Search results

The universal “promise of entrepreneurship” has gone far beyond the borders of countries where it emerged. Education systems might play an important role in this process by legitimizing entrepreneurship related myths, principles, and social hierarchies. Surprisingly, against the literature on the role of education in producing and allocating human capital, entrepreneurship education development on organizational, national, and global scale is only emerging as a theme of mainstream academic discussions. This paper applies multi-level approach to get insights on what role might higher education have in promoting global “entrepreneurial culture,” with a focus on post-Soviet countries. We analyze supra-national initiatives, national policies, leading universities’ practices, and the actual characteristics of entrepreneurship education programs in these universities. Our results suggest that drivers of entrepreneurship education development in national higher education systems of post-Soviet countries are not only the “concrete” and “technical” institutional factors on the national level, but also the broader cultural environment. Though institutional environment in post-Soviet countries does not always objectively meet high international standards we found many cases when official policy documents state goals related to teaching entrepreneurship in higher education and there are concrete programs devoted to entrepreneurship education sharing largely similar “entrepreneurial” worldviews. We also found that the actual perceptions and strategies of the actors directly involved in entrepreneurship education practices demonstrate much higher similarity than formally declared education policies in the related countries.

This chapter maps the landscape of previous research into the Bologna Process on the international and national scales. This literature shows that Bologna has internationalised higher education in post-Soviet countries, and the Bologna developments have been acknowledged in the literature to be a case of Europeanisation.

This chapter also points out a few major gaps in that research. One of them is the interconnected development of higher education actors and instruments from the perspective of the idea of layering that brings path-dependence and change in a dialogue. The research about Bologna in the national contexts focuses mainly on a more normative, evaluative side of the debate. Prior research on Bologna in post-Soviet countries and specifically in Ukraine also looks primarily at positive and negative effects of the reform on the country's higher education. There have been difficulties ‘fitting’ Bologna ideas into the established conventions in Ukraine. There have been also challenges with interpreting some action lines, such as the student-centred learning or quality assurance. These studies have mainly investigated the change of higher education policies, overlooking the exploration of the change in the system of higher education actors and their roles in the countries. The studies seem not to have placed enough emphasis on the process of the development of higher education actors and their relationships in Bologna. Neither have they looked in detail into the contribution of these actors to the development of the Bologna instruments.

The Bologna reform in the post-Soviet context, just like Europeanisation there, tends to be seen as the implementation of change which is hindered by some past conventions. In contrast, this study about Bologna in Ukraine rests on the idea of layering that brings path-dependence and change into a dialogue.

The history of Soviet higher education was closely intertwined with the broader histories of Soviet-era general education, with science policies and research institutions, and with the various models of political economy that were embraced and then altered between 1917 and the collapse of the U.S.S.R. in 1991. Such close bureaucratic control and tight policy coordination were inherent in the state socialist higher education system that allowed no private institutions or alternative models to function (Chanbarisov, 1988), and was arguably the source of Soviet higher education's greatest strengths as well as the cause of its greatest weaknesses. State support and massive public investment meant that Soviet higher education witnessed some of the most rapid and truly impressive quantitative and institutional growth in the world (Yelyutin, 1959). In other words, Russian and then Soviet higher education grew from its modest domestic influence and marginal global status in the early 1900s to become one of the largest and most comprehensive systems of higher education and research in the postwar era.

Since the collapse of the USSR, former Soviet republics have embarked on public service modernization, in most instances drawing on internationally dominant new public management (NPM) principles. Are post-Soviet republics ready for these administrative prescriptions? The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper discusses Kazakhstan’s experience with the implementation of NPM through a qualitative case study of the country’s adoption of the European Bologna higher education reforms.

While implementation of the NPM-inspired Bologna program has produced significant achievements, there are also gaps and shortcomings. These are due to a remnant Soviet administrative practices including strong control by educational ministries, as well as incompatible organizational cultures and a tendency toward superficial formalism in the implementation process.

NPM tends to be introduced in a top-down fashion as a taken-for-granted component of state transformation, without sufficient attention to the capacities, cultures and systems required for effective and accountable performance-driven administrative reform.

Kazakhstan’s experience provides crucial insights into the governance structures, professional cultures and managerial capacities required for successful implementation of NPM in post-Soviet states.

This study aims to explore the research internationalization process in Georgia, one of the post-Soviet countries. Specifically, it examines the individual-level reasons that motivate faculty at Georgian universities to engage in the process of research internationalization. It also unpacks scholars’ perspectives on the driving factors for selecting the key partners in international research.

Sixteen faculty members for this exploratory qualitative study were selected through stratified purposeful sampling from five higher educational institutions in Georgia. Participants were asked to discuss their participation in international research projects and underline the activities and events that motivated them to participate in international collaborative projects. The critical incident method was used to analyze our qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews.

The research revealed that faculty at Georgian universities are more oriented toward collaboration with their peers from European countries and the USA. This preference is influenced by such factors as higher quality of science, higher level of freedom and autonomy, personal contacts and networks, as well as language competencies. The data also helped to unpack Georgian scholars’ individual-level rationales that were conceptualized into three domains: human capital, financial capital and physical capital.

This study is an original work conducted in Georgia. It contributes to the development of the field of internationalization of research. The three-domain conceptual framework on the individual-level rationale for internationalization can be used in future research on post-Soviet countries and beyond.

This chapter reviews the theoretical literature about Europeanisation and argues the need for further analysis of post-Soviet Europeanisation. This chapter also connects post-Soviet Europeanisation to the notion of policy learning, which is introduced as a theoretical perspective. The chapter discusses the challenges around the definition of policy learning in relation to other policy processes such as transfer, translation and diffusion. Policy layering does not presuppose mutual exclusion between path-dependence and change, but rather the fruitful mutual development of both. It implies a gradual change of certain policy aspects and the retaining of others. The development of the links between path-dependence and change in layering is a highly messy process. Multiple actors participate in learning, and they create policy as they learn. There are no distinct stages of learning, and the line between policy-makers and practitioners is often blurred.

The difference between policy-making on the European level and the post-Soviet domestic context is significant. The literature about post-Soviet countries recognises the presence of a struggle between Europeanisation and post-Soviet legacies there. Europeanisation in this literature is presented as change; while the influence of the post-Soviet legacies is seen as an obstacle that hinders it. The policy learning concept is key here to frame Europeanisation in the post-Soviet context as an area of enquiry which may develop according to the logic of layering.

Higher education in the Republic of Georgia has experienced a massive isomorphic transformation since the Rose Revolution of 2003 and continues to transform with aspirations toward Euro-Atlantic integration, compliance with the Bologna Process and as a reflection of the Europeanization of its higher education sector.

This literature review documents and analyzes literature published between 1991 and 2019 on the development of higher education in the Republic of Georgia from 2003 to 2019.

The findings reflect the evolving political landscape and aspiration for Euro-Atlantic integration against the backdrop of one of the most impoverished education systems in the world, as measured by percentage of gross domestic product spending. More explicitly, what findings have been reported in the international literature on Georgian higher education from 2003 to 2019?

The choice to review only English publications was deliberate and done after consultation with a leading Georgian scholar, who noted that the Georgian language publishing market is small and of varied quality; leading Georgian scholars most often seek to publish in English journals and books, and all technical and policy reports produced by the Minister of Education, NGOs and large international organizations (e.g. World Bank) are available in English.

This literature review documents and analyzes literature on the development of higher education in the Republic of Georgia from 2003 to 2019 as a reflection of the evolving political landscape and aspiration for Euro-Atlantic integration against the backdrop of one of the most impoverished education systems in the world, as measured by percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spending. This unique political and economic history makes higher education in Georgia worthy of review.

The purpose of this study is to investigate university–industry partnerships in Armenia from the viewpoint of universities. By doing so, it contributes to the existing literature on university–industry collaboration by identifying and addressing the specific challenges that impede the establishment of successful university–industry partnerships in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries.

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to examine the barriers, benefits and institutional, functional framework of collaboration. Additionally, this study used a survey methodology to gather data from faculty managing staff members at six Armenian higher educational institutions on various aspects of university–industry collaboration as well as the perceptions and experiences of the participants.

The results show that the effectiveness and applicability of the university–industry collaboration channels and institutional structures in six higher educational institutions are limited. Specifically, the channels that rely on academic entrepreneurship and innovation were found to be currently unviable. Moreover, the existence of spin-offs and start-ups is notably absent. Furthermore, limited access to funding and inadequate entrepreneurial support systems pose significant barriers to developing university–industry partnerships in Armenian reality.

This study represents a pioneering effort within the context of Armenian higher educational institutions, as it is the first time a survey has been organized to specifically investigate the topic of university–industry partnerships. Before this study, there was a lack of empirical research and data collection on this topic in Armenian higher education settings. Therefore, this research holds significant originality and contributes to filling the existing gap in knowledge regarding university–industry partnerships in Armenia. The research is shedding light on a previously unexplored area and providing a valuable contribution to the field of university–industry collaboration research in Armenia and other post-Soviet countries.

The purpose of this paper is to explore affirmative action policy in higher education (HE) admissions in post-Soviet Georgia.

The study analyzed the effectiveness of the quota system from the perspective of the “minority rights protection” and “diversity” paradigms. The study used content analysis, focus group discussions, and interviews research methods.

Research revealed several important patterns: the problems of minority education are associated with academic achievements as well as social integration; although the importance of diversity is evident in the Government of Georgia, the benefits of diversity are not realized fully through affirmative action policies in institutions of HE. The authors have argued that the shift from the “minority rights protection” to the “diversity” paradigm is necessary to solve minority students’ existing problems and to benefit from the positive effects of diversity on academic and democratic outcomes for all students.

The findings of this study have practical importance. They can be used for the implementation of the affirmative action policy in HE admissions system of Georgia.

The paper is based on original research conducted in Georgia and the study contributes to the development of the field of multicultural and minority education in Georgia.