The transformation of Russian graduate education, from reform to counter-reform. Part 2.
Dmitry Dubrovsky
In Part One, we talked about how Russian doctoral education became a hybrid of the Soviet state certification system, the Bologna educational model, and neoliberal management principles. Isolated attempts to establish modern graduate institutions remained mere institutional “islands” that failed to transform the system as a whole.
Photo: Soviet-era rhetoric regarding the training of “scientific personnel” is making a comeback. Photo by Carlos Felipe Ramírez Mesa on Unsplash
Hybrid PhD Program
By 2021, the Russian doctoral studies system was a hybrid consisting of three important parts.
- The Soviet component was reflected in the state scheme of academic specializations, the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK), and the central role of the academic supervisor in the preparation and defense of dissertation research.
- The Bologna component was primarily regulatory: the definition of the doctoral degree as the third level of education, the FSES (Federal State Educational Standards), the state-mandated curriculum, and the granting of the special qualification of “researcher” upon completion of the degree.
- Finally, the neoliberal component, generally associated with the reforms to higher education, included the introduction of KPIs in the form of publication statistics; competition between universities; and selective and very limited funding, which shifted the entire financial burden onto the shoulders of doctoral students.
In other words, the Russian reforms adopted part of the structure of European doctoral studies but embedded it in neoliberal governance, all while preserving the Soviet certification power vertical.
Three Dimensions of Academic Freedom Before 2022
With regard to the three previously proposed dimensions of academic freedom (personal academic freedom, the autonomy of the university, and self-governance), it can be said that up until 2022, Russians had limited freedom of research, yet there was virtually no procedural protection against potential arbitrary actions or abuse by their supervisor, department, or dissertation council. As ideological constraints intensified, this began to directly impact the level of censorship regarding research topics.
At the same time, institutional autonomy was restricted and selective. Universities could experiment with the content and arrangement of their curricula, yet the state retained control over the establishment of doctoral programs, research areas, and the awarding of most doctoral degrees.
Finally, doctoral students, as a distinct category, did not participate in self-governance.
It can accurately be presumed that in places where islands of European design popped up within Russian doctoral programs—the European University at St. Petersburg, the National Research University Higher School of Economics, and the N. I. Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod, among others—there also appeared greater academic freedom regarding research, critical inquiry, and internationalization. It is telling, however, that even in these institutions—the most advanced in terms of organizational design—doctoral students played no significant role in the university’s collegial governance.
Criticism from Both Sides
Prior to 2022, the state of doctoral studies was criticized from both sides.
Conservative critics of the Bologna system argued fervently that in the new doctoral studies system, research had taken the place of formal education. Conversely, proponents of the European approach pointed out the half-hearted character of the reforms, proposing that they be further developed.
The former criticism was used to establish new regulations for postgraduate studies, effective March 1, 2022, as part of the break with the Bologna Process. According to the counter-reformers, these were meant to “return the scientific significance to doctoral studies”—essentially contrasting this model with the European-style doctoral education outlined in the Salzburg Principles. Clearly, this was part of the broader “break with the West” precipitated by the Russian aggression against Ukraine.
New Regulations on Postgraduate Studies
On March 1, 2022, new provisions of Russian Government Decree No. 2122 of November 30, 2021—”On Approving the Regulation on the Training of Scientific and Scientific-Pedagogical Personnel in Postgraduate (Adjunct) Programs”—entered into force. The reform was intended to resolve previous issues and break away from the Bologna Process in order to create—as officially stated—a “unique Russian system,” leaving behind the Bologna system as a “stage that has been lived through.”
The officially approved new postgraduate curriculum consists of a research component, an educational component, and a final assessment.
A doctoral student is admitted to the final assessment upon completing their individual study plan and preparing their dissertation for defense. The assessment itself consists of an evaluation of the dissertation. In general terms, this represents a return to the Soviet postgraduate system—albeit one that operates without the Soviet-era employment guarantees, while placing a somewhat greater degree of responsibility on the universities.
Far from everything in the new reforms represents a departure from the Salzburg Principles. The concept that the dissertation is the primary goal of doctoral studies—and that the university bears responsibility for its preparation and defense—aligns with the general framework of the Salzburg Principles. At the same time, the university is required to establish and adhere to an individual research plan—a measure that can both bolster research freedom and serve as a tool of administrative control over the doctoral student.
Finally, the abolition of state accreditation for such programs enhances university autonomy overall, as the state relinquishes one of its instruments of external control—while still retaining all the others.
Preliminary Results
The reforms do not address the fundamental problem that was the primary grounds for critique of the previous approach: the need to provide proper institutional conditions for a successful dissertation defense.
Although the dissertation has been reinstated as a requirement for doctoral studies, its defense is not included in the curriculum itself. Upon completing the program, the graduate enters the world outside the program, where a dissertation council determines the fate of their research.
In other words, the 2022 reform adopted the first (conservative) critique but largely ignored the second (European) one: it reinstated the dissertation as the center of the program without establishing the social, legal, and institutional infrastructure of a modern doctoral school. Similarly, the institutional conditions regarding the protection of academic freedom remained unchanged—and have possibly even deteriorated. The roles of the academic supervisor and state planning have once again intensified, while the defense remains institutionally separated from the doctoral program itself.
In relation to the islands described above—EUSP, NRU-HSE, and NNSU—this kind of counter-reform has already created a significant gap between the form and content of their programs, due primarily to the influence of war, sanctions. and boycotts on the institutional design of graduate school.
On an institutional level, these universities still resemble graduate schools. Internally, however—given the severing of international ties, the departure of foreign faculty and students, and severe censorship and self-censorship—their substance has changed significantly, their autonomy has been curtailed, and their capacity to safeguard academic freedom in research has clearly diminished.
Mikhail Sokolov, a leading researcher of Russian science and higher education, argues that in such high-risk conditions, self-censorship is exercised through academic supervisors. They assess the “viability” of a given topic and adjust it in accordance with their own perceptions of what is safe.
Thus, dependence on the academic supervisor becomes an instrument of political control over freedom of research.
The sharp increase in the number of doctoral students in 2022 (see graph) appears to be directly linked to the outbreak of the war (postgraduate students are exempt from the military draft).
This also affects the caliber of the students themselves, as their motivations are often far from scientific.
* * *
Ideological pressure, militarization, and the adoption of military-related laws have significantly complicated the task facing Russian postgraduate studies.
Reverting to the previous model did not significantly alleviate the core problem it was intended to address—namely, the increase in the number of protections.
At the same time, the return of Soviet rhetoric regarding the production of “scientific personnel” leaves no doubt that the space for academic research freedom is shrinking. In essence, the current system represents a return to the Soviet model of postgraduate training, albeit in a new guise. In this model, the academic supervisor remains the sole source of scientific knowledge, as well as a monitor and censor who significantly restricts the scope of scientific inquiry.
0 Comments