25 Years of Post-Soviet Higher Education System Changes: Contributions to Comparative Education Discussion

• In Event: Highlighted session: Changes, corruption, and academic integrity in Eurasian higher education

Proposal

Purpose
The main purpose of the paper is to reveal common patterns of transformations of higher education (HE) systems and embeddedness of this transformations into social changes in 15 post-Soviet countries, as a result of national experiment started in 1991. We focus on three key questions: how the single Soviet model has evolved into 15 unique national systems? how HE have systems responded to national and global developments? what are the driving forces of HE changes in post-soviet countries?
The similarities and differences between the national contexts, together with the challenges of the independence period, created a unique constellation of political, economic, sociocultural and demographic conditions in each country. Nevertheless, despite the scale and importance of the changes that have taken place, there are only few comparative studies of post-Soviet higher education transformation (see Huisman et al 2018).
Comparative research rather focus on secondary rather than higher education in post-Soviet studies (Phillips and Kaser 1992; Silova 2010, Chankseliani, Silova 2018). Some researchers aim to analyze several countries of the region and/or the nature of post-Soviet transformations (Heyneman 2010; Johnson 2008; Silova 2009, 2010; Silova and Steiner-Khamsi 2008). There appeared to be no region based comprehensive comparative studies based on primary data collection and analysis, as distinct from studies consisting of reviews of literature and policy documents (but see, Silova 2010b, Slantcheva and Levy 2007). The dominant discourse is policy borrowing, neo-liberal reforms (Heyneman 2010, Johnson 2008). However, as Silova (2011) argues, ‘westernization frameworks lose their explanatory power, failing to recognize sufficiently the essential ambiguity of post-socialist change…post-socialism becomes the search for our new epistemological freedom’. In this paper we aim at further development of comparative education research taking into account insights from post-Soviet research.
Approach
Our analysis has two theoretical departure points. The first strand of literature comes from the studies of higher education diversity, including those on convergence and divergence of the systems and policies. The discussion of diversity has been quite large and mainly emerged as a response to an extensive growth of higher education systems since 1950s-1960s (Teichler 2007, Huisman 2016).
The second strand of insights comes from the conceptualisations of high participation systems of higher education (HPS) (Cantwell et al 2018). Six out of fifteen systems have already reached high participation stage, but the framework can be applied to all growing higher education systems. Three important trends are characteristic of such systems: decline of external institutional diversity, dominating role of multiversity as a large multi-disciplinary institution and growth of internal diversity. All those conceptual discussions are relevant to the analysis of the transformation of post-Soviet institutional landscape and provide important insights.
The analytical approach stands at the common research outline for each country case analysis (document analysis, quantitave and qualitative approaches). Institutional level data on HEIs’ characteristics and performance (students, research performance etc.) comes from national statistical agencies and universities. The country cases include interviews with universities’ management and policy-makers.
Findings
The project results identify several paths of the transformation of higher education systems in the region. From the policy perspective, we reveal two periods of changes, common for majority of countries (except Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Turkmenistan). The first decade of independence period was ‘flush of educational freedom’ (Kaser, Phillips, 1992) supported by reactive ‘policy of non-policy’. The main factors of changes were outside the higher education policy, and devoted to new stakeholders (households, business, private provider), and crucial the role of private or academic entrepreneurs in the existing HEIs. The second period was characterized by activation of the state, concerns on quality and global legitimacy (new accreditation and accountability; national and international rankings), and new funding distribution (competitive funding, PBF).
The study reveals three main streams of higher education changes as a social institute. Firstly, higher education expansion is a ruling phenomena that brings social changes (even for four countries promoting elite HE). HPS has become a social norm. States conserve perception of public higher education, while the resources for the expansion come from families.
Secondly, the study reveals bifurcation of higher education as the key process of system-level changes. The key role of the large leading ‘multiversities’ is seen through the actions of the state, though the landscape changes are driven by inertia and scarcity of statuses for middle-layer HEIs. The backward sector with low quality emerge as a result of demand for ‘cheap’ education for low socio-economic status groups.
Thirdly, growth of inequity is standing point of the ‘policy of non-policy’ for all 25 year period in majority of the countries (except Estonia). The equality agenda has no pronounced state policy. On the one hand, expansion led to greater access (although women participation is declining in some countries). On the other hand, majority of the countries abandoned affirmative actions mechanisms, and landscape bifurcation enforces higher education as the source for inequality.
Thus, we expose following factors of changes. Expansion is the change by itself and the driving force of further changes (consistent with Cantwell et al., 2018). Expansion is driven by national legitimacy agenda (consistent with Carnoy at al, 2013). The policy borrowing and global/local transition are not the main source of changes (consistent with Silova 2010). On the one hand, they are the results of the combination of isomorphism and path dependency (resistance to change) (Chirikov, 2014, Chankseliani, 2017, Bishof, 2018), on the other hand, - the search for global legitimacy in the context of global competition. Not “neo-liberal narrative” but nation state building mission is ruling force for shaping HE system in post-Soviet societies.
Significance of the paper
The paper aims at contributing to the discussion of a) the higher education transformation in post-socialist countries; b) convergence and divergence of higher education policies; c) reflection comparative education research frameworks.
Acknowledgments
This study is the result of a large comparative project “Higher Education System Dynamics and Institutional Diversity in Post-Soviet Countries” which was carried out in 2013-2017 (for detailed project results see Huisman et al 2018).

Authors

• Daria Platonova, HSE University, Moscow

• Isak Froumin, Institute of Education HSE