ISSN 1995-459X print E-ISSN 2312-9972 online ISSN 2500-2597 online English
Editor-in-chief Leonid Gokhberg
|
2013. vol. 7. No. 3
|
Strategies
|
6–24
|
Alexander Giglavy — Deputy Director for Science, Moscow Lycee no 1533 (Information Technologies). Address: Moscow Lycee no 1533 (Information Technologies), 16 Lomonosovsky av., Moscow, 119296, Russian Federation. E-mail: giglavy@yandex.ru Alexander Sokolov — Deputy Director, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, and Director, International Research and Educational Foresight Center, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: sokolov@hse.ru Gulnara Abdrakhmanova — Director, Centre for Statistics and Monitoring of Information Society, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: gabdrakhmanova@hse.ru Alexander Chulok — Head, Division for S&T Foresight, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: achulok@hse.ru Vasily Burov — Chairman of the Board, WikiVote! Address: office 2, 7 bld. 1, Fadeeva str., Moscow, 125047, Russian Federation. E-mail: burov@wikivote.ru Information and communication technologies (ICT) radically transform many areas of human activity thus attracting great attention of researchers. However, the dynamics of ICT development depends on the global challenges and broader trends that define long-term S&T priorities. What factors that will influence the future of the ICT industry? What technological solutions will determine its characteristics in the next 15–20 years? These and similar questions were considered by the HSE ISSEK specialists in co-operation with the colleagues from other research entities while investigating trends in S&T at the global and national levels. The experts have analyzed socio-economic and S&T challenges affecting the ICT sector, advanced R&D fields, markets for innovative products and services, estimated the «windows of opportunities» for Russia. As a result, the strategic directions of blueprint research which ensure the basis for the creation of innovative products and new markets for the medium- and long-term (beyond 2020) perspective. Foresight results have been validated by the representatives of leading companies, research centers, universities and international organizations. Among the solutions expected in the period up to 2030 are the prototypes of systems implementing the new computing principles and multi-language software for extraction and formalization of knowledge, technologies dealing with «big data», new analytical tools (personal analytic systems, means of the real time data processing, mobile analytics, etc.). Markets for novel technology solutions are expected to be rapidly growing in healthcare, energy, engineering and transport, as well as in personal usage of ICT products and services. The study allows to conclude that in the medium to long term, the ICT sector will retain a high growth dynamic and will have transformative impact on virtually all areas of human life. The life cycle of technologies, related products and services will shorten. In this context, R&D development plays a crucial role for keeping up with competitors. Russian science has a certain potential in much of the considered areas, although one can hardly perceive Russia as gaining global leadership. A breakthrough level of research is observed, for example, in telecommunication technologies (communication, networking and content distribution). |
Science
|
26–36
|
Mikhail Gershman — Leading Research Fellow, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: mgershman@hse.ru Tatiana Kuznetsova — Director, Centre for S&T, Innovation and Information Policy, and Deputy Head, Laboratory for Economics of Innovation, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. Е-mail: tkuznetzova@hse.ru In 2012, the Russian government drew up a plan for improving the system of research remuneration by implementing the so-called «efficient contract» model in public R&D organizations. The details of this government initiative, however, still remain unclear, as do specific implementation arrangements. The paper provides the results of focus groups, held by the Higher School of Economics, in order to identify potential parameters of efficient contract modeling in the R&D sector. The discussions involved representatives from the State Academies of Sciences, universities and government research centers. Among issues raised were the organization of labor and remuneration system in the R&D sector, productivity of scientific activities, institutional conditions for a transition to «efficient contracts», and factors affecting the loyalty of researchers. Major conclusions presented in the paper include recommendations for salaries and for the research remuneration system for R&D personnel. In the authors’ view, one of the key parameters of an efficient research contract should be a «fair» minimum salary guaranteed by the government. Another recommendations in reference to R&D evaluation is that efficient contracts should guarantee not only fair rewards but also competitive selection in order to prevent an excessive inflow of the workforce from other sectors of the economy. Finally, the paper discusses problems of funding and the institutional development of the R&D sector. In the authors’ view, it will hardly be possible to build a high-performing system of efficient contracts without implementing profound reforms restructuring the R&D sector («selection of the best»), improving the funding system (finding additional sources of investment, streamlining the operation of public science foundations), modernizing the physical infrastructure, and arranging for the conservation of Russian scientific schools and attracting young talent. |
|
38–47
|
Elizaveta Sivak — Junior Research Fellow, Center for Institutional Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: elizaveta.sivak@gmail.com Maria Yudkevich — Director, Center for Institutional Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: yudkevich@hse.ru Over the past two decades, the higher education sector in Russia has undergone profound institutional changes that have especially affected the academic profession. This paper studies the dynamics of key characteristics of the academic profession in Russia. We use data on Russian university faculty from two large-scale comparative studies of the academic profession (the «International Academic Profession», a study carried out by the Carnegie Center in 1992 in 14 countries, including Russia [Altbach, 1996], and the «Changing Academic Profession», a study implemented in 2007, with 19 participating countries, including Russia, in 2012 [Teichler et al., 2013]) to look at how faculty attitudes on aspects of academic life changed over 20 years (1992–2012): for instance faculty views on reasons for leaving or staying at the university, on university management and on the faculty’s role in decision making. We also use the international dataset from the «Changing Academic Profession» to compare Russian faculty to those in other countries. The article provides an analysis of teaching/research preferences, views on the personal strain associated with work, and academic career perspectives for Russian universities (1992 and 2012) in comparison with those of other countries. One of the main conclusions is that the high degree of overall centralization of governance in Russian universities has barely changed in 20 years. This undermines talk of universities’ shift towards academic self-governance. The basic attitudes of university faculties are in many ways the same over twenty years, although perception of the mission of higher education has changed. Previously the mission was to prepare students for a successful professional career, now the priority is seen in strengthening the country’s position at the international level. One can hardly argue, however, that universities are in a position to implement this new mission. |
|
48–63
|
Irina Abankina — Director, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: abankinai@hse.ru Fuad Aleskerov — Head, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Economics, and Head, International Laboratory of Decision Choice and Analysis, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: alesk@hse.ru Veronika Belousova — Head, Department for Methodology of Budget Planning, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: vbelousova@hse.ru Leonid Gokhberg — Director, Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge, and First Vice-Rector, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: lgokhberg@hse.ru Kirill Zinkovsky— Deputy Director, Institute for Educational Studies, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: kzinkovsky@hse.ru Sofya Kiselgof —Lecturer, Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Economics, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: skiselgof@hse.ru Sergey Shvydun — Research Assistant, International Laboratory of Decision Choice and Analysis, National Research University — Higher School of Economics. Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation. E-mail: shvydun@hse.ru Over the past decades due to increasing economic pressure and rising demands by government and society, the organizational landscape of higher education is changing while university activities become more diversified. The focus of public support is shifting from funding current activities of universities towards rewarding outcomes. There are, as a result, many strategies to adapt and develop universities in this changing environment. For example, emerging typologies for structuring a network of higher education institutions (HEIs) taking into account their diversity are at the forefront in many countries of agendas for greater efficiency in higher education. We advance a typology for HEIs in Russia taking into account indicators of research and teaching activities. We present an overview of best practices for HEIs, some typologies, a set of indicators and mathematical tools for constructing a typology of Russian public HEIs. This typology is based on clustering the input (resource allocation) and output (performance) indicators that characterize academic and educational achievements of HEIs. The proposed classification differentiates types of universities and contains a decision tree that allows assigning universities to one category or another. It can be used as a basis for a comprehensive analysis of diverse Russian universities and for government policies to address each of the identified HEI types, depending on their characteristics. |
Master Class
|
64–73
|
Marcus Bussey — Lecturer in History and Futures, Faculty of Arts and Business, and Research Fellow in Regional Futures,Sustainability Research Centre, University of the Sunshine Coast. Address: University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore DC, Queensland, 4558 Australia. E-mail: MBussey@usc.edu.au This article assesses foundational concepts in foresight and futures studies. It uses terms matching definitions supplied by other scholars. It argues that certain concepts underly the practice of foresight; although each foresight context and practitioner are unique, they come together under these concepts and give coherence to foresight and futures practice. Clarity regarding the conceptual framework of foresight practice strengthens the field and enables better decision making on the choice of tools to guide and validate practice. There are two principally distinct approaches to elaborating future strategies — open and closed. The first presumes quest and comparison of alternatives, behavior toward risk, and personal and social resilience. The second presumes risk aversion, or relying on a «proven» pattern while weeding out unsustained ideas and initiatives. The latter results in decreasing personal and social resilience. The article evaluates conditions fostering one or the other approach. An appreciation of the relative «closedness» or «openness» of any context allows looking for elements that either enable or block the shift from closed to open futures. Much of the foresight practitioner’s work involves helping stakeholders undertake such an inquiry and seeding the resilience needed to manage both the turbulence and the ensuing uncertainty that results from this shift. The author believes that seeing foresight work and the futures thinking that accompanies it as promoting the journey from closed to open futures is a powerful insight into why foresight practice is so exciting. |
Events
|
74–81
|
International experience shows that research organisations play a special role in the development of innovation systems. They are influenced by the changing socio-economic environment, priorities and tools of government regulation. Initially focused on networking with universities, enterprises and government, research organizations have diversified significantly in terms of their objectives, strategies and functional mechanisms. The international workshop «Public Research Organisations and Industry-Science Links» held on 18–19 July 2013 at the Higher School of Economics by the HSE Laboratory for Economics of Innovation (LEI) was devoted to a discussion of the state-of-art of research on the relations between science and industry, with a special emphasis on the role of research organisations as actors in innovation systems. The workshop agenda addressed such questions as: - What lessons have been drawn from several decades of studying the relations between the public science base and industrial innovation (and innovation systems) more generally?
- How are the institutional and funding structures of public research evolving? What drives these changes, and how far can we assess the consequences?
- What is the need for, and consequences of, strategies and tools for performance evaluation at individual, institutional and system levels?
- What are the needs for further research in this area?
The workshop was attended by the specialists from LEI and HSE Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge as well as scholars from the University of Manchester (UK), the University of Brighton (UK), the University of Twente (Netherlands) and the National Research Council (Italy). |
|
|