The field of educational services (including the export thereof) is one of the most important for St. Petersburg. Although the contribution of this field to the urban economy has not yet been assessed in direct financial parameters, the university social substrate still remains one of the most influential in the city. Understanding the importance of this segment, authorities are all the time trying to reform it. The academic community, however, has long been of a mind that governmental reforms have a rather devastating effect. Presenting at SPIEF 2016, European University at St. Petersburg Rector Oleg Kharkhordin spoke about several alternative models of university governance. The main question is whether these models are applicable in Russia.
“One of the most interesting world practices in the field of university management is what in the United States is called shared governance. It provides American universities with long-term labor productivity. This system ensures that the opinion of a concerned professor will be taken into account in the decision-making process: thus professors feel that the university partly belongs to them. That’s why they invest themselves in its development. In other words, professors publish in international scholarly journals not because they get paid for it in the framework of the ‘5-100’ program (as is customary in Russia), but because by increasing the status of their university on account of their publications, they improve their career prospects.
We translated the name ‘shared governance’ with the Russian abbreviation UUU—‘uchastie v universitetskom upravlenii [participation in university governance].’ The European University conducted a study commissioned by the Ministry of Education. First, about how European universities tried to introduce the system of shared governance over the past 20-30 years to improve the productivity of professor’s activities. Second, in studying international practices we wondered: would it be possible to introduce a similar system in Russia if a large Russian university (10 to 30 thousand students) wanted to do so?
Usually the answer to this question goes: at the New Economic School you can experiment with this, at the European University, at Skoltech—maybe. But it’s impossible in a large Russian university. The issue is size. And another: virtually all the books written on the subject say that no matter how you copy formal institutions, you will not achieve your goal. The issue is that the shared governance system is largely a system based on cultural practices. It is particular relationships between people formed over decades. Incidentally, a similar reasoning applies to democratic systems as well. You can copy formal democratic institutions, as Russia did in the 1990s. But filling these institutions with the energy of the free will of citizens is much more difficult.
In university administration it’s the same. It’s possible to copy american models. For example, ITMO University Rector Vladimir Vasil’ev watched what’s going on at UCLA and created several committees. Whether they work the same as at UCLA is a question for everyone wanting to introduce similar elements to their own university structures.
It’s important to note that the American system of university governance is by no means a liberal democracy. But of course, neither is it Soviet democracy. As former Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost (2006-2014) of the University of California, Berkeley George Breslauer writes, the American system of university management should be called ‘consultative authoritarianism.’ This refers to the presence of three elements: a) a strong executive power of the rector and the deans of large faculties, but b) limited by aristocratic opinion—that is, the opinions of the best professors that constantly offer consultation and advice. To this add c) a small element of democracy, as it’s necessary to consult with students and office staff in matters of university life that affect them. All of this makes American universities high-performance machines in the production of scholarly articles, innovations, etc.
What recommendations can we provide on the basis of studying the experience of those Russian universities that tried to introduce UUU, and the experience of European universities that tried to introduce elements of shared governance at home?
The most important recommendation is to create a headquarters of university restructuring. In Russia we call it the KPP, which means ‘komitet po personalu [personnel committee]’ or the ‘komitet, kotoryi nikogda ne propustit posredstvennost’ [the committee that never ignores mediocrity].’ This structure should practice meritocracy (literally ‘power of the worthy’—ed.). In every large university it’s possible to find 7-10 professors with international experience who know that for them meritocracy is not just a word, but also a lifestyle. They understand that to be a scholar and not be for meritocracy is very difficult.
The second, which was done by the Germans and in part by the French—is the attempt not to reform existing faculties (fighting routine is very difficult), but to create new platforms on the basis of interdepartmental and interdisciplinary centers. Such centers are formed as follows. They recruit two existing stars, two or three young scholars who will, in developing themselves, contribute to developing the reputation of the entire institution. Next is to concentrate on these new centers in order to produce knowledge that will be noticeable nationwide or even worldwide.
The university can’t win at all sports, but it can concentrate on one, two, or three areas, invest its resources in them, and try to become known in this type of sport. The Personnel Committee allows for the attraction of colleagues from the international market on a meritocratic basis. In the end, the centers become new points of growth.
In the long term (if you do what’s been done at Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA, etc.), the formation of the second pillar of the university should occur—the Committee on Committees. This is a council of elders that appoints members of all the different types of commissions. Neither the rector nor the university president appoints them. But this is a very distant prospect for us—in 10 years we can think about it. If a university starts now to think about how to introduce a system of UUU, then the first and primary task is the creation of the Personnel Committee.”
Oleg Kharkhordin, Rector of the European University at St. Petersburg