Russian Educational Policy and the Conflicts of Interests in the Field of Innovation


Trofimova I.N.,

Institute of Sociology of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, itnmv@mail.ru

elibrary_id: 639295 | ORCID: 0000-0003-4096-9804 | RESEARCHER_ID: AAB-1392-2019


DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2021.05.03
For citation:

Trofimova I.N. Russian Educational Policy and the Conflicts of Interests in the Field of Innovation. – Polis. Political Studies. 2021. No. 5. P. 25-38. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.05.03



Abstract

Training for an innovative knowledge-based economy is a area of conflict between the most influential participants thereof – the state, business, universities, research and academic institutions, and students and their families. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is a set of provisions that reveal cooperation between universities, research organizations, and manufacturing companies as a necessary condition for the development of the Russian economy and society. The empirical basis is the results of an expert survey of the heads of leading organizations in the scientific, educational, and industrial areas, as well as federal and regional government bodies with practical experience in the field of innovation. The article critically examines the models of educational policy and emphasizes that the attitude to innovation is inherent in ideology and politics. Economic, legal, and social institutions and relations can both stimulate and limit them. It is shown that the current educational policy in Russia is mixed: this contributes to the growth of attractiveness of the innovation sphere; however, this sphere remains inaccessible and not attractive to a wide mass of potential participants due to the conservative orientations of the ruling elite and the concentration of financial and material resources in its hands. As a result, talented graduates of the best universities prefer either to leave the country or adopt the strategies and behavior of the ruling elite, turning into a service class – “rent” techno-elite. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of contradictions between the main participants in the innovation process. The critical attitude business holds to the desire which scientific and educational institutions have to engage in innovative entrepreneurship is revealed. The main claims are related to the weakness of technological developments, lack of knowledge of the market, lack of material and technical base, and excessive bureaucracy. It is shown that participants in innovation activity are more oriented towards interaction with state structures than among themselves, which is explained by the dominant role of the state in the formation and development of the innovation sphere. It is predicted that the innovative effects of educational policy depend not only on the elite, the techno-elite, but also the support of society. 

Keywords
innovations, technological developments, personnel training, educational policy, conflict of interests, state, business, universities, science, techno-elite.


References

Autor D., Katz L.F. 2010. Grand Challenges in the Study of Employment and Technological Change. – Social Science Research Network Electronic Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1888515

Bell D. 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society. New York: Basic Books. 507 p.

Borrás S., Edquist E. 2015. Education, Training and Skills in Innovation Policy. – Science and Public Policy. Vol. 42. No. 2. P. 215-227. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu04

Borrás S., Edquist Ch. 2019. Holistic Innovation Policy: Theoretical Foundations, Policy Problems, and Instrument Choices. Oxford: OUP. 320 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198809807.001.0001

Deploying Foresight for Policy and Strategy Makers: Creating Opportunities through Public Policies and Corporate Strategies in Science, Technology and Innovation. 2016. Ed. By L. Gokhberg, D. Meissner, A. Sokolov. Cham: Springer. 273 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25628-3

Free to Teach, Free to Learn. Understanding and Maintaining Academic Freedom in Higher Education. 2013. Washington: American Council of Trustees and Alumni. 106 p.

Galbraith J.K. 2016. Inequality: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: OUP. 211 p.

Lundvall B.-A. 2007. Higher Education, Innovation and Economic Development. Paper to be presented at the World Bank’s Regional Bank Conference on Development Economics, Beijing, January 16-17, 2007. URL: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.632.3025&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed 12.07.2021).

Mann M. 1868. Life and Works of Horace Mann. Vol. III. Cambrige: CUP. 669 p.

McLaren P. 2015. Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. 6th ed. London: Routledge. 318 p.

Moore R. 2004. Education and Society: Issues and Explanations in the Sociology of Education. Cambridge: Polity Press. 224 p.

Murnane R., Nelson. R. 1984. Production and Innovation When Techniques Are Tacit: The Case of Education. – Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Vol. 5. No. 3-4. P. 353-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(84)90006-4

Robinson W.I. 2016. Restructuring of Education: The Transnational Capitalist Class’ Quest to Suppress Critical Thinking. – Social Justice. Vol. 43. No. 3. P. 1-24.

Schumpeter J.A. 2011. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 244 p.

The Global Innovation Index 2015: Effective Innovation Policies for Development. 2015. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. 418 p.

The Global Innovation Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World. 2017. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. 432 p.

The Global Innovation Index 2019: Creating Healthy Lives – The Future of Medical Innovation. 2019. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. 400 p.

The Global Innovation Index 2020: Who Will Finance Innovation? 2020. Ithaca, Fontainebleau, Geneva: Cornell University, INSEAD, WIPO. 399 p.

The Global Talent Competitiveness Index. 2019. Fontainebleau: INSEAD. 340 p.

 

Chomsky N. 2018. Optimism over Despair. (Russ. ed.: Chomsky N. Optimizm vopreki otchajaniju. Moscow: RIPOL klassik. 288 p.).

Dezhina I.G., Kliucharev G.A. Russian Education for Innovative Economy: “The Pressure Points”. – Sociological Studies. No. 9. P. 40-48. (In Russ.)

Elashkina A.V., Gubanov A.Yu. 2020. Technology Entrepreneur Competencies. – Educational Policy. Winter. No. S.5. P. 66-78. (In Russ.)

Galbraith J.K. 2004. New Industrial State. (Russ. ed.: Galbraith J.K. Novoe industrial’noe obshhestvo. Moscow: AST. 602 p.).

Kliucharev G.A., Popov M.S., Savinkov V.I. 2017. Obrazovanie, nauka i biznes: novye grani vzaimodejstvija [Education, Science and Business: New Facets of Interaction]. Moscow: Instutute of Sociology, RAS. 488 p. (In Russ.)

Lapin N.I. 2011. Sociocultural Factors of Russian Stagnation and Modernization. – Sociological Studies. No. 9. P. 3-18. (In Russ.)

Roshhina Ya.M. 2005. Accessibility of Higher Education: By Ability or Income? – University Management: Practice and Analysis. No. 1. P. 69-79. (In Russ.)

Rossijskaja ekonomika v 2018 godu. Tendencii i perspektivy [The Russian Economy in 2018. Trends and Prospects]. 2019. No. 40. Ed. by A.L. Kudrin, S.G. Sinel’nikov-Murylev. Moscow: Institut Gaydara. 656 p. (In Russ.)

Rossijskaja ekonomika v 2020 godu. Tendencii i perspektivy [The Russian Economy in 2020. Trends and Prospects]. 2021. No. 42. Ed. by A.L. Kudrin, V.A. Mau, A.D. Radygin, S.G. Sinel’nikov-Muryle]. Moscow: Institut Gaydara. 712 p. (In Russ.)

Selezneva I.E., Klochkov V.V. 2017. Institucional’nye problemy organizacii prikladnyh issledovanij i razrabotki vysokotehnologichnoj produkcii [Institutional Problems of Organizing Applied Research and Development of High-Tech Products]. – Problemy upravlenija nauchnymi issledovanijami i razrabotkami – 2017 [Problems of R&D Management – 2017]. Moscow: Institute of Control Sciences RAS. P. 151-157. (In Russ.)

Shishkin S.V. 2006. Elite and Mass Higher Education: Socio-Economic Differentiation. – Educational Studies Moscow. No. 2. P. 203-221. (In Russ.)

Sukharev O.S. 2017. The Evolutionary Economic Theory of Institutions and Technologies. Modeling Problems. Moscow: LENAND. 139 p. (In Russ.)

Varshavskaya E.Ya., Kotyrlo E.S. 2019. Engineering and Economics Graduates: Between Demand and Supply. – Educational Studies Moscow. No. 2. P. 98-128. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17323/1814-9545-2019-2-98-128  

  

Content No. 5, 2021

See also:


Kotelnikov V.S.,
In Search of National Interests: State Building in Ukraine in the Context of World Experience. – Polis. Political Studies. 2000. No6

Polyakov L.V.,
Theory of nation-building by Svyatoslav Kaspe. – Polis. Political Studies. 2012. No2

Voevoda E.V., Belogurov A.Yu.,
Axiology of Education in the Discourse of Contemporary Policy. – Polis. Political Studies. 2018. No6

Information,
State, business and civil society: cooperation for modernization (according to results of RAPS all-Russian conference). – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No1

Glukhova A.V.,
Russian society facing the challenge of modernization. – Polis. Political Studies. 2009. No6

 

   

Introducing an article



Polis. Political Studies
5 2011


Kochetkov A.P.
Authority and elites in a global information society

 The article text
 

Archive

   2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991