likely reflect the land grant roots that often characterize these kinds of institutions. After all, by mission, they typically embrace research, advanced training, and through a host of extension programs, meet local needs.
Another observation about the emphases these educators prioritized is that many might have come predisposed to such purposes in the first place, perhaps influencing them to overlook or exclude other competing goals. The fact that the 111
largest single proportion (45%) of the participants here identified research as the
principal reason for their exchange supports this observation. In addition, the
Russian higher education heritage and historical commitment to research that
most likely shaped their own training might have further focused their attention to
these specific goals as most directly aligned with their personal interests.
The perceptions of these educators of the nine institutional process goals
also seem fitting to the context of their exchange experiences. In that regard, the results yielded four emphases thought to be most important to the U.S. system—
Community (faculty commitment to the general welfare of the institution),
Democratic Governance (opportunity for individuals to participate in all decisions), Intellectual/Aesthetic Environments (a rich program of cultural events) and Freedom (the right of faculty to present controversial ideas). Again, these
emphases seem highly appropriate to the kinds of approaches, expectations, and
activities one might encounter in a large university setting. The importance
attributed to Community here might well reflect some of the current reform
initiatives being launched on many of these campuses to correct the unregulated
growth of previous decades, to reaffirm the goals of teaching and learning, and to
create more human scale opportunities for students as called for by recent Kellogg
Foundation reports (e.g., [Hollander & Hartley, 2000] and [Newman, 2000]).
The heightened impressions of Democratic Governance perceived by these
educators could possibly reflect the engagement of faculty senates that often
characterizes these institutions. That and the perceived emphasis on Freedom
seem to underscore the traditions of faculty involvement and academic freedom 112
that have long been a part of the governance of these universities in our system.
Finally, the impressions attributed to the Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment of
these schools also seems consistent with the flurry of cultural activities and events
that often fill the calendars of these institutions. In fact, some are the sole source
of such opportunities for the surrounding rural communities or nearby urban
centers.
Perceptions of the Russian System
These Russian educators’ perceptions of their own system through this
same framework of output and process goals also seemed appropriate, given their
legacy of higher education, the Communist doctrines that inform their society, recent legislative dictates, and current social events and movements. Among the output goals deemed most important were Research, Academic Development, and
Advanced Training. All of these goals were rated on the average as of medium or
greater importance in the Russian system. Perhaps this is of little surprise in a
system that has focused on research in the hard sciences the past six decades, for
military and government projects, as a foundation for educational development,
and which has provided a positive agenda for its participation in the emerging
global economy. That priority on Research, along with emphases on Academic
Development and Advanced Training, complements the Communist doctrinal
commitment to research, continuing education, and high intellectual standards
(Freeze, 2002). This is a system, although currently in transition, that was shaped during the Stalin and Khrushchev eras and one whose legacy has undoubtedly shaped the experience of these respondents both as students and as faculty. 113
The lowest importance assigned to Traditional Religiousness (traditional rather than secular or modern) in Russian higher education appears to reflect the obviously diminished position of the Orthodox Church in Russian society.
Although once connected to education in its infancy, especially in outlying areas where monasteries were the sole source of formal learning, the October
Revolution of 1917 severed any remaining connection between the Church and higher education especially in the urban areas. Currently though, religion is gaining in popularity, especially in the rural areas where the Orthodox Church was able to maintain a foothold during the Communist era. However, given that a majority of Russian institutions of higher education are located in urban areas, the lower perception of traditional religiousness in higher education expressed in these findings seems fitting. Why certain other output goals were assigned a low- range of importance (e.g., Humanism/Altruism and Social Criticism/Activism) in this assessment is not clear from the data, except to recognize that the foci of these goals are ones that could have been influenced by the repressive and conflictory movements that have marked the history of Russia. It is a nation that has known continuous conflict from the time of the early Riurikid Dynasty (862-
1613 C.E.), through the Cold War (1945-1986 C.E.), and most recently within its own borders as the Soviet Empire has been dismantled. The repression of social criticism by the Communist Party during the Soviet era is also well documented, perhaps leading to current vestiges of totalitarianism and social collectivism that continue to hold a grip on the culture. 114
The influence of these same factors is also evident in how these educators
evaluated the process goals they attribute to their system. In their assessment is a
uniform rating of all the listed process goals as being of low importance in the
Russian system. Perhaps this reflects a certain malaise observed in the Russian
higher education system over the past decade (Hare, 1999; Laihiala-Kankainen,
2000; Pervova, 1997; Raymond & Jones, 2000; and Slaughter & Leslie, 1997)
that has accompanied a decline in State support—evidenced in changing
enrollment patterns away from major research universities toward smaller private
and local institutions, faculty leaving for private sector positions, and students no
longer believing that a university education is necessary for success. One
exception to this pattern, however, might be found in the slightly elevated ratings
(although still of low importance) given to the emphasis on Accountability
(funding and program effectiveness). Perhaps the immediate financial crisis in
Russian higher education (Bain, 2001) is beginning to make its mark on their
evaluations of how to proceed. One would expect the emphasis on funding and
program effectiveness to increase as this situation continues.
Other rankings one would expect to see in a system that is undergoing
change at the rate Russia is currently experiencing were not at all distinguished in
the assessment of these educators. Emphases like Innovation (initiating curricular or instructional innovations) and Democratic Governance (opportunity for
individuals to participate in all decisions affecting them) were likewise perceived
to be of low importance. Again, this might reflect what earlier research has
confirmed (Boyer, Altbach & Whitelaw, 1994), when four years after the fall of 115
the Soviet Union, Russian faculties surveyed clung to expectations for
government intervention instead of their own initiative.
From an ideal perspective, the evaluations of this group of educators
seems much clearer as to their expectations of the Russian system. In their view, emphasis on Research appears to be the hallmark for an ideal system, followed by emphases on Intellectual Orientation and Advanced Training. The model implicated in these goals once again probably reflects the legacy of scientific inquiry that has shaped the modern version of the Russian system. Concerning the process goals deemed ideal for Russian higher education, the pattern is also distinct, with emphases on Community, Intellectual/Aesthetic Environment,
Democratic Governance, and Freedom most prominent. These priorities suggest a
new consciousness emerging in Russia for policies outlined in the State Law of
Higher Education (1992), a defining document adopted by the State Duma in
order to guide the future of its system of higher learning. Accordingly, its
emphases on human values, unity, accessibility, lay leadership, freedom and
pluralism, and democratic administration seem to line-up clearly with those
idealized above. The picture of participatory governance they attributed to the
ideal Russian system perhaps signals a significant shift in the expectations these
faculty have for continuing in any change agent role they have been empowered
to assume as a result of their experiences in the U.S., the details of which will
depend on how they compare the two systems.
116
Comparisons of U.S. and Russian Systems
The importance attributed to these institutional output goals in Russian
higher education, in comparison to the U.S. system, yielded several interesting
impressions. With the exception of one emphasis, Academic Development
(maintenance of high intellectual standards), all of the output goals were evaluated significantly in favor of what these educators experienced in the U.S. In
other words, what they perceived was an across-the-board higher emphasis placed
on each of these goals in the system they visited, in comparison to their home
institutions. It remains unclear as to why their assessments approached the levels
that they did, but at least two of the emphases reviewed accounted for the largest discrepancies, using an estimate of effect criterion of one-scale point difference:
Social Egalitarianism (open admissions and meaningful education for all) and
Individual Humanism/Altruism (enhancement of sense of self-worth and self- confidence). For reasons noted above, related to the types of institutions forming the primary context for their exchange experience, it seems that these educators were most impressed with those emphases that have traditionally characterized this sector of our system—public sponsorship, access, and holistic development.
These educators’ review of the process goals yielded similar results. In all
cases these emphases were perceived to carry greater importance in U.S.
institutions than in Russia. Applying the same estimate of effect criterion as above, four emphases met the standard: Democratic Governance (opportunity for
individuals to participate in all decisions affecting them), Community (a climate
in which faculty commitment to the general welfare of the institution is open and 117
an amicable airing of differences and mutual trust exists), Freedom (the right of
faculty to present controversial ideas), and Innovation (initiating curricular or instructional innovations). These perceptions make sense, given the populist and participatory culture embedded in the history of these kinds of institutions. As the
Russian system continues to evolve toward similar goals, it is understandable that these emphases in particular would stand-out for these educators during such an exchange.
In examining the data for clues about features most likely to become part
of any transferable agenda, it is helpful to compare how these educators’
perceived their own system and how they idealized it. First, in regard to
institutional output goals, all thirteen emphases were determined to differ
significantly in the comparison, favoring the ideal perspective. Of these, four met
the one-point difference criterion for an estimate of effect: Individual
Development (enhancement of sense of self-worth and self-confidence),
Intellectual Orientation (the ability to synthesize knowledge from many sources),
Humanism/Altruism (respect for diverse cultures, commitment to working for
world peace), and Public Service (committing institutional resources to the
solution of major social and environmental problems). Perhaps the change agenda
on the minds of this new generation of Russian scholars will focus on continuing
the legacy of academic excellence in their system through individual
development, while responding increasingly to the needs of public service in an
evolving global society. Whether that will reflect a growing specific attachment to
the tenants of Western liberalism and global culture remains to be seen. 118
Applying this same comparison to the institutional process goals, all
emphasis differences reached a level of significance, with five satisfying the one-
point difference criterion: Community (faculty commitment to the general welfare
of the institution), Democratic Governance (opportunity for individuals to
participate in all decisions), Freedom (the right of faculty to present controversial ideas), Intellectual/Aesthetic Environments (a rich program of cultural events), and Innovation (initiating curricular or instructional innovations). These suggest that these faculty might be returning with greater expectations and new commitments to the welfare and governance of their home institutions than previously assumed. That alone suggests that these program exchanges might be having their greatest impact in terms of generating new levels of enthusiasm among faculty for continuing the reforms already underway in Russia. These perceptions might also suggest that there is as great an interest in learning the
“how to” of higher education in the U.S. as there is a commitment to particular outcome goals.
Finally, in examining the data for clues about features most likely to become part of any transferable agenda, it is helpful to compare how these educators’ perceived the U.S. system and how they idealized their own. First, in regard to institutional output goals, among the twelve emphases determined to differ significantly in the comparison, none met the one-point difference criterion, suggesting that an idealized Russian system shares much with what these educators observed in the U.S. Similarly, in regards to the process goals only three of the nine emphases differed significantly but none met the one-point 119
difference standard. Once again, perhaps these shared perceptions illustrate an
agenda on the minds of this new generation of Russian scholars that is consistent
with the emphases distinguishing their experience of the U.S. system. Whether
that will reflect a growing attachment to the tenants of Western liberalism and
global culture remains to be seen.
Implications for Policy and Practice
There are several implications in these data for the further implementation
of educational exchange programs such as those assessed in this study. As noted
in the discussion above, respondents in this study were from a select group,
coming primarily from a single type of institution and being accommodated at a
similar type in the U.S., emphasizing research, advanced training, and meeting
local needs. To better effect a transfer of ideas that reflect the richness of post secondary options available here, assuming the representativeness of this respondent sample, future efforts might consider expanding the scope of such programs. In addition to those already being served, future programs ought to generate a wider participation base, including those from the private, business, and technical sectors of Russian higher education. On the visitation side, the distribution of participating institutions in the U.S. system also ought to be expanded to incorporate opportunities in liberal arts and community colleges as well. This will allow them to understand more completely the commitment this system has to the teaching and learning missions of higher education, the preparation of undergraduates for professional and graduate programs, and remaining flexible and responsive to community needs. A related point here is 120
that such programs could also benefit from the insights of faculty beyond the traditional arts and sciences disciplines, especially those from business and law, two essentials for understanding the effects of the market system and foreign trade on a nation’s economy. In general, expanding these exchange programs to a broader range of visitation sites while inviting a broader range of faculty participants could benefit the goals of such exchanges.
A second observation about this respondent sample suggests that few
people who might have policy responsibilities at their respective institutions are
participating. Clearly, Russian higher education would benefit if individuals who have the status to institute policy and procedure changes are involved in such programs. Ideas developed through contact with faculty and administrators on host campuses might stimulate initiatives and promote progressive changes
(liberal/Western) eventually at these individuals’ home institutions, if they have the power to implement them. Targeting opportunities for key decision makers to participate might well accelerate the kinds of transfer of ideas desired by both partners in the process.
Implications for Future Research
This study provided insight into the attitudes and perceptions of a select
group of Russian educators following an exposure to the U.S. higher education
system. In doing so its design and method yielded data that are limited in terms of their scope, depth, and effectiveness for assessing the impact of the intercultural
exchange programs being evaluated in this study. Consequently, three
recommendations for future research are offered to both frame the limits of 121
interpretation here and to suggest strategies for those interested in furthering this
line of inquiry.
First, this study employed a standardized, fixed-response survey approach
that generated measures of central tendency around a predetermined list of
institutional outcome and process goals. What this method failed to deliver was
any assessment of the interests, motives, and understandings of the participating
faculty that led to their particular evaluations of their respective observations and
experiences. This sort of information is better served by complementary
qualitative methods that can be used to probe for more depth and nuance of
understanding. Only limited attempts have succeeded at such an approach (e.g.,
Crow, 2000), but clearly a greater understanding of these efforts through the
voices of program participants promises to yield much. The complexities and
intertwining forces of culture demand that a more flexible, direct, and personable
method be used to clarify the kinds of subtle changes occurring in Russian higher
education.
Second, this survey offered only a single snapshot of these educators’
views at one-point in time. Consequently the present data are silent on questions
of change or transfer from one culture to another over time. As the Russian higher
education system continues to balance the expectations of a global community
with a growing awareness that it might be inherently incompatible with the values of another system, questions about the long-term effects of these exchange
programs will become paramount. Future use of the present instrument in a
longitudinal design would allow researchers to monitor more systematically any 122
trends or patterns of transfer that might affect the continuing evolution of a system. In the case of Russian higher education, it will be particularly interesting
to observe how internal conflicts with Westernization might play out and how concomitant liberal policies might affect future institutional designs.
Understanding more about these dynamics in the long run can potentially help
administrators better plan for future needs and limit the level of uncertainty
inherent to such transitions.
Finally, this study employed the tools of technology to deliver a survey to
an otherwise inaccessible population. However wise or efficient that decision was,
it ultimately limited the quality of data received and the applicability of the results
found. Several observations about this technique are warranted and should be considered carefully in the event of future initiatives of this kind. First, the medium of the Internet is not at the same level of maturity in other parts of the globe as it is in the U.S. Numerous complications with differing browser capabilities arose in the present study, particularly with use of the Cyrillic alphabet. Consequently, not all participants were able to access the survey in their
native language. Second, the delivery and download of a relatively large and complex survey necessitates a high-speed connection, a feature that is available at only limited sites in some parts of the globe. Third, in the course of this study, it was discovered that the distribution of current computer equipment and connections are apparently limited to research and administrative support staff at many Russian universities, thus leaving some faculty with little access to the kind of equipment that would allow them to participate in such a study (Olga V. 123
Shilnikova, personal communication, December 7, 2004). In spite of this, the
future of technology seems promising in its potential for accessing those who
otherwise might not be able to participate in such a study, especially in a cross-
cultural context. Although this technology lag continues to improve on a daily
basis, response rates to any Web-based survey currently will most likely suffer
until comparable equipment is in place.
A related and final point attends to a clandestine quality that may have
shrouded the context of this study and that might have affected final participation
rates. Concerns were conveyed by a number of potential respondents who declined participation for fear of possible retribution if they answered candidly
some items on the survey. As a result, this dynamic seemed to discourage some
from offering honest evaluations of the Russian system. Until further evaluation
of their model reaches new levels of openness and free exchange, this cultural
artifact will continue to limit future attempts of this kind.
Conclusion
My interest in pursuing this study of cultural transfer was twofold. First,
the recent course of world events has made this a timely topic for research. With
the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the dissipation of European Communism, a
new Russian state has emerged seemingly ready to move out from behind the Iron
Curtain and to join the global community. Second, Russia is a former Cold War
adversary, similar in scope to the U.S. (i.e., its geographic size, diverse
population, and highly regarded educational system), that has chosen for decades
to maintain a system of higher education closed to Western liberalization. This 124
however seems to be changing, and the opportunity is right for assessing if and how such changes are likely to ensue.
The fact that Russia is going through another stage of academic
reorganization in its system of post secondary education—much the same as it
was during the reigns of Peter the Great, Stalin, and Khrushchev—is significant,
and I am pleased to have solicited the perceptions of constituents of that system in
the initial stages of this process. Their evaluations of the various outcome and
process goals in this survey—as they attempt to move away from communalism
toward a system of new dictates—are also significant. Such data are critical in
understanding how the Russian system of higher education seeks to regain its
national prominence and to compete in a liberal market economy.
Finally, as one author noted above, “the ideas of internationalization and nationalization can be understood as [either] complementary or conflicting for developing and expanding the current Russian higher education system for most
Russians” (Laihiala-Kankainen, 2000, pp. 78-79). Resistance to cultural change might be inevitable when differences are present in how various constituent groups construct the fundamental purposes, goals, and processes of higher education in Russia. When such fundamentals are at risk, the tendency may be to hold on to what is familiar. From that perspective it was anticipated that the goals prioritized in Russia would concur with the traditional cultural patterns of paternalism framing the relationship between the individual and the state through
Communism. However, the present findings suggest that we might be witnessing
“an emergence of a single normative position—that the market is becoming the 125
best arbiter of human affairs” (Stromquist, 2002, p. viii) in Russian higher education, one that responds favorably to the tenets of a new State Law of Higher
Education and embraces some of the Western processes observed and experienced in the course of a brief exchange. As Russia continues to tackle educational reform, ideological and cultural differences, and the challenges of globalization, such questions deserve on-going consideration if the benefits of global cooperation are to be realized.
126
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. T. (2002). The Petrine era and after, 1689-1740. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.) Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 87-113). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university
and development. Hong Kong, China: Comparative Education Research
Centre, The University of Hong Kong.
Babbie, E. (1995). The practice of social research (7th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Bahimba, P. (1984). Potential goals of the National University of Rwanda as
perceived by senate members, faculty, and students with implications for
the Adventist University of Central Africa. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45 (09), 2769. (UMI No. 8420128)
Bain, O. (1999). Reforming Russian higher education: Towards more
autonomous institutions. International Journal of Educational Reform, 8
(2), 120-129.
Bain, O. (2001). The Cost of Higher Education to Students and Parents in Russia:
Tuition Policy Issues. Peabody Journal of Education, 76 (3&4), 57-80.
Ball, D. (2005). International business: The challenge of global competition. (10th
Ed.). Chicago: Irwin.
Bazgariv, V. (1999). Philosophy in post-Soviet Russia (1992-1997): Background,
present state and prospects. Studies in east-European thought, 51 (3), 210-
244.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.).
Buckingham, England: SHRE. 127
Beil, L. D. (1996). Institutional goals inventory: Seattle University in 1976
and 1994. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (12), 4490. (UMI No.
9716960)
Birzea, C. (1996). Education in a world in transition: Between post-communism
and post-modernism. Prospects, 26,(4), 673-681.
Blazer, H.D. (1994). Plans to reform Russian Higher Education. In A. Jones
(Ed.), Education and society in the new Russia (pp. 27-46).Armonk, NY:
Sharpe.
Bucar, M., & Eklof, B. (1999). Russia and Eastern Europe. In R. F. Arnove & C.
A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative education: The dialectic of the global and
the local (pp. 371-392). Lanham, MD: Rowland & Littlefield.
Bonnell, V., & Breslauer, G. W. (2001). Russia in the new century: Stability or
disorder? Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Boesman, W. C. (1999). Research and development in Russia: An important
factor for the future. In N. O. Kura (Eds.), Russia at crossroads:
Prosperity or abyss? (pp. 167-188). Commack, NY: Nova Science.
Boris, R., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Russian diaspora 1917-1941. Lanham, MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Boyer, E. L., Altbach, P. G. & Whitelaw, M. J. (1994). The international
acdemnic profession: An international perspective. Princeton, NJ:
Carnegie Foundation. 128
Butler, D.G. (1980). The institutional goals use survey: An examination of the use
and impact of institutional self-study information in California Colleges
and universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (10), 315. (UMI
No. 8103987)
Butler, J. E. (1982). Perceived and preferred institutional goals and leadership
behavior among selected groups at Eastern Tennessee State University.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 43 (02), 4490. (UMI No. 8416619)
Carothers, T., & Ottaway, M. (2000). Introduction. Democratization and
globalization: The case of Russia. Global Policy Program, (13), p.4.
Washington DC: Fedorov, Y.
Castells, M. (1993). The New global economy in the information age: reflections
on our changing world. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press.
Creswell, J.W. (1994). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and
evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Crow, C. (2000). The effect of the Junior Faculty Development Program
experience on tertiary Russian educational reform: A case study.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (11). (UMI No. 9995027)
Dailey, M. T., & Cardozier, V. R. (2001). Higher education in Russia. Retrieved
February 2, 2003 from University of Texas Web site:
http://www.utexas.edu/students/heaspa/library/rus.html. 129
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The web questionnaire challenge to
survey methodologists. Retrieved February 26, 2004, from
http://survey.sesrc.wsu.edu/dillman/zuma_paper_dillman_bowker.pdf.
Farrington, D. (1998). The law of higher education in the Russian Federation:
Funding and assessment. European Journal for Education Law and
Policy, (2), 31-40.
Fedorov, Y. (2000). Democratization and globalization: The case of
Russia [Electronic version]. Global Policy Program, (13), 1-29.
Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Fink, A. (1995). How to sample in surveys (6th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Freeze, G. L. (2002). From Stalinism to stagnation, 1955-1985. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 347-382). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Freeze, G. L. (2002). Meltdown, rebuilding, reform, 1996-2001. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 422-456). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Freeze, G. L. (2002). Reform and counter-reform, 1855-1890. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 170-199). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Friedman, T. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York: Random House.
Gardner, R. (Producer/Director). (2001). Islam: Empire of faith [Film]. (Available
from PBS Home Video, 4000 Warner Blvd., Burbank, CA, 91522) 130
Girlando, A. P. (1998). A study of the influence of national culture on Russian
students studying in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59 (06), 2097. (UMI No. 9836832)
Gunn, H. (2002, December). Web-based surveys: Changing the survey process.
First Monday, (7)12. Retrieved February 27, 2004, from
http://www.firstmonday.org./issues/issue7_12/gunn/
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2004). Essentials of statistics: For the
behavioral sciences (5th ed.). New York: Brooks/Cole.
Hare, P. (1999). Higher education in transition to a market economy: Two case
studies. Europe-Asia Studies. Retrieved March 2, 2001 from
http://www.findarticles.com.
Harcave, S. (1964). Russia a history (5th ed.). Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.
Hawkins, H. L. (1999). Education and society in Moscow: Teachers' perceptions
(Russia). Dissertation Abstracts International, 38 (06), 1435. ( UMI No.
MQ49240)
Hill, C. W. (2004). International business: Competing in the global marketplace
(5rd ed.). New York: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
Hill, J. S. (2005). World business: Globalization, strategy and analysis.
Mason, Ohio: Thomson: South-Western.
Husband, W. B. (2002). The new economic policy and the revolutionary
experiment, 1921-1929. In G. L. Freeze (Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed.,
pp. 263-290). Oxford: Oxford Press. 131
Hofstede, G. (1997). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and
influence in organizations. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.
Holdsworth, N. (1998). Russian universities to go it alone [Electronic Version].
The Times Higher Education Supplement. Retrieved March 2, 2001 from
http://www.thes.co.uk/search/main.
Hollander, E. & Hartley, M. (2000). Civic renewal in higher education: The state
of the movement and the need for a national network, In T. Ehrlich (Ed.),
Civic responsibility and higher education (pp. 245-266). Phoenix, AZ:
The American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.
Jarvis, P. (2000). Globalization, The learning society and comparative education.
Comparative Education, 36 (3), 343-355.
Jones, A. (1994). Education and society in the new Russia. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharp.
Kerr, C. (2000). The gold and the blue: A personal memoir of the University of
California, 1949-1967. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.
Kitacv, I. V. (1994). The labor market and education in the post-Soviet era. In A.
Jones (Ed.), Education and society in the new Russia (pp 311-332).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharp.
Kollmann, N. S. (2002). Muscovite Russia, 1450-1598. In G. L. Freeze (Ed.),
Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 27-54). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Konecny, P. A. (1994). Conflict and community at Leningrad State University,
1917-1941. Digital Abstract International, 55 (12), 3961. (UMI No.
NN92747) 132
Kullberg, J. S. (1993). The origins of the Gorbachev revolution: Industrialization,
social structural change and Soviet elite value transformation, 1917-1985.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (09),3662. (UMI No. ATT
9303764)
Laihiala-Kankainen, S. (2000). Reflections on Russian education. In S.
Kangaspuro (Ed.). Russia: More different than most (pp. 77-98). Heisinki:
Kikimora.
LeDonne, J. (1996). The grand strategy of the Russian empire. New York: Oxford
Press.
Lima, L. L. (1985). Perceptions of Brazilian educational participants concerning
goals for higher education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (02),
367. (UMI No. 8607106)
Llanos-De Hoz, S. (1990). Goals of Simon Rodriguez University (SRU) as
perceived and preferred by its community members. Digital Abstract
International, 52 (01), 41. (UMI No. 9104919)
Martin, J. (2002). From Kiev to Muscovy: The beginning to 1450. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Markovic, J. J. (1990). Socialization and radicalization in Russia, 1861-1971: An
analysis of the personal backgrounds of Russian revolutionaries.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 51 (07), 2493. (UMI No. 9034134)
Marsh, C. (1998). Making Russian democracy work: Social capital, economic
development, and democratization in Russia. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 59 (09), 3631. (UMI No. 9906553) 133
Mater, A. (2000). A System of education to strengthen the intellectual and
spiritual potential of Russia (From the meeting of the Political
Consultative Council on 28 January 2000) [Electronic version]. Russian
Education and Society, 43 (1), pp. 62-93.
Mazurek, K., Winzer, M. A., & Majorek, C. (2000). Education in a global
society: A comparison perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
McCauley, M. (2002). From perestroika towards a new order, 1985-1995. In G.
L. Freeze (Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 383-421). Oxford: Oxford
Press.
McClean, M. (1996). Pedagogical research and higher education: An
illumination from the second Russian revolution, 1986-1992. Higher
Education Policy, 9(2), 125-136.
McIlveene, M. (1996). A comparison of Russian and American students concerns
about environmental issues: Implications for environmental education
curriculum. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (04), 1547. (UMI No.
9628835)
Merkuriev, S. (1991). “Soviet” higher education is a changing political, social,
and economic context: A scenario for the future. Prospects, 21 (3), 413-
420.
Mezhuev, V. M. (1997). O natsional’noi idee. Viprosy filosofti, 12, 3-14.
Morris, P. (1996). Asia’s four little tigers: A comparison of the role of education
in their development. Comparative Education 32, 95-109. 134
Newman, F. (2000, September/October). Saving higher education’s soul. Change:
The Magazine for Higher Learning, 2-8.
Nikandrov, N. D. (1995). Russia, In T.L. Postlethwaite (Ed.), International
Encyclopedia of national systems of education (2nd ed.).
Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1991). Ancient futures: Learning from Ladakh (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Sierra Club.
Orlovsky, D. T. (2002). Russia in war and revolution, 1914-1921. In G. L. Freeze
(Ed.), Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 231-262). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Park, I. (1999). Security discourse and the end of the Cold War: 'The New York
Times' coverage on United States national security. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57 (04), 4589. (UMI No. 9628835)
Pesek, R. A. (1985). The goals of higher education: The University of Toledo as a
case study. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46 (06), 1535. (UMI No.
8516746)
Peterson, R. E. (1970). College goals and the challenge of effectiveness.
Institutional research program for higher education. Princeton, NJ.:
Educational Testing Service.
Pervova, I. (1997). A view on the current situation in Russian education.
Interchange, 28 (4), 275-281.
Popovecz, A. (1976). Higher education in the Soviet Union: A descriptive study.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 (11), 6982. (UMI No. 7709438) 135
Quddus, M. (2000). Revolutionary growth in post-secondary higher education.
The American journal of economics and sociology. Retrieved March 2,
2001 from http://www.findarticles.com.
Ure, D. W. (1981). The study of goals: A catalytic intervention in higher
education. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42 (02), 804. (UMI No.
8115594)
Ransel, D. L. (2002). Pre-reform Russia, 1689-1740. In G. L. Freeze (Ed.), Russia
a history (2nd ed., pp. 143-169). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Raymond, B., & Jones, D. R. (2000). Russian diaspora, 1917-1941. Lanham MD:
Scarecrow Press.
Riasanovsky, N. V. (1984). A history of Russia (4th ed.), New York: Oxford Press.
Saunders, J. (1998). Academic freedom in Serbia. Contemporary Review.
Retrieved March 2, 2001 from http://www.findarticles.com.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994) How to conduct your own survey. New York,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational cultural and leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, G. (2001). Upper secondary graduates’ perceptions of school in Russia
and Germany—A comparative view. In L. J. Limage (Ed.), Democratizing
education and education democratic citizens: International and historical
perspectives (pp. 121-140). New York: Routledge Falmer. 136
Sharp, E. R. (1995). School reform during the Dhrushchev period: A radical
attempt to re-make Soviet and economic structures. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 56 (04), 1492.. (UMI No. 9527742)
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and
the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
Smith, C. G. (1998). Observations of University of Alaska faculty teaching in a
business training program for Russians. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 35 (01), 24. (UMI No. 1380987)
Soloman, D. J. (2001). Conducting web-based surveys [Electronic version].
Practical assessment research & evaluation (7) 19.
Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: A very short introduction. Oxford, England:
University Press.
Stromquist, N. P. (2002). Preface. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), iii-vii.
Suhaibani, A. (1984). A study of instructional goals in three Saudi universities.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45 (12), 3563. (UMI No. 8504386)
Thong, L. K. (1995). University in the context of national development: A case
study of Malaysian academics’ perceptions. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 57 (03), 1052. (UMI No. NN06302)
Tolz, V. (September 1998). Forging the nation: National identity and nation
building in post communist Russia. Europe Asia Studies. Retrieved March
2, 2001 from http://www.findarticles.com.
The heart of Russian education. Moscow University. Retrieved January 9, 2001,
from the Moscow State University Web site: http://www.msu.ru . 137
Zelnick, R. E. (2002). Revolutionary Russia, 1890-1914. In G. L. Freeze (Ed.),
Russia a history (2nd ed., pp. 200-230). Oxford: Oxford Press.
Zhu, L. (2000). The problem of the intelligentsia and radicalism in higher
education under Stalin and Mao. Europe-Asia Studies. Retrieved March 2,
2001 from http://www.findarticles.com.
Ziegler, C. E. (1999). The history of Russia. Westport CT: Greenwood Press. 138
APPENDIX A
SURVEY INSTRUMENT 139
Directions
The Inventory consists of 95 statements of First - How important is the goal in the U.S. possible institutional goals. Using the answer and at your institution at the present time? key shown in the examples below, you are “Is in USA” and “Is in Russia” asked to respond to each statement in three Then – In your judgment, how should the goal different ways: be at your institution? “Should be in Russia”
A. to require a common core of learning experiences for all students…
Example Of no importance Of low importance Of medium Of high importance Of extremely high or not applicable importance importance
Is in USA
Is in Russia
Should be in Russia
In this example, the respondent believes the goal “to require a common core of learning experiences for all students” is presently of extremely high importance in both the U.S. and at his/her institution, but thinks that it should be of medium importance in Russia.
B. to give alumni a larger and more direct role in the work of the institution…
Example Of no importance Of low importance Of medium Of high importance Of extremely high or not applicable importance importance
Is in USA
Is in Russia
Should be in Russia
In this example, the respondent sees the goal “to give alumni a larger and more direct role in the work of the institution” as presently being of high importance in the U.S. and low importance in Russia, but thinks that it should be of high importance in Russia..
• Consider the USA and your institution as a whole in making your judgments. • In giving should be responses, do not be restrained by your beliefs about whether the goal, realistically, can ever be attained on the campus. • Please try to respond to every goal statement in the inventory, by clicking on the corresponding ovals after Is in USA, Is in Russia, and after Should be in Russia. • Demographic Information (96-107): these questions are included to enable the researcher to analyze the results of the Inventory in ways that will be the most meaningful and useful to them. Respond to each question that applies. 140
Respond to these goal statements by blackening one oval after Is in USA , Is in Russia, and one after Should be in Russia.
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 1) to help students acquire depth of knowledge in at Is in USA least one academic Is in Russia discipline... Should be in Russia 2) to teach students methods Is in USA of scholarly inquiry, scientific research, and/or Is in Russia problem definition and solution... Should be in Russia 3) to help students identify their own personal goals and Is in USA develop means of achieving Is in Russia them... Should be in Russia 4) to ensure that students acquire a basic knowledge in Is in USA the humanities, social sciences, and natural Is in Russia sciences... Should be in Russia 5) to increase the desire and ability of students to Is in USA undertake self-directed Is in Russia learning... Should be in Russia 6) to prepare students for advanced academic work, Is in USA e.g., at a four-year college or Is in Russia graduate or professional school... Should be in Russia 7) to develop students' ability to synthesize knowledge Is in USA from a variety of sources... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 8) to help students develop a sense of self-worth, self- Is in USA confidence, and a capacity to Is in Russia have an impact on events... Should be in Russia 9) to hold students throughout the institution to Is in USA high standards of intellectual Is in Russia performance... Should be in Russia 141
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 10) to instill in students a life-long commitment to Is in USA learning... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 11) to help students achieve deeper levels of self- Is in USA understanding... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 12) to ensure that students who graduate have achieved Is in USA some level of reading, Is in Russia writing, and mathematics competency... Should be in Russia 13) to help students be open, honest, and trusting in their Is in USA relationships with others... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 14) to encourage students to become more conscious of Is in USA important moral issues of our Is in Russia times… Should be in Russia 15) to increase students' sensitivity to and Is in USA appreciation of various forms Is in Russia of art and artistic expression... Should be in Russia
16) to educate students in a particular religious heritage... Is in USA
Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 17) to help students Is in USA understand and respect people from diverse Is in Russia backgrounds and cultures... Should be in Russia 18) to require students to Is in USA complete some course work in the humanities or arts... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 142
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 19) to help students become Is in USA aware of the potentialities of a full-time religious Is in Russia vocation... Should be in Russia 20) to encourage students to Is in USA become committed to working for world peace... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia
21) to encourage students to Is in USA express themselves artistically, e.g., in music, Is in Russia painting, film-making... Should be in Russia
22) to develop students' Is in USA ability to understand and defend a theological Is in Russia position... Should be in Russia 23) to encourage students to make concern about the Is in USA welfare of all mankind a Is in Russia central part of their lives... Should be in Russia 24) to acquaint students with forms of artistic or literary Is in USA expression in non-Western Is in Russia countries... Should be in Russia 25) to help students develop a dedication to God in Is in USA everyday life… Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 26) to provide specific opportunities for students to Is in USA prepare for specific Is in Russia occupational careers, e.g., accounting, engineering, Should be in Russia nursing… 27) to develop what would generally be regarded as a Is in USA strong and comprehensive Is in Russia graduate school... Should be in Russia 143
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 28) to perform contract research for government, Is in USA business, or industry... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 29) to provide opportunities for continuing education for Is in USA adults in the local area, e.g., Is in Russia on a part-time basis... Should be in Russia 30) To develop educational programs geared to new and Is in USA emerging career fields... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 31) to prepare students in one or more of the traditional Is in USA professions, e.g., law, Is in Russia medicine, architecture... Should be in Russia 32) to offer graduate programs in such “newer" Is in USA professions as engineering, education, and social work... Is in Russia Should be in Russia 33) to serve as a cultural center in the community Is in USA served by the campus... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 34) to conduct basic research in the natural sciences… Is in USA Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 35) to conduct basic research in the social sciences… Is in USA Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 36) to provide retraining opportunities for individuals Is in USA whose job skills have Is in Russia become out of date... Should be in Russia 37) to contribute, through research, to the general Is in USA advancement of knowledge... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 144
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 38) to assist students in deciding upon a vocational Is in USA career... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 39) to provide skilled manpower for local-area Is in USA business, industry, and government... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 40) to facilitate involvement of students in neighborhood Is in USA and community-service Is in Russia activities... Should be in Russia 41) to conduct advanced study in specialized problem Is in USA areas, e.g., through research Is in Russia institutes, centers, or graduate programs... Should be in Russia 42) to provide educational experiences relevant to the Is in USA evolving interests of women Is in Russia globally… Should be in Russia 43) to provide critical evaluation of prevailing Is in USA practices and values in Is in Russia domestic society... Should be in Russia 44) to help people from Is in USA disadvantaged communities acquire knowledge and skills Is in Russia they can use in improving conditions in their own Should be in Russia communities... 45) to move to or maintain a policy of essentially open Is in USA admissions, and then to Is in Russia develop meaningful educational experiences for Should be in Russia all who are admitted... 46) to serve as a source of ideas and recommendations Is in USA for changing social Is in Russia institutions judged to be unjust or otherwise Should be in Russia defective... 145
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 47) to work with governmental agencies in Is in USA designing new social and Is in Russia environmental programs... Should be in Russia 48) to offer developmental or remedial programs in Is in USA basic skills (reading, writing, Is in Russia mathematics)... Should be in Russia 49) to help students learn how to bring about change in Is in USA their society... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 50) to focus resources of the institution on the solution Is in USA of major social and Is in Russia environmental problems… Should be in Russia 51) to be responsive to regional and national Is in USA priorities when considering new educational programs Is in Russia for the institution… Should be in Russia 52) to provide educational experiences relevant to the Is in USA evolving interests of unrepresentative Is in Russia minorities… Should be in Russia 53) to be engaged, as an institution, in working for Is in USA basic changes in domestic Is in Russia society... Should be in Russia 54) to ensure that students are not prevented from Is in USA hearing speakers presenting controversial points of Is in Russia view... Should be in Russia 55) to create a system of campus governance that is Is in USA genuinely responsive to the concerns of all people at the Is in Russia institution... Should be in Russia 56) to maintain a climate in which faculty commitment to Is in USA the goals and well-being of Is in Russia the institution is as strong as commitment to professional Should be in Russia careers… 146
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 57) to ensure the freedom of students and faculty to Is in USA choose their own life styles Is in Russia (living arrangements, personal appearance, etc.)... Should be in Russia 58) to develop arrangements by which students, faculty, Is in USA administrators, and trustees Is in Russia can be significantly involved in campus governance... Should be in Russia 59) to maintain a climate in which communication Is in USA throughout the Is in Russia organizational structure is open and candid... Should be in Russia 60) to place no restrictions on off-campus political Is in USA activities by faculty or Is in Russia students... Should be in Russia 61) to decentralize decision making on the campus to the Is in USA greatest extent possible... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 62) to maintain a campus climate in which differences Is in USA of opinion can be aired openly and amicably... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 63) to protect the right of faculty members to present Is in USA unpopular or controversial Is in Russia ideas in the classroom... Should be in Russia 64) to assure individuals the opportunity to participate or Is in USA be represented in making any Is in Russia decisions that affect them… Should be in Russia 65) to maintain a climate of mutual trust and respect Is in USA among students, faculty, and administrators... Is in Russia Should be in Russia 66) to create a campus climate in which students Is in USA spend much of their free time Is in Russia in intellectual and cultural activities... Should be in Russia 147
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 67) to build a climate on the campus in which continuous Is in USA educational innovation is Is in Russia accepted as an institutional way of life... Should be in Russia
68) to encourage students to Is in USA spend time away from the campus gaining academic Is in Russia credit for such activities as a Should be in Russia year of study abroad, in work-study program, etc… 69) to create a climate in which students and faculty Is in USA may easily come together for Is in Russia informal discussion of ideas and mutual interests... Should be in Russia 70) to experiment with different methods of Is in USA evaluating and grading Is in Russia student performance... Should be in Russia 71) to maintain or work to achieve a large degree of Is in USA institutional autonomy or independence in relation to Is in Russia governmental or other Should be in Russia educational agencies... 72) to participate in a network of colleges through Is in USA which students, according to Is in Russia plan, may study on several campuses during their Should be in Russia undergraduate -years... 73) to sponsor each year a rich program of cultural Is in USA events-- lectures, concerts, Is in Russia art exhibits, and the like... Should be in Russia 74) to experiment with new approaches to individualized Is in USA instruction such as tutorials, Is in Russia flexible scheduling, and students planning their own Should be in Russia programs... 148
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance
75) to award the bachelor's Is in USA and/or associate degree for supervised study done away Is in Russia from the campus, e.g., in Should be in Russia extension or tutorial centers, by correspondence, or through field work... 76) to create an institution known widely as an Is in USA intellectually exciting and stimulating place... Is in Russia Should be in Russia 77) to create procedures by which curricular or Is in USA instructional innovations Is in Russia may be readily initiated… Should be in Russia 78) to award the bachelor's and/or associate degree to Is in USA some individuals solely on Is in Russia the basis of their performance on an Should be in Russia acceptable examination (with no college-supervised study, on- or off-campus, necessary)... 79) to apply cost criteria in Is in USA deciding among alternative academic and non-academic Is in Russia programs... Should be in Russia 80) to maintain or work to achieve a reputable standing Is in USA for the institution within the Is in Russia academic world (or in relation to similar colleges)... Should be in Russia 81) to regularly provide evidence that the institution Is in USA is actually achieving its Is in Russia stated goals... Should be in Russia 82) to carry on a broad and vigorous program of Is in USA extracurricular activities and events for students… Is in Russia Should be in Russia 149
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 83) to be concerned about the efficiency with which Is in USA college operations are Is in Russia conducted... Should be in Russia 84) to be organized for continuous short-, medium-, Is in USA and long-range planning for Is in Russia the total institution... Should be in Russia 85) to include local citizens Is in USA in planning college programs that will affect the local Is in Russia community... Should be in Russia 86) to excel in intercollegiate athletic competition… Is in USA Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 87) to be accountable to funding sources for the Is in USA effectiveness of college programs... Is in Russia Should be in Russia 88) to create a climate in which systematic evaluation Is in USA of college programs is Is in Russia accepted as an institutional way of life... Should be in Russia 89) to systematically Is in USA interpret the nature, purpose, and work of the institution to Is in Russia citizens off the campus... Should be in Russia 90) to achieve consensus among people on the campus Is in USA about the goals of the institution... Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 150
Of no Of low Of medium Of high Of importance or importance importance importance extremely not applicable high importance 91) to create a relationship between faculty and student Is in USA outside the classroom… Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 92) to maintain or work to achieve student Is in USA organizations on campus … Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 93) to experiment with Is in USA different methods of learning communities, i.e., student Is in Russia housing … Should be in Russia 94) to build a climate on the campus with an emphasis on Is in USA diversity … Is in Russia
Should be in Russia 95) to achieve consensus among people on campus Is in USA about the mission of student affairs … Is in Russia Should be in Russia 151
Please mark one answer for each of the information questions below that apply to you.
95) Gender 100) Nature of the experience in the U.S. system
Male o o Research Female o Faculty 96) Age o Please fill in: ______o Student 97) Current Status o Other______o Faculty member 101) Indicate type of institution visited o Administrator o Other______o University 98) Type of institution in Russia o College Technical School o Research o Other______o University o 102) Indicate discipline/research area o College Biological Science o Technical School o Physical Sciences o Other o Mathematics 99) Indicate position held o o Social Sciences o Rector o Humanities o Assistant Rector o Fine Arts o Chair o Performing Arts o Professor o Education o Associate Professor o Business o Senior Instructor o Engineering o Instructor o Law o Other ______o Other______152
103) Indicate current teaching assignment 106) Level of study or research o Full-time Doctoral Program o Part-time o Research o Evening only o Exchange Program o Off-campus/extension only o Other______o Other______o 107) Sponsor in the U.S. 104) Length of time studying or conducting research in the U.S. in the past seven years o U.S. State Department o Never o International Civic Education Exchange Program o Less than 1 month Visiting Faculty Program o Less than 3 months o AIDS o Less than 6 months o Scholarship o Less than 12 months o Other______o More than 12 months o 105) Area of study or research while in the U.S.
o Biological Science o Physical Sciences o Mathematics o Social Sciences o Humanities o Fine Arts o Performing Arts o Higher Education o Secondary Education o Business o Engineering o Law o Other 153
APPENDIX B
HUMAN SUBJECT REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 154 155
APPENDIX C
SURVEY SOLICITATION (RUSSIAN) 156
Уважаемые российские коллеги!
В настоящее время я провожу исследование, результаты которого войдут в мою докторскую диссертацию «Распространение культурных представлений об американской системе высшего образования в мировом сообществе: опыт восприятия российскими учеными и административными работниками образовательной сферы». Исследование проводится в сотрудничестве с Государственным Департаментом США с целью сформировать представление о финансируемых в настоящее время программах обмена научных сотрудников и преподователей высших учебных заведений, и Ваша помощь в проведении этого исследования была бы крайне значительна для меня. Исследовательский фокус моей работы – опыт индивидуального восприятия задач американской системы высшего образования российскими коллегами, и в частности – Вами, как представителем российской академической среды, имеющим опыт участия в обменных программах.
Внизу настоящего письма Вы найдете адрес веб-страницы, на которой размещена анкета-опросник моего исследования. Я обращаюсь к Вам с просьбой принять участие в моем проекте, ответив на предлагаемые вопросы по возможности откровенно и открыто. Чтобы заполнить анкету, Вам не потребуется более 15-20 минут. Ответив на все вопросы, Вы перешлете мне заполненную анкету простым нажатием кнопки «submit» в конце документа. Если по каким-то причинам ссылка на страницу исследования в Вашем компьютере не работает, Вы можете скопировать электронный адрес в верхнюю адресную строку, и тем самым достичь нужной страницы.
URL: http://edhd.bgsu.edu/cultural/survey2.php
Заранее благодарю Вас за участие в моем проекте.
Gary Anderson Instructor International Business College of Business Administration Bowling Green State University 419 372 9389
157
APPENDIX D
SURVEY SOLICITATION (ENGLISH) 158
Dear Russian Scholars,
Greetings! I thank those of you who have already participated in my research, and ask others who have yet to do so to participate as well. I am currently conducting a research study for my doctorial dissertation titled “The Transfer of Cultural Assumptions about American Higher Education in a Global Society: Perceptions of Russian Scholars and Administrators,” to gain insight into current funded faculty exchanges and am requesting your input. The purpose of this study is to ascertain what Russian scholars assess as important transferable insights from cross-cultural exchanges with U.S. Colleges and Universities focusing on your perceptions of process and outcome goals in higher education since your exposure to the U.S. higher education system.
At the bottom of this page you will find a URL, which when clicked will direct you to the web survey that I am asking you to participate in by simply completing the instrument as honestly and openly as you can. The survey should take you approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. When you have completed the survey, simply return it by selecting the “submit” button at the end of the document. If you have trouble reaching the survey, it may be necessary to cut and paste the URL address into your browser.
URL: http://edhd.bgsu.edu/cultural/survey2.php
I have attempted to reach everyone using a Cyrillic text which has turned out not to be compatible with all the browsers involved, which has lead to this final request in English.
Thank you for your assistance in this research.
Gary Anderson Instructor International Business College of Business Administration Bowling Green State University 419 372 9389 159
APPENDIX E
SURVEY SOLICITATION (LOTTERY) 160
Dear Russian Scholars,
Greetings! I thank those of you who have already participated in my research, and ask others who have yet to do so to participate as well to have an opportunity to win multiple prizes of $50.00. I have not generated the replies hoped for and realizing the limited time in your schedules, I am prepared to offer you a 1 in 30 chance of winning $50.00 US to participate, if you have already participated you can still win by just registering. To be a qualified participant you must have studied, taught or participated in research at a U.S. institution of higher education within the past 5 years.
Below you will find a URL, which when clicked will direct you to the web survey that I am asking you to participate in by simply completing the instrument as honestly and openly as you can. The survey should take you approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. When you have completed the survey, simply return it by selecting the “submit” button at the end of the document. If you have difficulty connecting with the survey, it may be necessary to cut and paste the URL address into your browser.
URL: http://edhd.bgsu.edu/cultural/survey2.php
Once you have submitted the survey, reply to [email protected] with the time, date, and your age (for verification purposes) and let us know you completed the survey. If you have already participated just let us know the approximate time, date, and your age and you will be entered. You do not have to give me your name, as I will notify the winners (1 out of every 30 received) by return email to make arrangements for the payment to you. Winners will be drawn on Tuesday, October 12, 2004.
I appreciate your participation.
Gary Anderson Instructor International Business College of Business Administration Bowling Green State University 419 372 9389