Preprint
Strategic choice of modern university: factors and opportunities
Sulimov Konstantin Andreevicn1
Borisova Nadezhda Vladimirovna2
Borodina Lidiya Stanislavovna3
1Political
Science Department of Perm State University. Address: 6141990
Russian Federation, Perm, Bukireva
St., 15. Associate Professor. E-mail
[email protected]
2Political
Science Department of Perm State University. Address: 6141990
Russian Federation, Perm, Bukireva
St., 15. Associate Professor. E-mail:
[email protected]
3Political
Science Department of Perm State University. Address: 6141990
Russian Federation, Perm, Bukireva St., 15. The 2nd year student of the Master program
on International relations. E-mail: [email protected]
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by Russian Foundation for Humanities Grant № 14-0300501 (the research project on ‘European universities in a changing world: the
institutional transformation and communication strategies’).
Abstract
This article focuses on dilemmas that a university as an educational, research and
social institution currently faces. Two dominant developments frame the basic
dilemma: globalization and the internationalization of education and research;
localization and the university's ‘turn’ to its community, whether urban or regional.
These developments may seem to be in competition or even contradictory, each
consequently requiring a very different strategic choice. On this basis, universities may
consciously choose to focus on only one of these trends. The question becomes how
1
real is this ‘halving’, how it is perceived and how is it implemented in practice? The
study was performed on the basis of case-study: a case of typical Russian ‘classical’
regional university (Perm State University) placed in a broad comparative context of
practices of institutional changes and development strategies of mainly European
universities. The expert interviews at the University of Siena, KU Leuven and the
University of Göttingen were conducted during the study, while at PSU the method of
participant observation was used.
Keywords: globalization and internationalization of education and research,
universities’ ‘turn’ to community, social mission and ‘third role’
Introduction
The modern university is simultaneously involved in two relatively contradictory
trends: 1) the internationalization of education and research and 2) the symbiotic
interaction with the local urban environment. In the first case, it is the globalization of
higher education and research (and the Bologna process associated with it), the
transformation of university education and knowledge from public goods into services.
These global processes actualized the universities' problem of having to constantly
search for academic research funding even more, led to the fight for their students and
places in the international rankings, and stimulated not only a search but also an
adoption of new forms of learning and technology in educational process. These
processes often exist in the logic of market relations, ‘which is manifested in the
growing commercialization of scientific and educational sphere’ (Zhu & KuprianovaAshina, 2013, p. 86). Society considers the universities as business structures, and more
often uses the term ‘knowledge economy’ (Lawrence & Sharma, 2002) describing the
processes in education. Modern universities are becoming more and more for-profit
(Lowman, 2010). One of the reasons for this transformation is that national
governments have changed the social role and functions of universities, turning to the
neo-liberal model of economic development.
The second trend is associated with changes in the interaction mechanisms
between universities and local, urban communities. The oldest model is the situation
2
where the university is the city’s main institution, and the ‘locus’ serves only as an
area/a place of residence to professors and students. Nowadays, one can observe if not
an ‘ivory tower’ collapse, then a serious reformatting of the ‘town & gown’ model,
manifested in various forms of cooperation, institutionalization and in interaction
practices between university staff and city residents (Gallo & Davis, 2008). The ‘town
& gown’ tradition goes back primarily to Oxford and Cambridge universities, where
students and professors often found themselves in conflict with the citizens, ‘the
conflict was inevitable in the medieval university town, where two self-managed
structures existed on the same territory’ (Dyba, 2013). Although in the twentieth
century the tradition of confrontation lost its edge, the problem of the relationship
between the University and the city remained. Moreover, in the current context of
global academic mobility, it has a new meaning. The social role of modern universities
in the cities appears ambivalent. On the one hand, the university community often
becomes ‘alien’ to the city, as study time or a teaching contract limit their life there.
On the other hand, universities in university towns are often the largest employers. In
such circumstances, not only education and academic research become the arenas for
interaction between the university and the city, but also those spheres of the community
that have not been addressed previously by either of them as the ones possible for the
application of resources and the interests of universities. The examples might be the
urban infrastructure, the multiculturalism
policy, policy for the sustainable
development of the community in terms of cultural diversity, gender policy,
environmental policy, etc. It is the idea of cooperation and collaboration, the interlacing
of the university and the city that becomes the central topic in discussions about the
mission of the modern university (Charlier, 1977; Gavazzi & Fox, 2015; Gallo & Davis
, 2008).
The question under study is whether the involvement of national universities in
these competing developments leads to the similar institutional transformation in terms
of their choice of development strategies.
3
Method and theory
The study was performed on the basis of case-study: a case of typical Russian
‘classical’ regional university (Perm State University) placed in a broad comparative
context of practices of institutional changes and development strategies of mainly
European universities. The expert interviews at the University of Siena, KU Leuven
and the University of Göttingen were conducted during the study, while at PSU the
method of participant observation was used.
A theory of institutional isomorphism by Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell
(DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) is a theoretical frame for the study. In the current context,
the universities demonstrate institutional isomorphism, reacting to external impulses
and the challenges of the environment. The institutional changes in the modern
university
are possible through three different institutional
mechanisms of
isomorphism. First, as a result of formal and/or informal pressure from the other actors
(government, other educational institutions, business groups) on the university
(coercive isomorphism). Second, because of the university's presence and involvement
in the common professional field and of university's assimilation to common standards,
norms and behaviors (normative isomorphism). Finally, the university, in a situation
of even minimal institutional uncertainty (as a consequence of the reform, the
challenges of globalization, etc.), has to borrow the standards and practices that are
transmitted and perceived in the organizational field of the university life as successful
(mimetic isomorphism).
That said, the external institutional environment of universities
is not
homogeneous. It consists of a set of organizational fields, which can transform into
complex systems. It is important to take into account that the external institutional
environments represent different levels of social reality: a global, national, regional
and local. Nonetheless, they (the levels) hardly form a hierarchical structure, which
conducts the universal impulses; rather, these levels present a non- hierarchical
interaction and selective effect.
4
Yet universities are not only objects of exposure to the external environment.
They themselves can act as agents of influence and changes in this environment, or at
least, actively resist external impact. The key to this is the fact that universities possess
considerable resources, both organizational and financial, intellectual and human. Of
course, the importance of these resources vary in different contexts and for different
levels of social reality.
At the same time, universities are not closed homogeneous structures, they consist
of a variety of actors, relatively independent in relation to the resources, which they
have, and the strategies they follow. Apart from the university, these structures can
interact - as agents or actors - with various external institutional environments. That
leads to a possible struggle between different actors in the university space. Moreover,
this struggle is likely to influence the configuration of the university's priorities (the
specific targets of the strategy) and institutional developments within it.
Universities in the global battle for resources: the national priorities and
strategies: Various university rankings such as THE World University Rankings and
Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) - Shanghai Ranking Global are
today's measure of success, setting the standards. Almost 1/3 from 500 universities
included in the ranking are US universities. There are many reasons to it, amongst
which are their widely institutionalized autonomy and the presence of incomes from
their own funds (endowments). Leading American (and European) universities have
become the role models, therefore, the universities with contrasting structures and
traditions have to catch up with them, using different ‘resource generation’ strategies.
The logic of this choice depends on a wide range of structural conditions and factors.
For example, the Chinese government has for a long time been implementing
special projects allowing the leading universities to receive government's high priority
in financial support and motivating them to promote international cooperation and
academic mobility. Significant effect of the Chinese government's policy of promoting
competitive universities is the actual hierarchization of the universities in the country
(Hayho & Li , 2012). One could describe this Chinese strategy as the formation of
5
‘national champions’ (leading universities) which have the potential to take the first
positions on the international market of education and science.
The Russian government is also implementing a strategy of creating ‘national
champions’, although, there is a second strategy of ‘building the pyramids’
supplementing it. The latter implies active rating and monitoring the quality of
educational institutions, in order to highlight effective and ineffective ones. Based on
the results of such monitoring and rating the state makes decisions about closure,
withdrawal of accreditation of universities, deprivation of the right to enrol students,
etc. (Inefficient universities, 2015). In this case, the influence of the state, if not its
outright control, of education is clear.
Government’s actions encourage universities to think of their own development
strategy. Since 2010-2011 Russian universities have been establishing and adopting
programs of development, including the university's development strategy, and its
mission to the country, region, and city. The adoption and implementation of the
university's strategic development program was accompanied by a transformation of
their internal governance structure (Solomin & Gromova, 2014). This restructuring
includes both the change in the management system of the university, and the
emergence of new structural units, the functions of which are set by the state and
environment requirements. These processes indicate an institutional transformation
caused by pressure within the professional field, primarily in a form of a mimetic and
coercive isomorphism. Moreover, in order to increase their influence and presence in
the region, as well as in areas adjacent to it, universities carry out projects of merging
with other educational institutions.
However, neither the incentives caused by the strategy ‘of building the pyramid’
and its instruments (monitoring and rating), nor the objective structural conditions
(‘demographic pit’ as a consequence of low birth rates in the 1990s; economic crisis of
late 2000s - mid-2010s) do not leave the actual choice to the universities. Strengthening
of universities is going through ‘absorption’ (typically, it is regional universities'
tactic), and by ‘the establishment of branches from scratch’, expanding the range of
6
educational programs (capital's universities, for example, Higher School of Economics,
represent this strategy).
Strategic plans and missions of European universities: the ‘third role’ test:
The declaration of the European University Association emphasizes the public role of
European universities in the face of challenges before the Europeans. In future, it would
like to see the institutional diversity in which each university will develop its own
mission and profile of activities: from global competition to focus on the transfer of
knowledge within their region.
The Scandinavian countries demonstrate a case of a focused and systematic
approach to the new social role of universities. Since the 1960s, Finnish universities
have a leading role in the formation and consolidation of local communities in the
ideology of the development of lifelong learning, based on close cooperation of city
schools and universities. The latter became the impetus for the development of their
social role. At the end of the twentieth century, Scandinavian universities chose the
development of the ‘corporate social responsibility’ ethics, just as business structures
did. Its goals were the community's economic well-being, ‘positive environment’, new
jobs, human capital increase, etc. (Vakhshtayn, 2005). The example of Finnish
universities refers to the so-called mimetic isomorphism. Educational institutions
borrowed and introduced the experience of socially responsible business, which
resulted in the formation of the ‘third role’ ideology of the universities. Nevertheless,
the Finnish state played a significant role in this process. Institutionalization of the
‘third role’ ideology happened in 2004, when the amendments, which legally
established their ‘third role’, were adopted on a national level in the Universities Act.
In the strategic development texts of the universities the latter now included not only a
status of educational institutions, but of social interaction subjects and equal
participants in the regional (urban) development, defining, along with government and
business, regional agenda and regional development strategies.
However, the normative regulation of a ‘third role’ and social responsibility does
not necessarily means their obligatory implementation. Often the ‘meeting point of the
7
city and the university’ takes place in the process of solving very specific issues. For
example, Leuven University, the largest university in Belgium since the second half of
the 2000s, actively implements special programs to address the issues of urban
communities, as well as that of the university's involvement in the city life. A few years
ago a new department responsible for this activity appeared in the structure of the
university. It includes such objectives as barrier free and developed urban and
university environment, programs to support adaptation and socialization of
immigrants and children from immigrant families, occupational guidance for
schoolchildren, the joint activities of the university administration and local police. The
vice-rector for cultural diversity and sustainable development of the Catholic
University of Leuven supervises this activity also through cooperation with local and
regional authorities. That said, in its Mission KU Leuven sees itself as the actor
interested in an active and comprehensive cooperation with both international and
regional partners. Furthermore, the clause about the active participation in the
monitoring of cultural and social life of the city in the mission is worth noting (Identity
and mission of KU Leuven, 2012). Evidently, an important cause for the university's
active urban policy is its size in comparison with the city. There are 55,000 students,
while the city's population is 97,000 with almost 10,000 foreign students. Experts
interviewed pointed out that every third student is described as a ‘cultural diversity
student’, i.e., characterized by the features of ‘otherness’ in the broadest sense of the
word. The creation of a special department may be a form of university's reaction to
the globalization challenges (like the need to increase the number of students,
especially foreign and thus to bear partial responsibility for their living in the city).
Perhaps that is also a reason to the existing way of interaction between the University
and ‘community’, which the interviews with employees of the University showed. The
university (its management, staff) does not recognize existing practice of
communication with the city developed over the years as the fulfilment of any special
(‘third’, ‘social’) role. One encounters phrases such as ‘transfer of knowledge’,
8
‘valorisation’, ‘commercialization’ in the KU Leuven regulations, but will fail to find
a direct reference to the implementation of any ‘third role’.
The situation is similar at the University of Göttingen (Germany), the mission of
which does not mention the city in which it is based, but an active interaction between
them is inevitable. Just like in Leuven, internationalization and growth of the number
of students only increases the need for pragmatic cooperation. For example, in 2014
there was a conflict regarding student housing: in recent years, there have been a steady
increase in the number of students, but the university is not able to provide them all
with dormitories. The options for the city turned out to be limited, which caused
conflict, both within the university and beyond. The university appealed to the city
authorities who provided the city school as temporary hostel. The city also changed the
schedule and route network of public transport responding to the needs of students.
The actions of the university and the consequent, helpful response of the municipality
were both a product of the struggle within the university between internal groups:
students and administrators. Students organized several massive protests and a camp,
as a means of applying pressure. The student parliament of the university initiated some
important decisions concerning transport. Moreover, the problem of housing became
an issue directly linked to the administration of the university, because it was a
necessary condition for the implementation of the strategy for integrating the university
into the global educational space associated with an increase in the number of students
in general, and foreign students primarily. Therefore, in this case it is an example of a
normative isomorphism, when the university reflects the conventional university
strategy. Nevertheless, its successful implementation is only possible under certain
conditions. The insufficiency of its own resources forces the university to interact with
the city authorities, who, of course, are extremely interested in this cooperation.
Moreover, the city receives significant symbolic bonuses from the status of the
‘university town’, for example, the director of one of the institutes of the Max Planck
Society, located in Göttingen, received the 2014 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and citizens
now say ‘we’ got it; the prize was given to ‘us’.
9
An example of another type is University of Siena (Italy). The extent of its
internationalization is lower than in the previous cases as it is primarily a regional
(Tuscany) University with a large number of students from the south of Italy. The town
itself is small (53 thousand citizens with about 20 thousand of students).
The
representative of the mayor's office (and part-time university professor) said in an
interview that the active cooperation between the municipality and the university only
began in 2011-2012. Prior to that, ‘there was a wall’ between the community and the
university. One of the significant factors in breaking down this wall was the need to
overcome the serious financial and budgetary difficulties, in which the university found
itself in 2011. The new rector of the university started the rescue of the university’s
finances, and the city was actively cooperating: it established a coordinating body
(instead of the former ‘confrontation’, according to the mayor), developed a recovery
plan and the parties have made specific commitments (even supported by some third
parties). This paved the way for cooperation in the areas other than the economic
recovery. For example, in the creation of an interactive map of the city with the
Department of Education or in carrying out of the so-called ‘Night of researchers’ (the
presentation of scientists' work and its results by the scientists themselves to everyone
in a creative way) (Mappa il tuo quartiere!, 2015). The latter is a European initiative
(included more than 300 cities in 2015) supported by the European Commission, which
was launched in 2005 and joined by University of Siena in 2012. An example of this
initiative shows that the ‘meeting of the city and the university’ may take place in the
format of a universal practice and may be subject to a universal policy, in this case, of
the European Union.
Mimetic isomorphism or how Russian universities learn from European: In
building its own strategy, the university draws the goals it aims to achieve, and this
determines its set of values and objectives. Such Russian giants as the Moscow State
University, St. Petersburg State University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow
Institute of Physics and Technology look up to the globally leading universities. The
regional universities choose easier-to-achieve models - strong regional and medium
10
scale universities in the US, Western Europe and other regions of the world - and create
cooperation contacts with them.
The western and, above all, the Scandinavian experience in the implementation
of the third role was ‘contagious’ for Russian regional universities, where the initiators
and subjects of the implementation of the ‘third role’ are more often than not the
university administrators. In this case, the universities borrow the successful practice
of others. This was the case at the Perm State University. In the process of developing
a PSU Strategy (Smirnov, Fadeeva , & Punina, 2013), the discussion of strategic
directions of development was supplemented with an active search for best practices
and institutional solutions outside Russia. That said, it would be wrong to reduce the
implementation of universities' ‘third role’ only to the effects of mimetic isomorphism.
The Perm case indicates that the decision on the formation and content of the
university's strategy and mission was being made under both external and internal
influences.
After PSU received the status of National Research University in 2010, it had to
meet specific state requirements and targets. The state's financial and institutional
support for prioritized academic areas in the case of PSU actually ‘split’ the university
into National Research part - of natural sciences and economics- and ‘the others’. The
humanities were left with no additional support in the situation of permanent reduction
of budget places, etc. These decisions provoked the representatives of humanitarian
faculties - members of the Academic Council – to publicly challenge the approach to
the formation of the development strategy with the idea of the University solely as an
educational and academic institution. They proposed to update the humanitarian and
social function of the university in terms of its role and inclusion in urban and regional
community. The idea of the ‘third role’ as a successful Western practice was also
proposed, and it became a way of overcoming the incipient internal institutional split.
The Development Strategy of PSU includes its mission statement that declares its
intention to act as a regional intellectual centre, guiding the regional community
activity.
11
In the PSU case, the ‘third role’ appears not so much as a form of
commercialization of scientific research of the natural sciences faculties (without
denying their necessity and importance), but as an inclusion in the public-political and
social life of the city and the region. Apparently, such a perception is not typical for
Russian universities (Fadeeva & Punina, 2015). The results of expert interviews show
that, in most cases, the ‘third role’ turns out to be a political and administrative
tendency of university administration. This role often faces a lack of understanding and
support from the staff who perceive the functions associated with the implementation
of the ‘third role’ as complementary to the already existing traditional ones - teaching
and research.
However, the structural characteristics (as well as broader conditions) of including
Russian universities in the process of education and research internationalization and
in building a dialogue with the urban environment are different from the European
realities. First, a typical Russian regional university is smaller than its European
counterpart in terms of its ‘weight’ in the city (the ratio of the number of university
students and the city's population). For example, the ratio for the KU Leuven is 62.22
per cent, for the University of Siena - 38.18 per cent, for the University of Gottingen 21.31 per cent, and for PSU - only 1.16 per cent. A peculiarity of the KU Leuven is
that the city itself exists only due to the university. If one would ask citizens: ‘Where
is the university?’ almost all would answer: ‘The University is everywhere’. In our
sample, this KU Leuven is a leader in the number of students to the total number of
citizens. This university is the largest employer in the city: 13,000 out of 97,000 of
Leuven’s inhabitants are employed at KUL structures (Living in Leuven, p. 11).
Nevertheless, the integration of students (both Belgian and foreign students) in the
urban environment, according to all experts, remains extremely low. They are not
residents of Leuven and do not participate in the local elections, they are not taxpayers
either. On weekends, Belgian students prefer to go to their parents' home outside
Leuven. Without the students, the city becomes empty: deserted streets, public places,
transport, and too few cyclists. The contact between the city and the university is
12
symbiotic, but it has internal conflicts: Leuven’s citizens do not like noisy student
parties (especially on Thursday nights), students-cyclists violating traffic regulations,
local deputies and the mayor's attention to the problems of the students have no
electoral benefit. However, the problems of students (housing, leisure, transport, public
order) are a part of the area of local authorities’ attention and responsibility. It makes
both the city authorities and the university administration institutionalize dialogue in
order to solve common problems.
For most Russian regional capitals, there is no such objective stimulus for
cooperation between the city and the university. The environment, including the city,
does not create challenges for the university. The latter, as the Perm case shows,
initiates the creation of areas for cooperation, at least formally. For example, a notable
situation in Perm is a discussion of the development and organization of the transport
infrastructure in the context of spatial development of the city. Monitoring of the
discussion about the development of highways, the organization of the public transport
network shows that the universities do not take part in this discussion (neither PSU
situating in one of the districts of Perm, nor other six universities, academic buildings
and dormitories of which are ‘scattered’ in various parts of the city). According to
expert estimates, 100,000 of Perm’s students use public transport services every day
(Stolbov, 2015). For that matter, there are transportation routes connecting areas of
location of universities buildings and dormitories in Perm that may be called ‘student
routes’. However, the multidisciplinary nature of the urban economy, and especially
the spatial development of the city, create a situation where there are so many potential
stakeholders of urban transport policies that the city does not consider them separately
as potential participants in this discussion. This means that in relation to the university
and its interests and the resulting strategy, it is not possible to note any significant
conflict situation where parties to the conflict were both the university and the city.
This leads to the conclusion that the actions and decisions of the university, labelled as
the implementation of the third role, are not due to existing socioeconomic, political
and cultural issues (common for the university and the city), but the university's desire
13
to find the resources in the struggle for a place in the Russian educational space. The
university, being compelled to become competitive, chooses imitation and borrowing
the best practice of others as a way of achieving the state's objectives.
The most productive comparison of universities finances would be the one based
on the sources of income and expenditure structure. In this respect, there are no
significant differences between Russian and European universities though both differ
from American ones in the amount and type of public funding they receive. The latter
have much smaller public funding: for Harvard it is less than 14 per cent of total
revenues (Financial Overview, 2014), for the University of Louisville, as an example
of the average American regional university - 16 per cent. In Gottingen and PSU, public
money makes up about half of the university’s income, while at the KU Leuven and
the University of Siena for about 67 per cent.
The structures of the budget expenditures are also similar for Russian and
European cases. For example, in the PSU case payroll expenses of the University are
about 56.8 per cent of the total expenditure. These figures are similar, in relative terms,
for other Russian universities. Moscow State University - 60.4 per cent; Ural Federal
University - 58.6 per cent. European cases also have similar cost structures: the
University of Göttingen payroll expenses in 2014 amounted to 59.7 per cent. However,
the difference still exists, for example, ‘payroll expenses’ secured by ‘the income from
education services’ dominate in the budgets of Russian universities. This means that
Russia, especially regional ‘classical’ universities survive, more through the
implementation of their ‘educational role’ rather than ‘research function’.
European universities realized the need for commercialization of intellectual
products of research back in the 1980s - 1990s, while the Russian universities faced
this challenge in the past five to seven years. In this situation, the latter are doomed to
be catching up with and borrowing from Western colleagues. While at the Russian
‘leading universities’ their own business start-up support appeared in the second half
of the mid-2000s (Timokhina, 2010), at regional universities it was the first half of the
14
2010s. In PSU management innovation was established in 2012 and just in 2015 the
Academic Council of PSU discussed the issue of innovation policy.
European universities - benchmarks for Russian universities - are in the
qualitatively different political and institutional contexts. Political and institutional
characteristics of external to the university environment reinforce the already strong
tradition of state intervention in the affairs of the university in Russia. Moreover, they
make a framework to its strategy choice by limiting the autonomy of the university the most important phenomenon of the western educational and academic tradition, the
elements of which are practically absent in the Russian practice. The ‘third role’
institutionalization in European universities grows out of the practice of a long-term
coexistence of the city and the university, and the need to address the challenges that
arise in the strategically obvious and indisputable way of internationalization. At the
same time, in each case additional situational factors (for example, in the case of Siena
it was a crisis within the university) or external structural conditions (for example,
strong controlling
welfare
state in
the
Nordic
countries
promoted the
institutionalization of the ‘third role’ of universities) could play their role.
Conclusions
For Russian universities (especially regional ‘national research universities’ )
understanding the limited possibilities is accompanied by the weakness of strategic
reflection - the selection of real priorities is random, and institutional transformation is
non-systemic. In the European case, these two developments support each other, and
the internationalization of universities contributes to their commercialization. In the
Russian case, despite a clear desire for internationalization and commercialization,
there is less evidence of the ‘development’ of local communities by universities.
Perhaps because ‘they’ think it is necessary to make a choice, the results of which could
no longer be corrected. At the same time, the strategy as of a combination of the two
directions in its development looks improbable at this time.
Both Russian and European universities face the same challenges of the modern
global world. Nevertheless, the difference in the institutional and resource environment
15
at seemingly similar processes of institutional transformation, does not necessarily lead
to similar results. In the action of four factors (conditions) outlined above Russian
universities are forced not just to catch up, but to choose the imposed ‘survival strategy’
when the struggle is 1) for the resources of the state, 2) according to the state rules, 3)
in a conservative and often unfair internal environment and 4) in absence of real time
capabilities. This practically ‘running in place’ captures Russian universities in the
‘trap of strategy choice’, aggravated by the issue of ‘path dependency’ and producing
the problem of ‘overlooked future opportunities’.
References
Charlier, J. (1977). Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, from campus to new town.
GeoJournal, 1(4), 47-55. doi:10.1007/BF00845202
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional
Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American
Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
Dyba, E. (2013, December 2). University and city: the history of confrontation.
Retrieved from: http://urban.hse.ru/urb.stud.townandgown_3 on December 12, 2014.
Fadeeva, L. A., & Punina, K. A. (2015). University in the regional public policy:
The Russian practice in comparative perspective. Politicheskaya Nauka, 3, 150-160.
Harvard
university:
Financial
Overview.
Retrieved
http://finance.harvard.edu/files/fad/files/har_fy14_financial_overview.pdf
from:
on
November 7, 2014.
Gallo , R., & Davis , R. (2008). The Impact of Town–Gown Relationships on the
Sustainability of African American Communities: An Examination of the Role of
HBCUs. Journal of African American Studies, 13, 509-523.
Gavazzi, S., & Fox, M. (2015). A Tale of Three Cities: Piloting a Measure of
Effort and Comfort Levels within Town-Gown Relationships. Innovative Higher
Education, 40(3), 189-199. doi:10.1007/s10755-014-9309-0
16
Hayho, R., & Li , J. (2012). Institutional Diversity in Chinese Higher Education.
International Higher Education, Winter, 22-24.
Identity and mission of KU Leuven. (2012, April 3). Retrieved from KU Leuven:
http://www.kuleuven.be/about/mission_statement on December 12, 2014.
Inefficient universities. (2015, October 20). Rossiiskaya Gazeta. Retrieved from:
RG.RU Eduction: http://www.rg.ru/sujet/4801 on October 21, 2015.
Lawrence , S., & Sharma, U. (2002). Commodification of education and academic
labour-using the balanced scorecard in a university setting. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 1(4), 661-667.
Living
in
Leuven,
2014-2015.
Retrieved
from:
https://www.kuleuven.be/english/studentservices/pangaea/pdf/2014-2015/living-inleuven-web.pdf on October 21, 2015
Lowman, R. L. (2010). Leading the 21st-Century College and University:
Managing Multiple Missions and Conflicts of Interest in Higher Education. The
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13, 237-243.
USiena: Mappa il tuo quartiere! (2015, June 18). Retrieved
http://www.usienawelcome.unisi.it/2015/06/18/mappa-il-tuo-quartiere/
from:
on October
21, 2015.
Smirnov, V. A., Fadeeva , L. A., & Punina , K. A. (2013). University and Regional
(Local) Communities: Models of Interaction and Management Mechanisms (Russian
and European Experiences). Ars Administrandi, 4, 102-116.
Solomin, V. P., & Gromova, L. A. (2014). Management of the university
structural units during restructuring. Higher Education in Russia, 12/14, 19-24.
Stolbov, V. (2015, December 16). It is good to make the city center is for
pedestrians. Retrieved from: http://www.business-class.su/news/2015/12/16/pravilnocentr-goroda-sdelat-peshehodnym on January 11, 2015.
Timokhina, E. (2010, November 10). The best five business incubators in Russia.
Forbes.
Retrieved
from
http://www.forbes.ru/svoi-biznes/startapy/59358-pyat-
luchshih-rossiiskih-biznes-inkubatorov on October 21, 2015.
17
Vakhshtayn, V. (2005). The educational system of Finland: school learning
achievements and the 3rd role of univirsities. In: In Actual issues of development of
education in the OECD countries (pp. 8-20). Moscow: HSE Publishing House.
Zhu, C., & Kuprianova-Ashina, V. (2013). The internationalization of higher
education. The Russian Approach. International Trends. Journal of International
Relations Theory and World Politics, 11, 85-94.
18