Analysis of STEM education discourses in Russia: from global integration to "technological sovereignty" (2012-2024)

• In Event: Technological Orientations and Analysis: Digital Possibilities and Opportunities

Proposal

Introduction
STEM education has emerged as a prominent field in education policymaking, drawing attention from educators, researchers, and politicians (Li et al., 2020; Marginson et al., 2013). Between 2000 and 2022, PISA participation increased 2.5 times as countries mainly competed in perceived STEM education quality, adapting their education systems based on evidence advocated by PISA machinery (Addey, 2024; Niemann et al., 2017). Countries actively reformed their education system to enhance the perceived quality of STEM education by borrowing policies from other countries and from best practices advocated by international organizations (Auld & Morris, 2014; Waldow, 2009).
STEM education believed to play multiple roles in society, simultaneously fostering global cooperation and development while also serving national interests, often with military implications. On the one hand, STEM education contributes to resolving climate, economic, and social issues, fostering connections between countries (Adebayo, 2022; Freeman et al., 2019). On the other hand, STEM education has historical ties to militarism and colonialism, often serving 'national interests' and being closely linked with the development of military technologies (Takeuchi & Marin, 2022; Vossoughi & Vakil, 2018). This duality challenges policymakers and educators globally.
Russia, with its rich scientific legacy and geopolitical significance, offers a compelling case study in STEM education at the K-12 level. In the last decade, the government has implemented numerous reforms aimed at enhancing STEM education to maintain its competitive edge in the global arena (Bredikhin et al., 2023). The invasion of Russia to Ukraine in 2022has underscored the dual-use nature of STEM education, highlighting its potential to both contribute to national security and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.
Theoretical background
This research is grounded in the conceptual framework of policy borrowing and soft governance. While frequently seen as a straightforward transfer of educational models between states, policy borrowing involves complex interactions and recontextualizations during policy adoption (Beech & Artopoulos, 2016; Steiner-Khamsi, 2014). International organizations often act as "transfer agents" or "policy teachers" (Grek, 2010; Stone, 2004), facilitating the transfer of policies across political settings.
Soft governance refers to the ability of international organizations to influence policy outcomes without direct compulsion (Bieber, 2016). This approach involves shaping frameworks of acceptable behavior and creating social realities by transfer agents (Hafner-Burton, 2008; Joachim et al., 2007). The research examines how these concepts manifest in the Russian context, particularly in STEM education. It explores whether and how communication, comparison, and competition drive educational reforms in STEM education (Bieber, 2016; Grek et al., 2022).
Objectives
This research examines Russia's navigation of competing aspects of STEM education in its policies and practices from 2012 to 2024, a period commencing with the implementation of a new Education Law in Russia in 2012. The research questions are:
1) How has the discourse of STEM education at a compulsory level changed in Russia between 2012 and 2024?
2) What is the role of international organizations in this process?
3) How does Russia's approach to STEM education reflect its broader geopolitical strategy and national security concerns?
Methodology
Two types of data sources were employed: documents and expert interviews. The documents include Russian strategic materials (educational projects, curricula, laws) and international organizations' documents (frameworks, reports, programs), which demonstrate discourse changes over the studied period. Additionally, expert interviews were conducted to provide context and interpretations for the observed changes in discourse. The data were analyzed using Maarten Hajer's Argumentative Discourse Analysis, which focuses on the relationships between discourse, meaning, strategic behavior, and institutional structures in policy changes (Hajer, 2002).
Findings and contribution
The analysis of Russia's STEM education discourse and policies reveals several findings.
1. Dual Nature of STEM Education: A prominent story-line emerged that combined militaristic and peaceful aspects of STEM. This narrative provided symbolic references suggesting a common understanding that STEM education should prepare students for both “national defense” and global cooperation in scientific advancement. The “militaristic” narrative has not supplanted the “peaceful” narrative after 2022.
2. STEM Education as Part of "Technological Sovereignty": A persistent story-line portrayed Russia as a STEM leader and successful competitor. After 2022, an additional story-line emerged framing STEM education as crucial for achieving "technological sovereignty" in response to international sanctions. It is assumed that Russia should train STEM specialists to meet its economic needs and compete.
3. Changing Dynamics with International Organizations:
• Pre-2018 (continuing convergence): The dominant story-line focused on integrating and learning from global best practices. During this period, Russia's STEM education policies aligned closely with international trends through “silent borrowing” and participating in global assessments such as PISA and TIMSS. The discourse-coalition included international experts and Russian policymakers, with practices centered on communication, comparison, and policy adoptions.
• 2018-2022 (gradual divergence): A new story-line of educational autonomy and Russia as a global educational leader emerged. While still participating in international frameworks, Russia began developing its standards and assessments. This narrative highlighted Russia's competitiveness in PISA and its role in exporting educational practices. The discourse coalition shifted to primarily domestic actors, focusing on creating Russia-specific educational assessments and standards.
• Post-2022 (accelerated divergence): With the emergence of the "technological sovereignty" narrative, Russia's STEM education policies began to diverge more rapidly from global trends, focusing on nation-specific needs and reducing reliance on international benchmarks.
Thus, Russia shifted its stance in global education, moving from convergence with international norms to a more divergent, self-reliant approach. This transition mirrors broader changes in Russia's priorities. Notably, the increasing militarization of STEM discourse, underscores the dual nature of STEM education as both a tool for global cooperation and a means of enhancing national security. Throughout these changes, STEM education remains central to Russia's strategy, balancing between international integration and technological sovereignty.
This study offers insights into the evolution of STEM education discourse in Russia. However, it has several limitations. The selected documents do not encompass changes in 'political education' lessons or public speeches, which could provide additional context for education militarization. Additionally, using ADA as a primary method may introduce some bias in interpreting results. Future research should address these limitations by incorporating a broader range of document types and employing mixed-method approaches.

Authors

• Margarita Kiryushina, Technion

• Miri Yemini, Technion

• Florian Waldow, Hu Berlin