On October 20th and 21st, representatives from universities participating in the 5-100 Project took part in a workshop titled “Methods for Introducing Shared Governance into Public Universities.” The research on the creation of a methodological basis for introducing elements of a participatory system into the university governance (shared governance) of Russian universities taking part in the 5-100 Project was conducted in the European University at St. Petersburg at the initiative of the Project Office.
The first day of the workshop included a plenary session with a presentation of the project’s key intermediate results and an open discussion. The research conceptual framework was outlined by project leader and EUSP professor of governance Olga Bychkova in her opening remarks. EUSP rector Oleg Kharkhordin shared the general principles of the system of shared governance (SG) and their applicability in the Russian context as based on the experience of EUSP. In the course of his presentation participants learned that the shared governance model involves four primary groups of university stakeholders in the decision-making process—the founder, in the form of the external Board; the rector and his/her administration; the faculty and teaching staff; and students. Their joint work implies a constant search for balance between the interests of these four groups and the integration of their ideas on the functioning of the university as a whole.
The basis of the study is undoubtedly the example set by models of the world’s leading universities, as well as recommendations from participants directly involved in the construction of these models. In correspondence format, former UC Berkeley Provost George Breslauer presented workshop participants with recommendations for implementing the SG model in the Russian context. In addition, participants had the unique opportunity to learn firsthand about Harvard University’s administrative system and its use of the SG model in a report by Leah Rosovsky, Harvard’s Vice-President for Strategy and Programs. She spoke about the successes and challenges that arose in the process of building a system where all groups within a university feel themselves to be partners rather than executors, encouraging scholarly striving toward lofty educational and research priorities, the creation of new knowledge, and the development of innovation. As part of a roundtable discussion, Rosovsky also laid out her practical recommendations for introducing the SH model to Russian universities. ITMO University rector Vladimir Vasiliev spoke about the developmental vector still insufficiently worked out in the model—the mechanisms, degree and timing of involvement of student organizations in university management.
The plan for the study involves in-depth research into the practices of university governance in several 5-100 Project participants. Individual practical recommendations for possible forms and SG implementation practices were prepared based on the results of observations made by ITMO, TGU and NUST “MISiS,” In the second part of the workshop the research team presented the intermediate results of observations and recommendations; in addition, representatives of administrative and managerial staff as well as university teaching staff had the opportunity to join the discussion and voice their comments, clarifications and suggestions. The close cooperation of researchers and universities will last until the end of the year, during which time training sessions with a deeper elaboration on recommendations will be conducted at ITMO, NUST “MISiS” and Tomsk State University.
The second day of the conference took the form of a strategy game. Representatives from ITMO, NUST “MISiS,” Tomsk State University, Saratov State Agrarian University, Kazan Federal University, and MIPT were split into two teams of virtual universities—“The University of the Individual” and “The University of the Society.” The teams were presented with tasks similar to real challenges: the development of new competitive educational programs; the conducting of prospective research; attracting foreign students and professors; making decisions on general and strategic issues in limited time; and submitting paperwork. Having assumed the roles of actual participants in the process of a university’s functioning, audience members attempted to implement the SG conceptual model in the process of power distribution, decision-making, resolving conflicts of interest, signing documents, monitoring the decision-making process, and preparing reports on the meetings of the Board of Trustees and various committees.
Following a discussion of the game’s outcomes, workshop participants defined organizational, financial and regulatory conditions as well as the capabilities and limitations of introducing the SG model to their universities.
Mariya Tambovtseva (Sotsiocenter), Anna Chernysh (EUSP)
