The Transfer of Cultural Assumptions About American Higher Education in a Global Society: Perceptions of Visiting Russian Scholars
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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