EntranceInformatization and education. "University Science" opens its doors University Science
It is known that the scientific potential of a university depends, on the one hand, on the personnel composition and the level of accumulated knowledge and, on the other hand, on the nature of the goals and the content of the tasks being solved. The accumulation of scientific potential is determined by the expansion of the volume of fundamental and applied scientific research, intensification of research activities of students and young scientists, improving the quality of their scientific training, targeted training of scientific and pedagogical personnel of the highest professional qualifications at the level of world qualification requirements. The scientific potential of the university includes the achievements and innovative developments of world science, which make it possible to outline solution strategies based on the systemic relationship of problems. Moreover, in modern conditions inclusion of the Russian system higher education into the pan-European educational space and the transition to a two-level education system, university science is faced with the task of strengthening the research component of higher education.
Global development trends public life indicate the need for more active inclusion of university science in solving practical problems. Thus, the Sorbonne Declaration assigns a pivotal role to the university in the life of society. The Bologna Declaration emphasizes the central role of universities in the development of the European cultural dimension.
University science always focuses on searching and learning new things, and therefore on continuous development and self-improvement. At a university there is always joint research activity between teachers and students, pedagogical creativity, and creative initiative of students - all components of the innovative spirit that should find a place in the new school.
The main competencies currently accepted in Europe, which university graduates must master: research, search, analytical, communication, business and adaptation. These competencies are the basis for the implementation of new, including project-based, technologies in teaching that contribute to the development of student research activity. Answering general principles construction and organization of research work, scientific research in the field of education have their own specifics.
As is known, the methodology of science distinguishes between fundamental and applied research and development. Basic Research, aimed at studying patterns in the field of education, build a search strategy and create a general theoretical basis for further research. Applied research solves individual theoretical and practical problems related to the content and structure of education.
Scientific developments directly serve the practice of education; they are aimed at creating technologies for teaching and interaction in the educational process, formulating specific recommendations for preparing and supporting teacher activities. Complex pedagogical research due to the complexity of the subject itself, they contain all three types of scientific research with a predominance of one or another type in each specific case. If fundamental research, as a rule, constitutes the potential of university science and is carried out by the teaching staff of the departments, then applied research and development represent a space for interaction between the university and the school. The peculiarities of such research include, first of all, that their source is the needs of the educational sphere, that is, real problematic situations that arise at school. At the same time, applied research can be based on specific requests and limited in time, long-term, aimed at changing and developing the education system. The end product of such research is the implementation of the results into the practice of education, the transformation of this practice in such a way that it becomes possible not only to identify new ways pedagogical activity, but also to identify patterns of their application.
Applied research is usually carried out within the framework of well-known scientific concepts and schools; the general course of research is determined by theoretical models built on their basis. The logic and structure of applied research in the field of education, the ratio of components may vary, but in general they should be subordinated uniform laws methodology of science, principles of planning a psychological and pedagogical experiment. The university plays a leading role in this part of the study.
Hypotheses of scientific and pedagogical research can be varied: they relate to new phenomena in the life of a school that are in the initial stages of development, to the predicted consequences of actions, and so on. A characteristic feature of research conducted jointly by a school and a university is the creation, along with a theoretical one, of a normative research model, that is, a model for transforming existing reality, including stages, methods, forms, and criteria for the effectiveness of work. The research implementation phase largely falls on the shoulders of educational institutions, on the basis of which the experiment is carried out, its implementation depends on the specifics of a particular institution, its resource base, and the characteristics of the interaction of subjects of the educational process.
An important stage of scientific research, the importance of which is often underestimated by schools when conducting independent empirical research, is the stage of processing and interpreting the results. The role of the university with its powerful information and intellectual resources is also great here. The output documents of applied research are usually methodological and didactic manuals, guidelines for use in mass practice. It is no coincidence that the Bologna process of modernization of higher education implies that the space of higher education and the space of scientific research are two pillars of a knowledge-based society.
The image of a teacher, as shown by the survey results, does not include such a component as his research activities. Participation in scientific work, motivation and readiness for scientific activity do not matter for the image and, therefore, for the authority of the teacher. Of course, this is largely due to stereotypes of consciousness formed by images of the teacher as a subject specialist or as an educator, but not as an active, searching researcher. However, a modern school requires a new teacher. Image is of particular importance for students and graduates of pedagogical universities, since this is one of the conditions for their success in the process professional adaptation At school. A modern university considers as one of the main competencies of a graduate his readiness for research activities. Such young teachers, university graduates, become guides, a link between university science and the education system, destroying the formed stereotypes of the image of a teacher, forming a new image of a teacher in a new school.
How does a university lay the foundations for scientific activity in the field of education? First of all, this is the joint work of teachers and students, both within educational process, and outside it, in which the main components of readiness for scientific activity are formed - cognitive, operational and motivational. These forms are quite well known - conferences, student scientific societies, work on projects in temporary research teams and laboratories, supervision of coursework and diploma theses as the first samples of students' research activities. One of the forms of implementation of elements of research activity can be the practice of students in educational institutions.
As our experience, the experience of other universities, knowledge of theory and technology have shown pedagogical work acquires personal meaning for a student only in a practical situation.
If practice at a university is organized with a focus on the development of research activities, students develop an attitude towards the acquired knowledge as an instrumental value, without which successful professional development is impossible.
Enriching teaching practice with research tasks aimed at developing diagnostic, analytical and prognostic abilities, organizational skills and abilities, pedagogical observation, empathy, reflection, performs another important function - increasing interest in teaching work, increasing its significance in the eyes of students. Motivation for research activities, thus, turns out to be closely related to pedagogical motivation.
Along with the traditional tasks of practice - deepening, systematizing, generalizing and concretizing theoretical knowledge, developing professionally important skills and abilities, general and professional culture, there are also the value opportunities of practice, its importance for the personal and professional self-determination of future teachers. Active engagement in research activities during the internship period largely determines the structure of students’ value priorities. The condition for strengthening the research orientation of practice is the integration of the content of practice assignments with students’ scientific work. In this case, the real problems of the school become a source of setting research tasks: this includes the analysis of conflicts, and the assessment of the socio-psychological climate, the individual style of the teacher, and the study of parent-child relationships. It is advisable that the substantive and procedural aspects of practice be directly interconnected with the research work of students and reflect the topics of research work of the experimental sites, the leading topics of the university departments.
It is necessary that the content of the practice has a high degree of integrativeness and interdisciplinarity, synthesizing the educational material of various subjects of the psychological-pedagogical, subject-methodological, humanitarian and socio-economic, natural science cycles of the curriculum. Specific tasks stimulate students to search for information from various fields of knowledge, adapt interdisciplinary material to solve assigned problems, summarize data and evaluate the effectiveness of solutions. The frequency, validity, and expediency of using different methods of integration and transfer are indicators of the formation of students’ attitude towards pedagogical phenomena and processes as complex, requiring scientific understanding and research.
An important factor that increases the research motivation of students during practice is variability, that is, the variety of forms and methods of conducting practice, monitoring and reporting of students, depending on the specifics of the educational institution, the profile of training, and the individual characteristics of the student himself. Maximally individualized tasks contribute to the targeted development of students’ creative and intellectual potential. Thus, at the university, at different stages of training, the research culture of the personality of the future teacher is consistently formed.
As part of monitoring studies, we studied the opinions of teachers about the new requirements for a modern teacher.
Teachers note erudition based on the modernity of educational material as the most important characteristic of a good teacher (28% of the sample). Create your own curricula, that is, the creative component of teaching activity, is considered by teachers as an important characteristic of a modern teacher. (See diagram 1.)
When preparing for and conducting classes, most teachers use published teaching materials(36.9%). 27.4% of teachers turn to scientific literature, 31.1% turn to materials from the Internet. Figure 5 shows a fairly high search activity of teachers, knowledge of technical and electronic means, and computer literacy. Some teachers (4.6%) also noted the use of the results of their own research activities. Thus, in a modern school there is potential, a readiness to use the achievements of science, and, among a certain part of teachers, to participate in scientific work. 71.8% of teachers responded that they were ready to take part in scientific research and development, including grants. (See diagram 2.)
The majority of teachers associate their professional plans for the near future with on-the-job training (61.3% of the sample); this is the most common way of professional growth for them. 10.5% of respondents plan to obtain a scientific degree. (See diagram 3.)
Of interest is the motivation of parents for choosing a quality school. Particular attention should be paid to two positions. 24.1% of parents believe that the teaching staff should be highly qualified and monitor the latest scientific achievements, 8.4% of parents consider teachers' scientific work, their fame and publications as an important factor in choosing a school with a quality education.
All participants in the educational process have a positive attitude towards “Our New School”; everyone believes that the need for changes is long overdue, however, some teachers and parents (up to 20%) express concerns that innovation processes can destroy the positive experience already available in the education system. The majority believes that it should be supplemented with innovations the best traditions school education.
When answering the question of how scientific research should be implemented in schools, the opinions of teachers were divided approximately equally: 50% believe that schools should independently look for promising scientific directions that allow them to develop the school’s profile; the other half are sure that it would be better if the board of education recommends certain scientific developments for implementation.
The question of how to implement achievements into practice remains important modern science reflected in dissertation research prepared at universities. Teachers noted the need for direct participation of dissertation candidates in the life of the school, so that dissertation research would not be isolated from the realities of the school and real children. According to many teachers, district methodological centers can be a link that organizes the transfer of scientific research results directly to schools.
One of the most effective forms of implementation scientific knowledge(university science) today has become the activity of experimental sites in the Moscow educational space. (See diagram 4.)
The majority of teachers surveyed had a positive attitude towards experimental sites. Teachers (72.3%) generally support the work of ED, but some teachers are indifferent to them (13.6%), believe that it is “an extra burden” (4.7%), “a waste of time” (5. 4%), “material goes to no one knows where” (4.0%). We can draw a general conclusion that there is high potential in school education, significant experience in scientific development has been accumulated, and in almost every school there is a certain percentage of teachers who are ready to take on innovative activities.
Since 2005, the Department of Education has had a well-thought-out and structured system for managing experimental and innovative activities, combining the potential of scientific and educational institutions in the development, testing and implementation of projects in strategic areas of education development.
An experimental site is a special form of organizing joint activities of representatives pedagogical science and school practice in the development, testing and implementation of new technologies of training and education, new management mechanisms, new strategic directions for school development.
In the capital's education system, a lot of scientific work has long been launched, aimed at improving all aspects of the educational process. We can safely say that almost every educational institution under the supervision of the Department of Education is, to one degree or another, involved or has participated in experimental work on various scientific projects. Currently, there are about 270 first-level urban experimental sites operating in Moscow.
These platforms cover almost all areas of transformation of the educational process. The topic of work reflects the task of modernizing schools based on the concept of development of metropolitan education. For each experimental site, technology has been developed and there are specific tools and methods for developing scientific topics. The research topics cover the scientific interests of all participants in the educational process, all the specifics of the educational space and solve the problems of “Our New School”. (See diagram 5.)
The scientific potential involved in this work includes about 35 scientific institutions in Moscow - these are universities, research institutes and research centers. Universities make up approximately 40% of the total number of scientific institutions. The scientific supervision of the experimental work is carried out by about 370 highly qualified scientists, among them about 130 doctors of science (35%). About 900 educational institutions provided their sites for experimental work. These are orphanages, boarding schools, general education and specialized schools, gymnasiums, cadet corps, lyceums, creativity centers. The City Expert Council on GEP conducts an annual analysis of the results of experimental and innovative activities in educational institutions and submits it to the Department of Science of Vocational Education.
At present, when experimental work has been organizationally formed, when the thematic focus of research has been determined, the stage of active implementation of scientific results begins. The implementation of the demands of the education system and the demands of practice requires higher university potential and coordination of the efforts of universities.
Own five year olds experimental studies at the GEP of our institute, the preparation of reports, the analysis of ways to implement the results in mass schools allowed us to see some of the problems of this work associated with insufficient coordination of efforts with various scientific institutions working at the experimental sites of the city.
We believe that the time has come for the university to expand its capabilities. This requires the unification of university science into one system of relations among universities. We can talk about creating an interuniversity innovation structure, at least within Moscow, it is necessary to combine efforts in disseminating experience and improving work at the experimental site, aimed at increasing the efficiency of implementation of research results. It is also important that the development of topics for coursework and dissertations be tied to the topics of the experimental sites.
Students receive specific assignments based on problems solved at experimental sites and take part in solving these problems. Student work is viewed as a continuous process of scientific research. The level of topic development achieved by some students must be accumulated and continued by others. This, in turn, will increase the quality of graduates’ training and their level of mastery of advanced educational technologies.
Universities also need to improve student training in how to conduct scientific research. research work in the light of innovative activities in the capital’s education and, of course, the training of master’s students.
When moving to a new school, the existing system of advanced training changes. One of the real forms of introducing scientific psychological knowledge into pedagogical process remains psychological support innovative works through psychological services. Therefore, the task of practice is to update the means and methods of psychological services.
Conducting system analysis problems of interaction between the university and the school and speaking about the goals and objectives of “Our New School”, it should be recognized that in modern conditions a powerful strategic resource that can adequately respond to the challenges of the time, provide a qualitatively new level of scientific support for education in content and form - scientific developments in the field of education.
Dezhina Irina Gennadievna 2011NEW FORMS AND NEW PROBLEMS OF ORGANIZING SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES
Dezhina Irina Gennadievna
Doctor of Economics, Head of the Sector of Economics, Science and Innovation, Institute of World Economy and International Relations RAS
Moscow, Russia e-mail: [email protected]
The development of science in Russian universities as a new priority of the state
The article analyzes current state and the place of science in Russian universities, as well as the main government measures aimed at integrating science and education and supporting science in universities. It is shown that recent government initiatives to form a network of elite universities are not accompanied by the creation of incentives for institutional changes that would contribute to the development of scientific work.
Key words: science, integration of education and science, research universities, scientific and educational centers, state science policy.
Supporting science in Russian universities is becoming a new government priority. The draft “Strategy for Innovative Development of the Russian Federation for the Period until 2020” states that research universities “should become the core of a new integrated scientific and educational complex, ensuring... the implementation of a significant share of fundamental and applied research” (Strategies..., 2010). It is planned to develop a whole range of measures aimed specifically at supporting and gradually concentrating scientific research in universities (strengthening the personnel component of university science, updating equipment, participation of universities in technological platforms, in the creation of small enterprises, supporting their cooperation with enterprises, etc.).
It should be noted that science in Russian universities has never been their competitive advantage. Despite a number of efforts made by the state,
the structure of the country's scientific complex has changed little and universities remain an insignificant segment in terms of funding and personnel potential. Today, university science is not yet competitive in many respects compared to academic science, especially if we evaluate the effectiveness of scientific research by the number and quality of publications (their citation rate), and the prestige of journals published by academic research organizations and universities. For example, of the 112 Russian publications with the highest impact factor that are included in the Web of Science database, 95 are published by institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, and only 2 by universities (Poisk, 2010).
In 2009-2010, the government developed and began implementing a number of ambitious projects aimed at increasing the role of Russian universities not only in the country, but also in the world. An important component of the measures being implemented is support for science and integration processes related to science.
Universities in the country's scientific complex
IN last years A group of leading universities was formed in the country, where the development of scientific research became one of the key objectives included in their strategies and plans. But even the country’s strongest universities are still characterized by an internal separation of education and science, which is overcome with great difficulty, as well as weak integration with academic and other organizations of the country’s scientific complex.
University researchers have a different labor and professional legal status than teaching staff. The basic pay of university teachers is several times higher than that of scientists in research departments; there are no centralized payments for employees of scientific departments academic degrees. At the same time, the lecture load standards for teachers are significantly higher than those of their colleagues abroad. All this makes university research departments an unattractive place to work, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it reduces incentives for teachers to engage in scientific work.
An additional problem hindering the development of science in universities is related to part-time work. In post-Soviet times, most university teachers began to combine work at several universities, as well as provide private educational services, so individual work With undergraduate and graduate students, doing science began to have even less time. According to a study conducted by the National Research University Higher School of Economics, at least 40% of university teachers work part-time, but for only less than 5% of them this work is related to conducting any kind of scientific research. At the same time, 12.2% teach in other state educational institutions, and almost 40% are engaged in tutoring, private educational services, preparation for entering universities, etc.1
For the university, the main reporting items to the state remain the plan for admitting students to the first year and the hourly workload of professors and teachers.
1 Data for 2008 Source: Tensile test. Excerpts from the report of the rector of the National Research University Higher School of Economics Y. Kuzminov “Academic community in Russia - breaking an effective contract” // Search. 2010. November 19 (No. 47). P. 6.
corps in accordance with the curriculum of specialties and specializations. Thus, even from a regulatory point of view, science is not the main activity of universities. As a result, less than half of universities conduct at least some kind of scientific work, without discussing issues of its volume and quality. Only about 19% of university faculty are engaged in scientific research - a figure that has increased by only 2% over the past five years and remains dismally low.
Integration of science and education: government approaches and successful practices
The integration of science and education was declared as one of the strategic objectives of the state at the very beginning of the 1990s. In practice, it began to be supported by the government in 1996, when a package of documents was developed on the organization and financing of the Presidential Target Program “State Support for the Integration of Higher Education and Basic Science for 1997-2000” (“Integration”)2. Its main component was the creation of educational and scientific centers (ETCs) on the basis of universities or academic scientific organizations. At the same time, integration was primarily understood as a partnership between academic research organizations and universities, and not as the “cultivation” and strengthening of intra-university science.
In Soviet science there were various shapes interactions between research institutes and universities, many of which developed spontaneously. In some cases, stable traditions of cooperation have historically been formed, which were not destroyed even in the difficult post-Soviet period. As a result, the “Integration” program primarily received support from those who already had experience in cooperation.
Meanwhile, small funds were allocated for integration activities, so development within the Program went along the lines of assigning functions that already existed initially to research institutes and universities. Thanks to integration, the training of specialists in universities has improved, and academic institutions have the opportunity to select the best young researchers to work in their laboratories. Nevertheless, the strengthening of science in universities did not happen, and academic scientists no longer began to teach. The structure of the organization and financing of science remained virtually unchanged - thus, the overwhelming volume of fundamental research continued to be carried out in academic institutes. This situation continues to this day (Fig. 1).
The Integration program had every chance to evolve and become an initiative to highlight and support research universities. There were every reason for this, and even draft regulations were developed for the creation of research universities. Instead, the Program was curtailed, and its activities were redistributed among other federal target programs. Ultimately, this led to the fact that the implementation of centralized measures to strengthen university science was postponed for almost 10 years.
2 Later, the program received federal target status and became known as “Integration of Science and Higher Education in Russia.”
Picture 1
Basic research in Russian universities and academic institutes (as a percentage of the total funding for basic research in the country)
Sources: Russian Science in Figures - 2009. Statistical collection. M.: CISN, 2009. P. 91; Science of Russia in numbers - 2010. Statistical collection. M.: CISN, 2010 (in print), tab. 4.22.
Almost simultaneously with the Integration Program - in 1998 - the implementation of another, quite successful, initiative began, aimed at strengthening natural and technical sciences in universities - the Basic Research and Higher Education (BRHE) Program. The idea was that through the rapprochement of science and education in Russia it is possible not only to strengthen science and create conditions for obtaining modern education, but also to solve a number of problems, including continuity and attracting young people to science. The Program was based on the model of creating “growth points” in Russian universities with a modern research base, where high level Young specialists are being trained. The development of external relations with Russian and foreign organizations and universities was also considered relevant, and therefore became one of the key components of the Program.
The BRHE program is a joint initiative of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science and the American Civil Research and Development Foundation (CRDF). For the first five years, funding was provided on a parity basis: 50% was allocated by the Russian side (including 25% from federal funds, and 25% from local, including regional, sources) and 50% from the American side through CRDF, thanks to grants allocated by the John Foundation D. and Catherine T. MacArthur and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Later the American share dropped to 30%.
Within the framework of the Program, 20 scientific and educational centers (REC) were created. At the first stage of the Program’s development, each REC received guaranteed (“basic”) funding of about $1.5 million for 5 years, which was a significant amount for the late 1990s - early 2000s. Stable long-term funding made it possible to purchase scientific equipment and develop training programs at the base modern research. On average, about 60% of the total grant was spent by the centers on the purchase of equipment, 20% on salaries, and 10% on supporting young scientists and graduate students.
The next step in the development of the Program was the transition from “basic” to project financing: centers began to compete with each other for resources that were allocated in a targeted manner for the implementation of large scientific and educational projects. Unfortunately, project funding lasted only three years, and currently support for RECs is provided mainly from Russian sources, but not in a targeted manner, but through the participation of centers in programs and events of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation.
RECs are an example of “successful practice” of integration: scientific cooperation of scientists from academic organizations and universities has become equal, about 10% of REC staff are scientists from RAS institutes. At the same time, the number of publications in international publications increased by an average of 30%. The development of scientific research, in turn, entailed the updating and revision of lecture courses and practical exercises. Every year, each of the centers made adjustments to student training programs. At the same time, the number of updated programs ranged from 3-4 to 20. Finally, significantly more young people participating in the REC remained in science: about 60% of the Centers’ employees are scientists under the age of 35. At the same time, 37% of those who defended their dissertations there remained to work in science - a proportion significantly higher than the national average.
An important indicator of the success of the Program can be considered the fact that universities have revised their approaches to planning their work and strategic management. This helped them formulate long-term development programs and therefore successfully participate in subsequent competitions held by the Ministry of Education and Science - innovative educational programs of universities, research universities, grants for the creation of laboratories under the guidance of leading scientists of the world. It was easier for universities participating in the BRHE program to formulate programs for scientific and innovative development, since using the REC model they had already worked out approaches and schemes for organizing science, education, external relations and their management.
Unfortunately, the REC model developed within the framework of the BRHE Program has not found wide application in Russian practice - those research and educational centers that later began to be created in universities with state support have a different content, which is due to the much more modest scale of their funding and other principles of distribution of funds.
Recently, a new impetus for integration processes has arisen not as a result of targeted government actions, but as a by-product of completely different actions - namely, support for the material base of research in universities, which the government is consistently implementing.
As a result, the balance of the composition and quality of scientific equipment in the country’s scientific complex has changed - whereas previously all the best and unique equipment was located
was carried out mainly in the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, then as a result of updating the instrument base of universities, a number of unique installations appeared in them. At the same time, since the conditions for conducting scientific research in universities have practically not changed, it turned out that the only way to effectively use the equipment is joint scientific work of academic and departmental scientific organizations and universities. At the same time, such cooperation became beneficial to both parties - researchers at academic research institutes received access to new equipment, and universities received the opportunity to participate in promising, modern work, training students and graduate students modern methods research. As a consequence, this has led to an increase in high-quality publications prepared jointly by employees of scientific organizations and universities, including with the participation of undergraduate and graduate students.
The results of an inventory of almost 400 objects of unique scientific equipment, carried out in 2009-2010 by IMEMO RAS3, make it possible to quantify some of the processes outlined above. It turned out that today, on average, academic research organizations have older installations than universities. Since 2007, 26% of new installations have been commissioned in academic institutions, and 37% in universities. At leading universities, unique equipment is mainly located in scientific institutes at universities that have a relatively autonomous status (this situation is typical, for example, for Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, Tomsk Polytechnic University, Southern Federal University).
However, the equipment utilization rate is higher in academic research organizations, which is explained by more intensive scientific work in academic institutes compared to universities. In academic institutions, 40% of the equipment located there is loaded at 91-100% of normal. In universities, only 15% of all unique installations are operated with such intensity. 20% of the unique equipment located in academic research organizations and 31% of the equipment located in universities are loaded by half or less (in relation to the passport regime). The participation of academic institutions in conducting research at universities contributes to more efficient use of scientific equipment in universities.
Formation of an elite group of research universities
In 2009, support for university science became one of the important directions of state policy. It began to be implemented through giving special statuses (titles) to selected universities. As a result, a network of 29 national research universities was created, Moscow and St. Petersburg State Universities (MSU and St. Petersburg State University) received the special status of “unique scientific and educational complexes”4, and 7 federal universities,
3 More detailed results of the study are presented in the book: Dezhina I. Innovative development of Russia in the light of the “triple helix” theory // Global transformation of innovative systems / resp. ed. N. I. Ivanova. M.: IMEMO RAS, 2010. pp. 86-87.
4 About Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov and St. Petersburg State University: Feder. Russian law Federation of November 10, 2009 No. 259-FZ // Ross. gas. 2009. 13 Nov. (No. 5038).
in which the development of science is declared one of the priorities. It is expected that at least two more federal universities will be created - in Kaliningrad and in the North Caucasus region.
In latent form, the selection of the best, “elite” universities began back in 2006, when the government initiated an innovative educational program(IEP) within the framework of the national project “Education”. Based on the results of the competition, 57 universities were selected, which received significant budget funding for two years. The purpose of support is to improve the quality of educational and scientific activities through the purchase of new equipment, advanced training of personnel, training of new educational materials and benefits. This was the first large-scale experience of training universities in project management, selection of development priorities, as well as new forms of reporting based on a set of quantitative indicators. The IEP can be considered as the first step in the policy of giving status to universities - universities that won the competition began to be considered the strongest in the country.
At the same time, in 2006, two federal universities were formed - the Siberian Federal and the Southern Federal (SFU and SFU). They were created by combining several diversified universities - thus becoming the largest in the country. Federal universities have a regional focus: according to official documents, such universities are created to increase the competitiveness of leading sectors of the economy in their respective regions. Granting “federal” status is accompanied by additional budget funding, which can be spent on certain (but not all) types of activities. Federal universities, along with solving the problems outlined in the IEP, must pay significant attention to the development of science and its integration with education, in particular by inviting foreign teachers and researchers, increasing the number and proportion of students and graduate students from abroad and other activities.
The decision to create federal universities can be considered as a purely political one, made at the highest government level without broad coordination and discussion. This was once again confirmed in 2009, when the President of the Russian Federation D. A. Medvedev signed a decree on the creation in Russia of five federal universities5, also selected on a regional basis, but according to criteria unknown to the public. Moreover, as follows from numerous discussions, the transformation of a number of universities into federal universities was unexpected even for their employees.
A slightly different picture is typical for research universities, the third initiative that began in pilot mode at the end of 2008. Then two universities (MISiS and MEPhI) were given the status of national research universities out of competition. In 2009-2010, 27 more universities were added to them, which received this status on a competitive basis.
Research universities will be supported from budget funds for 5 years, and the rules drawn up and approved by them will be fully implemented.
5 On the creation of federal universities in the Northwestern, Volga, Ural and Far Eastern federal districts: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 21, 2009 No. 1172 // Published in "RG" - Federal issue No. 5026 of October 23, 2009
They must complete the development program by 2018. Each university formulated its own development program, and it was adjusted and approved in a new form after the status was assigned (this is also typical for federal universities). As two years of experience in implementing this initiative shows, a single document that would answer the question of why it was necessary to form a network of national research universities has not appeared. At the same time, the programs put together do not fit together: for example, the number of representatives of the scientific diaspora, whom, according to their development programs, all research universities together are going to attract to cooperation, significantly exceeds the number of Russian scientists abroad (Fedyukin, Frumkin , 2010: 29).
Research universities are allocated additional budget funding on the basis of 20 percent co-financing (as in the IOP) and permission to spend funds under five headings to implement their stated development programs. The types of activities permitted for financing include: acquisition of educational and scientific equipment, advanced training of teachers and researchers at universities, development of educational programs, development of information resources, as well as improvement of the quality management system for education and scientific research6. At the same time, the mechanism for allocating funds is constantly being adjusted, which complicates the work of universities: for example, in 2009, funds were allocated to them on the basis of subsidies, in 2010 the principles of financing were changed - an attempt was made to centrally order (through departments) equipment and services for universities, and by the end year, the financing scheme was again revised. In addition, and this is even more significant, if we bear in mind the task of supporting science in universities, budget funds allocated to research universities cannot be spent on financing scientific research, supporting scientific departments and groups, as well as graduate students. Finally, the basic conditions governing the activities of Russian research universities remain the same as for other universities. Therefore, the integration of science and education within universities is still complicated. A similar situation is typical for federal universities. As a result, ambitious goals are set, but achieving them is extremely problematic.
The policy implemented by the Russian government to assign a number of universities the category of “national research” is based on the concept of strengthening existing universities through temporary additional budget injections, rather than the gradual development of research universities. This approach has a right to exist, but if we strive to achieve the parameters characteristic of research universities around the world, then in addition to funding, a number of conditions regulating the work of universities must be created and adjusted. These include such as ensuring the possibility of attracting foreign teachers and students, the formation of endowments,
6 On the competitive selection of university development programs for which the category “national research university” is established: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation. Federation dated July 13, 2009 No. 550; Regulations on the competitive selection of university development programs for which the category “national research university” is established. ИКБ: http://mon.gov.ru/dok/prav/obr/5556
construction of campuses and a number of others. However, another approach is also possible, which may turn out to be more effective - the state takes upon itself to create favorable conditions for the work of any universities, including for the development of science in them. And then, on a competitive basis, they will apply for budget funding for scientific projects and, depending on their potential, whether or not to receive this additional funding. At the same time, in the end, an “elite” group will definitely appear in the general mass of universities, which will be a natural result of development in conditions of competition and equal opportunities.
Strengthening university science and its integration with educational process is of great importance for the development of all components of the innovation system. For Russia, taking into account the system of division of functions that has developed in the country’s scientific complex, this is a particularly urgent task. The government has taken various steps to solve this problem: from attempts to integrate various organizations (primarily academic) with universities to assigning universities various statuses, which are supported by additional budget funding, including those aimed at strengthening the material base of the scientific and educational process. Meanwhile, there are no incentives for institutional changes in universities that would contribute to the development of science. It is important to change the management system educational activities, radically revising the standards and requirements for the work of teaching staff in order to create real opportunities and incentives to engage in scientific research, make the system of financing university science more flexible, and eliminate internal and external regulatory barriers between education and science. In addition, the “successful practices” that exist in Russia indicate that all of them (it is not clear what we are talking about - about “successful practices”) are built on the cooperation of universities, academic and other scientific organizations, taking into account the traditional connections, rather than pitting them against each other.
Literature
Strategies for innovative development Russian Federation for the period until 2020. Project. Version dated December 31, 2010, p. 64. URL: http://www.economy.gov.ru/minec/activity/sections/innovations/doc20101231_016
Kuzminov Ya. Academic community in Russia - the rupture of an effective contract // Search. 2010. November 19 (No. 47). P. 6.
Dezhina I. Innovative development of Russia in the light of the “triple helix” theory // Global transformation of innovative systems / resp. ed. N. I. Ivanova. M.: IMEMO RAS, 2010. pp. 86-87.
Fedyukin I., Frumin I. Russian flagship universities // Pro et Contra. 2010. No. 3 (May-June). P. 29.
Development of Research in Russian Higher Education Institutes as a New Government Priority
Irina G. Dezhina
PhD in Economics, Head of Department of Economics Science and Innovations Institute of Economics and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
e-mail: [email protected]
In the article the analysis of the modern status and place of science in Russian higher educational institutes is presented, as well as key government measures aimed at integration of research and education in universities. It is demonstrated that government initiatives to create a group of elite universities are not accompanied by introduction of additional stimulus that would encourage the development of science in these universities.
Keywords: Science, integration of education and research, research universities, research-educational centers, government science policy.
Alexander M. Gabovich
Leading Research Associate of the Crystal Physics Department at the Institute of Physics of NASU, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine e-mail: [email protected]
Vladimir I. Kuznetsov
Principal Research Associate of the Department of Logic and Methodology of Science at the Institute of Philosophy of NASU,
Professor of the National University ‘Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’ and Kyiv University of Law, Doctor of Philosophical Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine
e-mail: [email protected]
Is the personal-member institution of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences justified in the light of scientometric indicators?
For whom untosoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Existence of state-supported academies of science is a distinctive feature of the fundamental-science organization in Ukraine. Their research staff is divided into two groups: (i) personal members (academicians and corresponding members) and the rest of the researchers. First-group members have numerous economic and status privileges. It is officially purported that personal members are more
February 27, starting at 9.00.
Embed code for the site
The future of medical science begins today! This is how we can characterize the International Medical Forum “University Science. INNOVATIONS", which will be held on February 27-28, 2019 at the First Moscow State Medical University named after. THEM. Sechenov.
The forum is held under the auspices of the Association “Council of Rectors of Medical and Pharmaceutical Universities of Russia” with the aim of supporting leading scientific teams carrying out research activities in priority areas of development of medical science, focused on the creation of high-tech innovative products that ensure the preservation and strengthening of public health. It is a platform for summing up the results of the work of scientific teams and researchers from all over Russia.
On February 28, the key event of the Forum will be held - the Plenary session “Sechenov University - University of Life Sciences”. The following speakers will speak at the meeting:
Pyotr Glybochko, rector of the First Moscow State Medical University named after. THEM. Sechenov;
Gennady Onishchenko, first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Education and Science;
Natalya Polushkina, Vice President, Executive Director of the Biological and Medical Technologies Cluster of the Skolkovo Foundation.
Also invited to participate in the Forum are the Minister of Health of the Russian Federation Veronika Skvortsova, the Minister of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation Mikhail Kotyukov and others.
On this day, the following sections will be held in the halls of the Sechenov University Congress Center: “Invasive Technologies”, “Reproductive Health”, “Therapy”, “Tissue Bioengineering”, “Applied Bioengineering”.
Summing up the results of the all-Russian scientific and practical event for young scientists “UNIVERSITY SCIENCE RELAY”, presenting the best innovative projects in the field of healthcare of leading universities of the Russian Federation, and the All-Russian scientific and practical conference with international participation “MEDICAL SPRING - 2019” will be one of the main events of the Forum.
This year, about 450 projects from 48 Russian universities were announced to participate in the “University Science Relay” on scientific platforms approved by the Russian Ministry of Health: innovative activities of medical and pharmaceutical universities in Russia, fundamental technologies in medicine, oncology, cardiology and angiology, neurology, endocrinology, pediatrics, psychiatry and addictions, immunology, microbiology, pharmacology, preventive environment, reproductive health, regenerative medicine and invasive technologies. The regional expert commission selected 173 projects, 42 of which became finalists.
654 projects from 50 universities were submitted to the competition of student scientific projects “Medical Spring”. This year, the platforms were supplemented with a therapy section and a section of the Sechenovsky Pre-University Resource Center. The winners of the “University Science Relay” and “Medical Spring” will be awarded valuable prizes. The winners who took first place in the all-Russian scientific and practical event “University Science Relay” will receive the opportunity to have a two-week internship at the clinical bases of Sechenov University.
Over the course of two days, forum guests will take part in scientific and practical conferences in the format of panel discussions and round tables. Main topics of discussion: innovative activities of medical and pharmaceutical universities in Russia, innovative fundamental technologies in medicine, regenerative medicine, invasive solutions, preventive environment, reproductive health, cardiology and other areas of medicine.
The Forum program includes plenary lectures on the latest research in the field of bionic nutrition, genomic sequencing, oncology, master classes for young researchers on academic writing and rules for submitting documents for grants.
An exhibition of scientific research from Russian universities and student scientific circles of Sechenov University will be organized at the event site. Russian publishing houses will present their periodicals.
The Forum will also feature two sections of the Resource Center “Medical Sechenov Pre-University” for students in grades 10 and 11.
“University Science” will present unique opportunities for students of all ages and young scientists: students from the Pre-University, representatives of student science and young researchers from 48 medical universities in Russia will present their works on the sidelines of the Forum. Their joint participation in the conference is not just an exchange of information, but a transfer of knowledge from generation to generation. We can say that a mentoring system will be formed within the framework of the conference. In addition, participation in the forum will allow you to see new trends in the development of scientific areas, understand which areas are most interesting for young people, and identify bright, promising scientific projects,” noted the Chairman of the Association “Council of Rectors of Medical and Pharmaceutical Universities of Russia”, Rector of Sechenov University Petr Glybochko.
Every year the International Medical Forum “University Science. INNOVATIONS" brings together more than 800 participants covering various areas of medical science.
Participants in the event will be professors, heads of scientific schools, recognized in the professional community, representatives of investment funds and research and production companies that shape the vector of development of medical science, and commercial structures that have made a significant contribution to the development of domestic medicine. The forum will be of interest to novice specialists who have as their goal the promotion of scientific ideas and developments.
The event will take place at the Congress Center of the First Moscow State Medical University named after. THEM. Sechenov at the address: Moscow, st. Trubetskaya, 8. The opening will take place February 27, starting at 9.00.
Copy to clipboard
The pursuit of formal indicators does not lead to an increase in the scientific productivity of universities. Real growth is facilitated by market orientation and the creation of a comfortable creative environment
Sergey Ermak, Pavel Kuznetsov, Kristina Chukavina
And the Expert analytical center has completed the fourth wave of research on scientific productivity Russian universities. Traditionally, we have divided it into two large blocks: fundamental (involves assessing the scale and quality of publication activity) and inventive (implies the study of patent activity). Thus, we were able to identify leaders in the field of theoretical research and identify those who figured out how to implement this research in practice.
The methodology for rating publication activity has not undergone any conceptual changes this year. But two innovations were still introduced into it. First, we divided economics and management, geosciences and ecology into separate areas. There are finally enough publications in each of these areas to allow us to draw informed conclusions.
Secondly, having heard the wishes of universities, we decided to further analyze a number of narrow niches. Our choice fell on metallurgy (this is a fairly large branch of scientific knowledge, a significant number of universities are developing in this area), artificial intelligence and biochemistry (these rapidly developing industries in the next ten to fifteen years can completely change the world order).
The main conclusion of the ranking: universities continue to actively invest in fundamental science. This year, 125 universities from 44 cities passed the qualification to be included in the ranking in at least one subject (in 2018 there were 105 and 37, respectively). At the same time, the number of establishments represented in only one area decreased from 43 to 38. The number of universities included in all 14 rankings increased to seven (in addition to the expected Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, UrFU, KFU, NSU, Tomsk Polytechnic and Tomsk State University were included in the list State University s).
Let us note that over the year the level of scientific competition has visibly increased. The average number of newcomers entering the top 10 in a given subject area increased from one to one and a half. The leader in renewal was the economy, where four universities that were not previously present in it were in the top ten.
Despite increased competition, the top five universities showing high results in the largest number of subject areas have not changed over the year - these are Moscow State University (located in the top three in 13 out of 14 major niches), St. Petersburg State University, NSU, ITMO and the Higher School of Economics. We have to admit: Moscow and St. Petersburg are still the undisputed leaders in the field of science among Russian universities.
Subspecialists and non-core leaders
We will begin our review with several interesting details in the publication activity of universities. First of all, this applies to such areas as economics and management. At first, this area existed in the ranking as a single whole. However, over four years, the number of publications in it increased two and a half times, which made it possible to painlessly separate one entity from another. A priori, however, we were afraid that we would end up with two absolutely identical lists of universities. But in reality it turned out differently. Yes, the leader of both ratings, as expected, was the specialized research university Higher School of Economics. St. Petersburg State University (which includes the Higher School of Management) no less expectedly ended up in the top three twice.
But it gets more interesting. Second place in economics was taken by the Russian Economic School (NES). Before the division of subject areas, this university was consistently included in the cohort of strong, but not leading universities (the number of articles was small, but the quality was very high). After narrowing the focus, it turned out that NES was being pulled down by management: in four years, only 20 relevant publications were indexed in scientific databases.
ITMO’s entry into the top three in management was also a surprise. It became one of the leading universities thanks to its interdisciplinary articles, half of which were written in international collaboration (for comparison: in mathematics and computer science, the corresponding ITMO figure is 33–37%).
Another area where surprises awaited us was medicine. on her detailed analysis We hesitated for a long time, since the results of preliminary research raised a lot of questions. But in the end, it still had to be done: it would be incorrect not to notice one of the most promising and rapidly developing branches of knowledge (and the universities working in it).
The current medical ranking includes 39 universities, and, despite the apparent specificity of the niche, only 15 of them are specialized. Four specialized universities were in the top ten: First Moscow State Medical University (MSMU) named after. I. M. Sechenova, Russian National Research Medical University, First St. Petersburg State Medical University and Novosibirsk State Medical University. All of them improved their positions compared to last year.
However, just like a year earlier, the leaders of the ranking were the Higher School of Economics and Moscow State University. The superiority of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in its non-core niche is explained by two factors. The first is the successful work of a professor at the Department of Health Management and Economics Vasily Vlasov. He co-authored a number of international publications that were devoted to summarizing the results of research on excess weight, cancer, analysis of the causes of mortality in countries around the world, etc. Hundreds of scientists from different countries took part in the preparation of these articles, an important achievement of which was the synthesis and consolidation fragmented national statistics. These international works became the basis for hundreds of studies. Some of them received two to three thousand citations, which is 350–450 times more than the average in this subject area (publications with the participation of Vasily Vlasov accounted for 90% of the citations received in the medical field at the Higher School of Economics, and 10% quotes received throughout it Russian science). The second factor in HSE’s success was active collaboration in publications and big number publications on topics related to medicine.
However, one cannot help but notice that the largest number of articles on medicine over the past four years have been published by Moscow State Medical University. I.M. Sechenov (his activity increased sharply after joining the “5–100” program in 2015), which allowed him to enter the top 3 of the subject area.
Meanwhile, the success of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in a non-core field raises an important question: how to take into account publications created through collaboration on a global scale when calculating scientific productivity? On the one hand, such articles are the foundation for hundreds of studies in the field of health care. On the other hand, these works are often not related to medicine in its traditional sense. For example, the most cited work (more than four thousand citations) is devoted to the collection and systematization of information on childhood and adult obesity across the world for more than thirty years. This article is part of the international project “Global Burden of Disease”, which forms a broad statistical base of indicators and brings together almost two thousand researchers from 127 countries; The project is supported by the World Health Organization and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. There is no obvious solution to this problem, and it is not a fact that one will ever be found. Therefore, it is hardly worth trying to get ahead of specialized universities in terms of formal characteristics of the National Research University Higher School of Economics or Moscow State University.
Another area with an atypical leader in the rating at first glance was chemistry. To say that ITMO’s championship here came as a complete surprise to us would be an exaggeration: for the previous two years, the university was consistently on the outskirts of the top three, and we saw that its indicators were continuously growing. A key factor in the success of St. Petersburg University was a sharp increase in the scale of scientific activity. If in 2012 its employees published only 16 articles in the field of chemistry, then in 2018 - already 196, and a significant part of them were published in very reputable journals (Nature Materials, Nature Communications, Nano Letters). At the same time, ITMO focuses on narrow, but rapidly developing and popular topics. This allowed him to bypass Moscow State University and Novosibirsk State University in terms of citation indicators, which cultivate a broader chemical field. Another factor that ensured ITMO’s leadership was the same active international scientific cooperation (70% of articles were written in collaboration with foreign scientists). With its help, the university obviously tried to simultaneously accelerate research in new directions and compensate for the lack of some general chemical competencies.
"Chemistry as a classical direction for a long time had and still has established leaders, whose development model has not changed for decades. Our university has made a kind of revolution in this area,” explains the head of the International Laboratory “Solution Chemistry of Advanced Materials and Technologies” at ITMO, explaining the university’s strategy Vladimir Vinogradov. - Of course, in terms of the number of publications we are significantly inferior to other universities in the top 5 rankings. But in other respects we are winning. This is the result of the implementation of the university’s policy in the field of scientific productivity. We are committed to fair play and focus on quality rather than artificially increasing the number of articles. The locomotive of this movement has become the ITMO international scientific centers, which combine new paradigms of research, educational and innovative activities (one of such centers, apparently, has become the chemical and biological cluster, focusing on nanoengineering and green chemistry, biorobots and DNA research. - "Expert")".
Significant lag national science from foreign ones, the insufficient effectiveness of university education, the lack of its strategic planning, the problems of Russian graduate school - all these are manifestations of the general crisis of science and education in Russia. This is the opinion of Leonid PERELOMOV, associate professor of Tula State University, candidate of biological sciences.
|
PERELOMOV Leonid Viktorovich - Associate Professor of Tula State University, Candidate of Biological Sciences. |
Leonid Viktorovich, how would you define the state of university science in Russia today? Does it need modernization? What needs to be done first for this?
Science as a complex human activity aimed at obtaining objective knowledge about nature and society, by definition, will always need constant development and updating. Scientific activity includes various components, some of which are the education system and scientific information- They are well developed in our country. However, the domestic scientific infrastructure (scientific institutions, experimental and laboratory equipment), and research methods lag significantly behind those in post-industrial and highly industrialized countries. The measures taken by the country's leadership to develop science are clearly insufficient and are often only of an image nature. There is a feeling that decision-makers have a certain misunderstanding of the role of science in a modern state, underestimating its potential effectiveness even from the standpoint of forming the country’s authority: for example, the launch of the first artificial satellite entered the history of mankind forever, but only specialists remember what happened at the 1958 FIFA World Cup in Sweden.
We should not forget that science is one of the spheres of a person’s spiritual life, part of his culture. Therefore, a crisis in science inevitably leads to a crisis in culture. In our country there is a unique unified system of scientific institutions - Russian Academy Sci.
Few countries can afford to have such government organization, whose main task should be the production of scientific knowledge. In this regard, university science has traditionally occupied a secondary position in our country. However, today the world is changing so quickly that classical, fundamental knowledge is no longer enough to train a good specialist - he must master the full range of modern knowledge in his field. This also puts forward new requirements for university teachers, who are required to freely navigate the latest achievements of science, which is impossible if the university teacher is not engaged in scientific work himself. Great importance has students' involvement in research work - mastering the methodology of scientific work contributes to the development logical thinking, forms creative approaches to solving professional problems.
In addition, I would like to quote the words of V.I. Vernadsky, who believed that “strengthening scientific work related to local or national life makes it possible to use the spiritual forces of the people as much as they can never be used in a unitary centralist organization. The local center uses and calls to life spiritual forces that are otherwise inaccessible to stimulation. In this way, the maximum intensification of scientific work is achieved.” 1 V this moment only higher educational institutions cover the entire territory of our huge country, and only on their basis is it possible to realize the scientific potential of a wide range of our citizens. Moreover, if we look at the university system of, say, Germany, the most famous and significant universities there are by no means the capital’s universities. All these arguments emphasize the urgent need for the widespread development of university science in Russia.
There is an opinion that receiving grants is not an easy story. You have a lot of experience in this regard. You were the owner of a grant from the President of the Russian Federation to support young candidates of science, and underwent scientific internships in Germany, Italy, and Japan. All this happened not so long ago. There was an element of luck in this, a happy coincidence, or your successes are the result of hard work, perseverance, determination and, of course, the talent to learn. What advice would you give to young scientists and researchers who do not want to leave their country and want to be useful to it?
Grants are a form of competitive funding for science. Please note that the terms “win” and “win the competition” are different from each other. Winning a game always has a significant element of chance and luck. And winning the competition means that you have demonstrated the best compliance with the conditions of this competition. Moreover, these conditions are quite simple: publications, previous grants (the so-called scientific foundation) and your ideas for solving the problem. The presence of a chain of these conditions is the key to the successful completion of your grant application. Therefore, for a novice researcher, the publication of the first article is extremely important in financial support for his work - a scientific supervisor should help with this. As for ideas, here, if you want to become an independent and self-respecting scientist, you need not to borrow ideas, but to generate them yourself. The minimum conditions required for this are your head and the presence of a good library. As a friend of mine says: “Two hours in the library saves two months in the laboratory.”
In addition, in our country there are sometimes, frankly speaking, strange selection criteria - such as the cost of work and the time it takes to complete it.
Of course, the work of the experts evaluating your grant application is not without subjectivity. But this subjectivity should normally manifest itself not in sympathy for your personality, but in interest in your idea and its support. Unfortunately, this is not always observed, especially in our country, especially at the level of provincial universities, but I don’t want to talk about it, since such phenomena have nothing to do with scientific expertise and real science.
Analyzing the practice of receiving domestic and foreign grants, I can say that in my case, of the above factors, success was associated with hard work and determination. You should not expect that every (or even every third) application you make will receive support. The lack of bias in the assessment of my projects is evidenced by the list of various organizations that supported the research: RFBR, Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, German Service academic exchanges, Japan-Russia Youth Exchange Center, INTAS, Volta Center - Landau Scientific Network, Australian Government.
I am happy to share my experience, but I really don’t like giving advice to anyone, so I will answer with quotes. One of them belongs to the poet Yu. Levitansky: “Everyone chooses for himself a woman, a religion, a path. Whether to serve the devil or the prophet - everyone chooses for himself.” Another quote from K. Ushinsky: “If you successfully choose work and put your soul into it, then happiness will find you on its own.”
As for stimulating the influx of young people into science, in my opinion, this can provide the opportunity for their self-realization in this area and a decent salary.
Do you agree that studying in Russian graduate school is fraught with problems? Why are the criteria by which graduate graduates in Russia are determined not valued in America and Europe? What is the main difference between Russian and foreign (European) scientists?
We should not talk about differences between scientists, but about differences in the organization and financial support of scientific research. In terms of these indicators, we differ sharply not only from Europe, but also from the countries of Latin America.
Of course, studying in Russian graduate school is associated with a number of problems, but I would not single them out separately - all these are manifestations of the general crisis of science and education in the country. Please note that in Europe and America, the evaluation criteria for our graduate students are not quoted, but the graduate students themselves are, for the most part, gladly accepted. This once again confirms that we need to unify the criteria for assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity with post-industrial countries if we ourselves want to follow the path of development.
The system of training postgraduate students (precisely postgraduate students, since few of them get to the point of defending a dissertation) in Russian universities is often distorted, from the purposes of admission to graduate school to the defense. Sometimes true goal admission to graduate school becomes not work on scientific problem, and, say, the additional teaching load of the teacher. That is, in this case we are not talking about science, but, in fact, about the social security of the scientific director. With decent salaries for university staff, such incidents would disappear on their own. Some managers, who still have non-material motivation, take on graduate students to obtain another academic title or to satisfy their own vanity.
As I understand, today there are no clear requirements for the publication of a dissertation candidate by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation: I have seen abstracts where the lists of published works included only abstracts of regional conferences and monographs of university publishing houses on free topics. The abstracts themselves were similar to reviews from the Internet, in which it was impossible to make out what was done by the dissertation author and what was borrowed from literary sources. Therefore, the supervisor must be responsible for the final result of the graduate student’s preparation - the defense of a high-quality dissertation.
This is not to say that work is not being done to improve the quality of dissertation papers - the number of dissertation councils has been radically reduced, abstracts must be posted on the website, etc. Just the other day, information was received that the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation is tightening the rules for opening postgraduate courses in universities. Despite this, reforming Russian postgraduate education will obviously require a long time.
How do you evaluate the criteria of the all-Russian system for assessing the effectiveness of higher education institutions in the research field from the Indicative List of June 19, 2012. Are they related to the topic of scientific development?
In my opinion, the Approximate list of criteria for assessing research activities is proposed correctly. I understand that it will not be easy for regional universities to adapt to such an assessment system. But this is the only way to become a part modern world. The criteria, in fact, set the goals for the development of science in universities. The next logical step should be a comprehensive Government program ensuring the achievement of these goals.
I am glad that the list does not include the “number of monographs” criterion, since publications of this kind, often not seriously reviewed, can be published in unlimited quantities with proper financial support.
Patent activity is assessed by the amount of funds from the management of intellectual property, which is also very rational.
- How would you define the relationship between university science and RAS organizations? How to avoid conflicts of interest?
At the moment, it seems to me that conflict relations have developed more between areas of research than between the Russian Academy of Sciences and universities, which is a normal situation. The Russian Foundation for Basic Research, Russian Humanitarian Foundation and other respected foundations finance projects regardless of the departmental affiliation of their authors. The situation could radically change if the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, within the framework of its federal targeted programs, finances projects exclusively in universities, and the size of grants from “supra-departmental” funds does not radically increase.
It seems that it would be in the public interest to reserve the exclusive right for the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation to finance infrastructure scientific projects for universities, and to finance initiative scientific projects through national scientific foundations, making their work more transparent.
For the development of university science, it would be very useful to recall and continue the Federal Target Program for the integration of university science and the Russian Academy of Sciences. At our university (Tula State University - Ed.), especially at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, this kind of cooperation has been quite productive and continues to this day.
- What is your attitude to the third wave megagrant competition?
I support holding a mega-grant competition as an opportunity to create growth points for domestic science. It is and only through megagrants that modern analytical equipment can be purchased. For example, the only EXAFS station (External X-ray Absorption Fine Structure - extended fine structure of X-ray absorption spectra) in our country operates at the synchrotron in Novosibirsk, despite the presence of powerful theoretical schools on this method in other cities.
Megagrant is one of real possibilities expand the geography of this method. I will share my experience of participating in the megagrant competition.
Together with Antonio Violante, a professor at the Friedrich II University of Naples, we took part in two previous competitions with a project to create a laboratory for the biogeochemistry of microelements at Tula State University. The conclusion that can be drawn based on our experience is poor-quality scientific examination of projects. On our last application there were four expert opinions - two foreign and two Russian. Two foreign and one domestic experts made a number of comments on the project, but generally approved it. The second Russian expert categorically stated that our project did not meet the objectives of the competition, namely the absence of plans to create a research laboratory in the application. It was obvious that he either did not read the application at all, or was guided by some of his own considerations. I hope that the organization of the third wave of megagrants, as well as the examination of projects, will be held at a higher level. A prerequisite for this may also be participation scientific community in the formation of an expert council on megagrants. Thus, the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation appealed to the Society of Scientific Workers with a request to nominate their candidacies for the expert council. The society nominated 10 specialists, 5 of them were approved by the ministry (one subsequently refused).
How do you feel about the idea of reorganizing universities in the country, reducing state universities by 20 percent, and branches by 30. Will this benefit university science or will it lead to new problems?
I have a very negative attitude towards the reduction of universities, primarily because universities in many regions are cultural edifiers. It seems to me that it would be more effective to go through the reform of existing universities - to optimize their management structure (including by appointing rectors directly from the ministry), to introduce areas of training that meet the needs of the time, to create a minimum scientific infrastructure with the possibility of its further development at the expense of scientific funds .
- Vernadsky V.I. “The tasks of science in connection with government policy in Russia" // "Biosphere and Noosphere", M.: Iris-Press, 2002.