GLOBAL EDUCATION MODELS IN NATIONAL CONTEXTS: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN UKRAINE GLOBAL EDUCATION MODELS IN NATIONAL CONTEXTS: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN UKRAINE DISSERTATION to obtain the degree of doctor at the University of Twente, on the authority of the rector magnificus, Prof.dr. T.T.M. Palstra, on account of the decision of the graduation committee to be publicly defended on Wednesday 15 January 2020 at 16.45 by Myroslava Hladchenko Born on 31st May 1981 in Knyazha, Ukraine This dissertation has been approved by the promotor: Prof. dr. R. Torenvlied and the co-promotors: Dr. D.F. Westerheijden Dr. H.F. de Boer ISBN: 978-90-365-4938-7 URL: https://doi.org/10.3990/1.9789036549387 Cover design by Lucy BrugginK (WeCre8), Amsterdam, the Netherlands Printed by Iskamp Printing, Enschede, the Netherlands Published by CHEPS/UT, PO Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands, [email protected] © 2020 Myroslava HladchenKo, the Netherlands. All rights reserved. No parts of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Alle rechten voorbehouden. Niets uit deze uitgave mag worden vermenigvuldigd, in enige vorm of op enige wijze, zonder voorafgaande schriftelijke toestemming van de auteur. Members of the graduation committee: Prof. dr. L. Leisyte Prof. dr. R.A. Wessel Prof. dr. S. Kuhlmann Dr. V. Junjan Prof. dr. T. Brandsen To my parents, MyKola and Nadia Preface I’m sincerely grateful to my supervisors Don Westerheijden and Harry de Boer as well as to my promotor Rene Torenvlied for helping me to become a researcher. I also thank Hans Vossensteyn for having established my collaboration with Don and Harry. Besides, I want to mention Martin Beninngoff, DominiK Antoniwitcz, Romulo Pinheiro, Jens Jungblut and Michael Dobbins with whom I wrote articles related to this thesis. I also want to thanK Ian Dobson and Ian MacNay for their contribution to the articles of this doctoral research. This is my second defended PhD thesis. The first one in pedagogical sciences was defended in 2007 in Ukraine. There also was the second-level doctoral thesis done in UKraine which led me to CHEPS to get a reference proving my international study visit to fulfil the formal requirement for the second-level doctoral research. However, that thesis was not defended, firstly, because of the corruptive process of defence in UKraine and, secondly, because it has lost any sense for me when I got an awareness of the gap between research in Ukraine and Western societies. I regret having wasted years of my life on doing theses according to Ukrainian standards and publishing dozens of articles in Ukrainian journals which are decoupled from research. The purpose of this thesis is, firstly, on the example of the reform in higher education to explain Ukrainian social reality and why the country has failed to reach the level of Western societies so far. Secondly, this thesis aims to highlight the life of individuals in the decoupled institutional environment and in such a way to reveal what is necessary to change at the state and organisational levels in Ukraine in general and in Ukrainian higher education in particular, to let UKrainian science and society to develop. The history of Ukraine is pervaded with tragedy. 7 Millions of Ukrainians died because of famine created artificially by the Soviets in 1932-1933. Yet other millions of Ukrainians the Soviets put into prisons, concentration camps, repressed and executed. The history of Ukraine is pervaded with the struggle of UKrainians for independence and a better future. Thousands of people perished for UKraine to be and to be a prosperous and affluent country. Among them are 300 students who fought near Kruty in 1918 against Bolsheviks, patriots who fought in Kholodnuy Yar in 1918-1922, warriors of UKrainian Insurgent Army. There were deaths of Dmytro Stus, Vasyl Symonenko, V’yacheslav Chornovil and multiple others similar to them. Patriots who perished during the Revolution of Dignity and those who fought against Russian invasion in the eastern part of Ukraine. These sacrifices, the lost human lives must not be in vain. Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………… 7 1. Introduction………………………………………………………. 11 1.1 Means–ends decoupling at the state level and implementation of the global models in the new specific context………………………. 11 1.2 Theoretical frameworK ……………………………………….. 15 1.2.1 Historical institutionalism………………………………… 16 1.2.2 Rational choice institutionalism………………………….. 16 1.2.3 Scandinavian institutionalism…………………………….. 17 1.2.4 Sociological institutionalism……………………………... 18 1.3 Towards a new research agenda………………………………. 27 1.3.1 Implementation of the global models in the national specific contexts: The macro level……………………………… 28 1.3.2 Organisational implications of public policies: The macro– meso levels………………………………………………………. 28 1.3.3 Public policies at the micro level of governance………….. 30 1.4 Research question…………………………………………….. 30 1.5 Research setting ……………………………………………… 31 1.6 Research design: Data and analysis…………………………... 34 1.7 Outline of the study…………………………………………... 37 1.8 Societal and scientifical relevence …………………………… 38 2. Exploring change and stability in Ukrainian higher education and research: A historical analysis through multiple critical junctures….. 41 3. Establishing research universities in UKrainian higher education: The incomplete journey of a structural reform………………………. 61 4. Implementing the Triple Helix Model: Means–ends decoupling at the state level?..................................................................................... 75 5. Means–ends decoupling at the state level and managerial responses to multiple organisational identities in UKrainian research universities…………………………………………………………... 95 6. Academic identities in Ukrainian research universities under conditions of means–ends decoupling at the state level…………….. 109 7. Conclusions: theoretical and empirical contributions…………….. 125 7.1 The implementation of the global models in the national context at the state level……………………………………………... 125 7.1.1 Changing logic of the global model…………………......... 125 7.1.2 Aligment of the national context with the global models…. 127 7.1.3 Change in the formulation of the global models…………… 128 7.2 Organisational responses to institutional complexity………… 129 7.2.1 Institutional complexity and means–ends decoupling at the organisational level……………………………………………… 129 7.2.2 Means–ends decoupling and managerial responses to multiple organisational identities………………………………... 132 7.3 Implementing the research university model at the micro level of governance…………………………………………………….. 133 7.3.1 Implications of institutional and cultural complexities for individual actors…………………………………………………. 134 7.3.2 Identity work of UKrainian academics……………………... 135 7.4 Contributions…………………………………………………. 137 7.5 Limitations and suggestions for further research……………... 140 7.6 Final words. Ukrainian higher education under means–ends decoupling at the state level………………………………………. 143 References…………………………………………………………... 145 Nederlandstalige samenvatting……………………………………… 173 1 Introduction 1.1. Means–ends decoupling at the state level and implementation of the global models in the new specific context In this dissertation, I aim to explore why global policies implemented as intended do not always lead to intended outcomes in national contexts. To theoretically understand this phenomenon, I depart from theories of new institutionalism with a primary focus on sociological institutionalism. In many cases, national policies are based on global models which originate in Western societies and then diffuse among them (De Ruiter & SchalK, 2017; Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015; Homburg, DijKshoorn & Thaens, 2014; Morris & Lancaster, 2006; Kuhlmann & Annandale, 2012; Degn, 2014). The non-Western states also implement global models in public sector in general (Haarhuis & Torenvlied, 2006; Kanapyanov, 2018; Sehring, 2009; Borras, Carranza & Franco 2007; Okuonzi, 2004; Sakketa, 2018) and in higher education in particular (BeerKens, 2009, 2010; Cai, 2014; Fussy, 2017; Rungfamai, 2016; Sabzalieva, 2017; Lamb & Currie, 2011; Eta, 2014; Kushnir, 2017; OleKsiyenKo, 2014). It is quite challenging to make nationally implemented policies worK in such a way that they lead to intended outcomes. Unintended consequences of global models implemented in national contexts are primarily documented for developing states (Homedes & Ugalde 2005; Hammergren, 1998; Lahiff, 2007; Lahiff, Borras & Kay 2007; Borras, Carranza & Franco, 2007; Persson, Rothtein & Teorell, 2012; Gauster & IsaKson, 2007; Pomfret, 2000; Rupidara & McGraw, 2010; Sehring, 2009) and much less for developed states (Caruana-Galizia & Caruana-Galizia, 2018; Schelkle, 2019; Butler, 2003). This is not surprising since most global models originate from a Western perspective. Factors that hinder the implementation of global models From the policy implementation perspective, different factors can intervene between the policy goals and outcomes of policy implementation (Grindle, 2017, p. 3). The achievement of the intended ends depends, firstly, on the commitment of political elites, otherwise policy implementation can be manipulated to achieve “overtly political ends” (Hammergren, 1998, p.19). Policy implementation, however, involves multiple actors with diverse interests (Schelkle, 2019; Kanapyanov, 2018) while political actors can lack capacities and power to ensure