<p> Institutions of higher education have faced many challenges over the last few decades. Though many large institutions have the resources needed to respond to these challenges, small institutions have had to be innovative in the ways in which they are adapting. There are similarities between the external challenges that institutions face today and the challenges they faced in the 1960s and 70s, and it is worth examining whether or not the predictions and suggestions made by scholars in this time period offer insight in regards to the innovation found in small institutions today. This dissertation explored Erich Jantsch's 1969 report in the context of innovation in higher education today. This qualitative, multicase study found that Erich Jantsch's five crucial innovations can be found to some extent in the innovations of four small institutions of higher education.</p><p> Keywords: Erich Jantsch, higher education, disruptive forces, innovation, self-renewal, integrative planning</p><p>

Nesta tese discute-se a formação moral de pesquisadores de áreas tecnológicas e de engenharias de universidades brasileiras e finlandesas em perspectiva comparada. Buscou-se compreender como os cientistas desses ambientes justificam a necessidade de a sociedade e os governos apoiarem suas atividades profissionais. Para tanto foram conduzidas entrevistas semi-estruturadas com esses pesquisadores, cujos temas centrais eram a motivação em perseguir uma carreira acadêmica e a percepção sobre o reconhecimento social de suas atividades. As perguntas das entrevistas tinham como fim fazer os pesquisadores justificarem suas atividades profissionais, explicitando assim sua formação moral. Os entrevistados, então, expuseram sua percepção em relação a seu papel e sua importância na sociedade enquanto cientistas. Tais justificativas morais são explicadas a partir de sua relação com o contexto social e cultural a que pertencem. Tal relação foi objeto de análise histórica e estrutural, mapeando a configuração institucional do sistema de ensino superior de cada país e a formação histórica desta configuração através dos processos de racionalização social e cultural. Conclui-se que, no Brasil, o processo de institucionalização da atividade científica e, em última instância, do sistema de ensino superior não foi legitimado socialmente, interiorizando nos pesquisadores brasileiros uma estrutura motivacional de busca por reconhecimento social, que molda a orientação científica própria de sua atividade profissional. Forma-se, então, entre eles, uma moral estamental, em que o dever profissional dos pesquisadores se refere a uma capacidade de desenvolver a sociedade, que eles alegam ter. Por outro lado, entre os finlandeses, existe uma ética do profissionalismo, em que a noção de dever profissional dos pesquisadores está ligada ao exercício especializado das atividades científicas, se referindo aos valores abstratos de suas atividades e não a uma situação social concreta. Por encontrar-se legitimada a atividade científica neste país, os pesquisadores tem uma percepção clara do papel especializado que desempenham na sociedade finlandesa e de como este se relaciona a outros papéis sociais com os quais interagem no exercício de suas profissões. / In this thesis I discuss the moral formation of technological and engineering areas in Finnish and Brazilian universities in a comparative manner. The aim was to comprehend how scientists of these environments justify the need for society and governments to support their professional activities. To do so, I conducted semi-structured interviews with these researchers, in which the central themes were their motivation to pursue a academic career and their perception about social recognition of their activities. The questions of these interviews intended to make researchers justify their professional activities, showing their moral formation through it. The interviewees then expressed their perception in relation to their role and their importance as scientists in society. Those moral justifications are explained through their relation with the social and cultural context to which they pertain. The relations were object of a historical and structural analysis, highlighting the institutional configuration of the higher education system of each country and the historical formation of this configuration through social and cultural rationalization process. The thesis concludes that in Brazil the institutionalization process of scientific activity and of the higher education system wasn't socially legitimated, internalizing in researchers a motivational structure that seeks for social recognition, which molds the scientific orientation of their professional activities. There forms a status morality between researchers, where their professional duty is referred to their alleged capacity of developing and modernizing society in its whole. On the other side, between Finnish researchers, there exists an ethics of professionalism, in which their duty is attached to the specialized performance of scientific activities, referring itself to the abstract values of these activities and not to a concrete social situation. While scientific activities are socially legitimated in Finland, its researchers have a clear perception of the specialized role they perform in society and how they relate to the other roles with which they interact in their professional exercise.

Nesta tese discute-se a formação moral de pesquisadores de áreas tecnológicas e de engenharias de universidades brasileiras e finlandesas em perspectiva comparada. Buscou-se compreender como os cientistas desses ambientes justificam a necessidade de a sociedade e os governos apoiarem suas atividades profissionais. Para tanto foram conduzidas entrevistas semi-estruturadas com esses pesquisadores, cujos temas centrais eram a motivação em perseguir uma carreira acadêmica e a percepção sobre o reconhecimento social de suas atividades. As perguntas das entrevistas tinham como fim fazer os pesquisadores justificarem suas atividades profissionais, explicitando assim sua formação moral. Os entrevistados, então, expuseram sua percepção em relação a seu papel e sua importância na sociedade enquanto cientistas. Tais justificativas morais são explicadas a partir de sua relação com o contexto social e cultural a que pertencem. Tal relação foi objeto de análise histórica e estrutural, mapeando a configuração institucional do sistema de ensino superior de cada país e a formação histórica desta configuração através dos processos de racionalização social e cultural. Conclui-se que, no Brasil, o processo de institucionalização da atividade científica e, em última instância, do sistema de ensino superior não foi legitimado socialmente, interiorizando nos pesquisadores brasileiros uma estrutura motivacional de busca por reconhecimento social, que molda a orientação científica própria de sua atividade profissional. Forma-se, então, entre eles, uma moral estamental, em que o dever profissional dos pesquisadores se refere a uma capacidade de desenvolver a sociedade, que eles alegam ter. Por outro lado, entre os finlandeses, existe uma ética do profissionalismo, em que a noção de dever profissional dos pesquisadores está ligada ao exercício especializado das atividades científicas, se referindo aos valores abstratos de suas atividades e não a uma situação social concreta. Por encontrar-se legitimada a atividade científica neste país, os pesquisadores tem uma percepção clara do papel especializado que desempenham na sociedade finlandesa e de como este se relaciona a outros papéis sociais com os quais interagem no exercício de suas profissões. / In this thesis I discuss the moral formation of technological and engineering areas in Finnish and Brazilian universities in a comparative manner. The aim was to comprehend how scientists of these environments justify the need for society and governments to support their professional activities. To do so, I conducted semi-structured interviews with these researchers, in which the central themes were their motivation to pursue a academic career and their perception about social recognition of their activities. The questions of these interviews intended to make researchers justify their professional activities, showing their moral formation through it. The interviewees then expressed their perception in relation to their role and their importance as scientists in society. Those moral justifications are explained through their relation with the social and cultural context to which they pertain. The relations were object of a historical and structural analysis, highlighting the institutional configuration of the higher education system of each country and the historical formation of this configuration through social and cultural rationalization process. The thesis concludes that in Brazil the institutionalization process of scientific activity and of the higher education system wasn't socially legitimated, internalizing in researchers a motivational structure that seeks for social recognition, which molds the scientific orientation of their professional activities. There forms a status morality between researchers, where their professional duty is referred to their alleged capacity of developing and modernizing society in its whole. On the other side, between Finnish researchers, there exists an ethics of professionalism, in which their duty is attached to the specialized performance of scientific activities, referring itself to the abstract values of these activities and not to a concrete social situation. While scientific activities are socially legitimated in Finland, its researchers have a clear perception of the specialized role they perform in society and how they relate to the other roles with which they interact in their professional exercise.

Nesta tese discute-se a formação moral de pesquisadores de áreas tecnológicas e de engenharias de universidades brasileiras e finlandesas em perspectiva comparada. Buscou-se compreender como os cientistas desses ambientes justificam a necessidade de a sociedade e os governos apoiarem suas atividades profissionais. Para tanto foram conduzidas entrevistas semi-estruturadas com esses pesquisadores, cujos temas centrais eram a motivação em perseguir uma carreira acadêmica e a percepção sobre o reconhecimento social de suas atividades. As perguntas das entrevistas tinham como fim fazer os pesquisadores justificarem suas atividades profissionais, explicitando assim sua formação moral. Os entrevistados, então, expuseram sua percepção em relação a seu papel e sua importância na sociedade enquanto cientistas. Tais justificativas morais são explicadas a partir de sua relação com o contexto social e cultural a que pertencem. Tal relação foi objeto de análise histórica e estrutural, mapeando a configuração institucional do sistema de ensino superior de cada país e a formação histórica desta configuração através dos processos de racionalização social e cultural. Conclui-se que, no Brasil, o processo de institucionalização da atividade científica e, em última instância, do sistema de ensino superior não foi legitimado socialmente, interiorizando nos pesquisadores brasileiros uma estrutura motivacional de busca por reconhecimento social, que molda a orientação científica própria de sua atividade profissional. Forma-se, então, entre eles, uma moral estamental, em que o dever profissional dos pesquisadores se refere a uma capacidade de desenvolver a sociedade, que eles alegam ter. Por outro lado, entre os finlandeses, existe uma ética do profissionalismo, em que a noção de dever profissional dos pesquisadores está ligada ao exercício especializado das atividades científicas, se referindo aos valores abstratos de suas atividades e não a uma situação social concreta. Por encontrar-se legitimada a atividade científica neste país, os pesquisadores tem uma percepção clara do papel especializado que desempenham na sociedade finlandesa e de como este se relaciona a outros papéis sociais com os quais interagem no exercício de suas profissões. / In this thesis I discuss the moral formation of technological and engineering areas in Finnish and Brazilian universities in a comparative manner. The aim was to comprehend how scientists of these environments justify the need for society and governments to support their professional activities. To do so, I conducted semi-structured interviews with these researchers, in which the central themes were their motivation to pursue a academic career and their perception about social recognition of their activities. The questions of these interviews intended to make researchers justify their professional activities, showing their moral formation through it. The interviewees then expressed their perception in relation to their role and their importance as scientists in society. Those moral justifications are explained through their relation with the social and cultural context to which they pertain. The relations were object of a historical and structural analysis, highlighting the institutional configuration of the higher education system of each country and the historical formation of this configuration through social and cultural rationalization process. The thesis concludes that in Brazil the institutionalization process of scientific activity and of the higher education system wasn't socially legitimated, internalizing in researchers a motivational structure that seeks for social recognition, which molds the scientific orientation of their professional activities. There forms a status morality between researchers, where their professional duty is referred to their alleged capacity of developing and modernizing society in its whole. On the other side, between Finnish researchers, there exists an ethics of professionalism, in which their duty is attached to the specialized performance of scientific activities, referring itself to the abstract values of these activities and not to a concrete social situation. While scientific activities are socially legitimated in Finland, its researchers have a clear perception of the specialized role they perform in society and how they relate to the other roles with which they interact in their professional exercise.

25 Jahre nach dem Zusammenbruch der Sowjetunion sind aus einem unitären Hochschulsystem 15 einzigartige nationale Systeme hervorgegangen. Deren Entwicklung wurde von je eigenen ökonomischen, kulturellen und politischen Kräften beeinflusst und geprägt, sowohl nationalen wie internationalen Ursprungs (Johnstone and Bain 2002). Die vorliegende Doktorarbeit untersucht die Veränderungen der Governance von Hochschulsystemen der drei postsowjetischen Staaten Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau über den Zeitraum von 1991 bis 2015, analysiert, zu welchem Grad diese Entwicklungen einem Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „globalen Modell“ oder einem „postsowjetischen Modell“ folgen und formuliert Hypothesen über die treibenden Kräfte und Pfadabhängigkeiten, welche auf nationalem, regionalen und globaler Ebene diese Entwicklungen befördert, gehemmt oder auf idiosynkratische Art und Weise geprägt haben. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass global propagierte Governanceinstrumente – wie z.B. Globalbudgets, erweiterte Befugnisse der Hochschulleitung, externe Qualitätssicherung, Stakeholdergovernancegremien – in allen drei untersuchten Ländern Verbreitung finden und ein Prozess der Konvergenz hin zu einem „global Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance stattfindet. Gleichzeitig zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die spezifischen Eigenarten der nationalen Governancearrangements durch die Einführung dieser neuen Instrumente in der Regel nicht ersetzt werden und dem Bestehenden stattdessen als zusätzliche Ebenen hinzugefügt werden. Wo die Logiken der neuen mit den alten Strukturen kollidieren, zeigt sich, dass sich die tradierten Strukturen und Prozesse in der Regel durchsetzen. Zudem zeigt sich, dass die Governancearrangements der drei untersuchten Länder eine große Zahl spezieller Eigenschaften teilen, durch die sie sich systematisch von jenem propagierten globalen Modell abheben. Jenes „Postsowjetische Modell“ der Hochschulgovernance zeichnet sich durch dominante Rolle des Staates, Hierarchie als primäre und legitime Form der Governance sowie einen geringen Grad an Vertrauen zwischen den zentralen Akteuren des Hochschulsystems aus. Zuletzt illustriert die Dissertation die Divergenzen und Besonderheiten der Governancemodelle in Russland, Kasachstan und Moldau. Die vorliegende Dissertation leistet somit einen Beitrag zum Verständnis der Entwicklung der Governance der Hochschulsysteme in einer sich dynamisch entwickelten Weltregion, welche in der akademischen Literatur bislang nur wenig Aufmerksamkeit erhalten hat.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336 / After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cul-tural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for a set of policies associated with the Washington Consensus (Neave, G. R. & van Vught, 1991). The Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, supported by EU policies and funding. Many post-Soviet States have responded to these influences, albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, mar-ketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). This PhD thesis aims to 1) reconstruct the developments of governance of higher education systems, 2) analyze to what degree the developments represent a convergence towards a “global model” or a “Post-Soviet model” and 3) formulate hypotheses about driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level which have driven or impeded these changes. Following work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research analyzes the object of analysis, the govern-ance of higher education systems, on five dimensions: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making, and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures; and 5. The relationship of higher education and the state. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). Three post-Soviet, non-EU, Bologna signatory states were selected to represent a diverse geographical sub-sample of the 15 post-Soviet States. The three countries studied in-depth are Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. The period of analysis comprises the changes taking place over a 25-year period between 1991 and 2015. Methodologically, the study rests on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, and national strategy papers. Building on this document analysis, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the govern-ance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular page 12 social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder per-spectives, in order to reconstruct how and why specific policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: The governance instruments promoted by OECD, WB and EU are clearly recognizable in the 2015 governance arrangements in all three case countries. On this instru-ments-level “surface”, a process of convergence towards the “global model” is clearly taking place. While these new instruments are being adopted, however, the specific national governance arrangements persist and continue to matter. Only in isolated instances are old instruments fully displaced. More com-monly, new structures are added as additional layers to existing governance arrangements. The three countries continue to share a number of unique characteristics which sets them apart from the Anglo-Saxon higher education systems, which have inspired the “global model”. The dominating con-trolling role of the state has remained in place in all countries. This is strongly reinforced by national-level institutions and mental models which affirm hierarchy as the legitimate principle in governance and a lack of trust between actors in the system. In all case countries, the mutual expectation of state and HEIs alike remains that the state should be steering the higher education sector. This it does (Russia and Kazakhstan) or attempts to do (Moldova). Clearly, the adoption of governance instruments which are inspired by the “global model” does in no way equate with a retreat of the state. While the elements of university autonomy and stakeholder governance are slowly expanded, even this very process of loosening the reigns of the state is in great measure overseen and steered by the state. Shared character-istics, such as centralized control over admission; a state claim to steer and, in many cases, control the system; a hierarchical, authoritarian, personalized style of governance, management, leadership, as well as accountability form the discernable core of a common “post-Soviet” model of HE governance. The shared institutional past of the Soviet era, as well as common challenges, have facilitated and maintained these commonalities. As time passes, however, these post-Soviet commonalities are getting weaker. Divergent national-level forces and actors are driving or impeding reforms: While in Moldova, political volatility and underfund-ing have repeatedly undermined substantial reforms, Russia and Kazakhstan have each adopted govern-ance and management practices from New Public Management in new idiosyncratic ways: Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program. Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other. This dissertation sheds light on the developments, driving forces and mechanisms behind the convergence and divergence of approaches to higher education governance in an under-studied region of the world.:Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................. 5 Preliminary remarks and acknowledgements .................................................................................. 6 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 2.1 Research Topic ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.2 Starting point and personal research interest ......................................................................... 14 2.3 Research approach ................................................................................................................. 15 2.4 Relevance to research and practice ........................................................................................ 16 2.5 Structure ................................................................................................................................ 16 3 Steps towards a framework of analysis ........................................................................................ 17 3.1 The Governance of Higher Education Systems ..................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Higher Education systems ............................................................................................. 17 3.1.2 Governance in higher education .................................................................................... 23 3.1.3 Summary: Making sense of higher education governance ............................................ 32 3.2 The changing governance of higher education systems ........................................................ 33 3.2.1 Conceptualizing forces of change in the governance of higher education systems: The ‘Glonacal’ agency heuristic ........................................................................................................... 33 3.2.2 Global trends and the emergence of a “global model” of higher education governance36 3.2.3 Instruments of Governance of Higher Education Systems ............................................ 49 3.2.4 Conclusion: A global model of HE governance? .......................................................... 66 3.3 State of research on the governance of higher education in post-Soviet countries ............... 67 3.3.1 European Integration in the post-Soviet space .............................................................. 70 4 Framework of Analysis and Research Design .............................................................................. 73 4.1 Research Questions and Scope of Analysis ........................................................................... 73 4.2 Research Methodology, Case Study Design, and Data Collection ........................................ 74 4.2.1 Case Studies and data collection ................................................................................... 74 4.2.2 Comparing the governance of higher education systems and assessing convergence .. 77 4.2.3 Discussion of validity and reliability of the chosen case study design .......................... 78 4.3 Limitations of the study ......................................................................................................... 79 5 The Point of Departure: The Soviet Union ................................................................................... 80 5.1 Introduction - Key features of the Soviet Higher Education system ..................................... 80 5.2 Structure of the HE system .................................................................................................... 83 5.3 The governance of higher education in the Soviet Union ..................................................... 85 5.3.1 Actors and their capabilities .......................................................................................... 85 5.3.2 Educational Standards and Quality Assurance .............................................................. 86 page 3 5.3.3 Regulation of admission into higher education ............................................................. 88 5.3.4 Institutional governance, decision-making and institutional autonomy ........................ 89 5.3.5 Financing of HEIs.......................................................................................................... 90 5.4 The HE Reforms of 1987 ...................................................................................................... 91 5.5 The break-up and transition of the Soviet higher education system ...................................... 94 6 The Russian Federation ................................................................................................................ 99 6.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 99 6.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Russia .................... 99 6.2.1 De-regulation and marketization of higher education (1991-2000) ............................ 100 6.2.2 Renaissance of state control, internationalization and renewed investment into higher education (2000-2004) ................................................................................................................ 105 6.2.3 Asserting state control and promoting differentiation of the higher education system (2004-2012) ................................................................................................................................. 110 6.2.4 Differentiated state steering (2012-2016) .................................................................... 119 6.3 The governance model of the Russian HE system by 2015 ................................................ 128 7 The Republic of Kazakhstan ........................................................................................................ 134 7.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 134 7.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Kazakhstan .......... 135 7.2.1 Establishing statehood and institutions (1991-1999) ................................................... 136 7.2.2 Curbing corruption and saddling the market (1999-2004) .......................................... 139 7.2.3 Preparing to join the Bologna Space (2005-2010) ...................................................... 146 7.2.4 Differentiation and expanding autonomy (2011-2017) ............................................... 153 7.3 The governance model of the Kazakh HE system by 2015 ................................................. 171 8 The Republic of Moldova ............................................................................................................. 173 8.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 173 8.2 The development of the governance of the higher education system in Moldova .............. 176 8.2.1 Experimentation and laisser-faire after independence (1991-1994) ............................ 177 8.2.2 Attempts to establish impartial instruments to regulate quality (1994-2001) ............. 178 8.2.3 Re-Centralization of powers in the Ministry of Education (2001-2006) ..................... 181 8.2.4 Creation of dysfunctional public structures (2006-2009) ............................................ 183 8.2.5 The long struggle for a new system of governance (2009-2015) ................................ 184 8.3 The governance model of the Moldovan HE system by 2015 ............................................ 194 9 Cross-National Comparison of Developments and Discussion of Results ................................... 197 9.1 How has the governance of higher education systems changed between 1991-2015? ....... 197 9.1.1 Common challenges and similar answers .................................................................... 197 9.1.2 Diverging paths ........................................................................................................... 200 9.1.3 Two-track state steering system in Russia ................................................................... 203 9.1.4 Marketization and expanding state-overseen stakeholder governance in Kazakhstan 205 page 4 9.1.5 Imitation of “European” institutions in Moldova ........................................................ 207 9.2 Is there a convergence towards a “post-Soviet” or global model of governance of higher education systems? .......................................................................................................................... 208 9.2.1 Quality Assurance ....................................................................................................... 208 9.2.2 Institutional Governance and University Autonomy ................................................... 210 9.2.3 Regulation of access .................................................................................................... 211 9.2.4 Financing ..................................................................................................................... 212 9.2.5 Conclusion: Is there a common model of governance? ............................................... 213 9.3 The interplay of national, regional and global factors on the development of the governance of higher education .......................................................................................................................... 218 9.3.1 Global and European forces ........................................................................................ 218 9.3.2 Regional forces ............................................................................................................ 224 9.3.3 National-level: Governments and Ministries responsible for higher education .......... 225 9.3.4 National-level: Stakeholder organizations................................................................... 232 9.3.5 National-level: Higher Education Institutions ............................................................. 234 9.3.6 National-level: Institutional factors of path dependence ............................................. 235 10 Discussion and Outlook .............................................................................................................. 244 10.1 Concluding reflections on the contribution of this study to the field of research ................ 246 11 References .................................................................................................................................. 247 12 Annexes ...................................................................................................................................... 269 12.1 Annex 1: Russia - The governance of the higher education system .................................... 269 12.1.1 Russia: Structure of the higher education system ........................................................ 269 12.1.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 273 12.1.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Russia ............................................... 283 12.1.4 Competitive programs for investment and differentiation of higher education........... 295 12.2 Annex 2: Kazakhstan – The governance of the higher education system ........................... 299 12.2.1 Kazakhstan: Structure of the higher education system ................................................ 299 12.2.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 302 12.2.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Kazakhstan ....................................... 310 12.3 Annex 3: Moldova – The governance of the higher education system ............................... 322 12.3.1 Moldova: Structure of the higher education system .................................................... 322 12.3.2 Actors and their capabilities ........................................................................................ 325 12.3.3 Instruments of higher education governance in Moldova ........................................... 328 12.4 Annex 4: The European “infrastructure” of quality assurance ............................................ 336

No bojo das conflituosas transformações decorrentes de políticas neoliberais-privatistas estão as universidades e o Sistema de Educação Superior (SES). Ao longo da década de 2000, apesar de as políticas neoliberais-privatistas terem ganho repúdio de amplos setores da sociedade, o que contrastou com a defesa mais explícita desse modelo político em década anterior, subsistiram não poucas permanências e traços do privatismo, sobretudo na Educação Superior (ES). Tal como países em desenvolvimento, Brasil e Argentina vivem, em ritmos, formas e intensidades específicas, o paradoxo de ter o respectivo SES pressionado por políticas privatistas, ao mesmo tempo em que a esses sistemas se impõem desafios de expansão da cobertura de vagas e melhoria na qualidade da educação que permitam a efetiva democratização das oportunidades no nível superior do ensino. Em meio a complexos problemas, um dos direcionamentos que podem ser identificados é a articulação da expansão do ensino superior com o privatismo. Nessa linha, a presente pesquisa analisou os processos de expansão e privatismo da ES no Brasil e na Argentina, buscando investigar, do ponto de vista do desenvolvimento da esfera pública e privada, o progresso do ensino superior ocorrido entre 1989 e 2009. O período abordado na análise se justifica por contemplar o vigor do neoliberalismo nos dois países a partir do final dos anos 1980, bem como permanências e mudanças consumadas nos referidos SES, particularmente até a metade do mandato de Cristina Kirchner e o segundo Governo de Lula, no ano de 2009. Partindo de peculiaridades do ponto de vista original da universidade em cada país analisado, buscaram-se semelhanças e diferenças na evolução dos SES. O foco do acompanhamento do ensino superior brasileiro e argentino, em análise comparativa, centrou os eixos de abordagem nas categorias ES pública e ES privada. Tendo como unidade de análise o SES dos dois países, a metodologia utilizada recaiu sobre a educação comparada. Na análise dos processos de expansão e privatismo na ES, as variáveis observadas foram as seguintes: crescimento quantitativo das IES; matrícula e acesso nos estabelecimentos públicos e privados; terminalidade nos SES; financiamento público e alguns programas para a ES nos dois países. A pesquisa verificou, dentre os sistemas do Brasil e da Argentina, o ensino superior no âmbito de diferenças de formação histórica de cada SES e os respectivos ajustes, as mudanças na legislação e o potencial reordenamento dos estabelecimentos da ES em direção a uma lógica induzida pelo capital. A comparação da configuração histórica da universidade em ambos os países evidenciou a presença original da iniciativa privada na ES no Brasil muito mais dominante do que na Argentina, sinalizando o protagonismo de uma e outra natureza jurídica a pública e a privada , além de características mais elitistas ou massificadas nos respectivos SES. Na análise das variáveis comparadas, aferiu-se, em especial nos anos 1990, maior voracidade do privatismo na ES de ambos os países. Na década de 2000, apesar de alguns traços não suprimidos de permanências da situação anterior, evidenciou-se, na Argentina, maior ruptura com as políticas privatistas dos anos 1990. No Brasil, em que pese o incremento de políticas públicas quanto à expansão do acesso, observa-se, simultaneamente ao aumento numérico de IES públicas, a continuidade e intensificação do privatismo sob outras formas de estímulos. / In the midst of the conflicting arising changes given the neo-liberal privatist political model, stands the University and Higher Education Systems (HES). Throughout the 2000s, despite neo-liberal privatist policies won repudiation of broad sectors of society, which contrasted with the more explicit defense of this political model in the previous decade, more than a few traces of privatism and permanencies survived mainly in Higher Education (HE). Amid these complex problems, one of the directions that can be identified is the articulation between HE expansion and privatism. In this way, the present study examined the processes of expansion and privatism of HE in Brazil and Argentina in order to investigate, in view of the development of public and private spheres, the progress of higher education that occurred between 1989 and 2009. The period covered in this analysis is justified by contemplating the effect of neo-liberalism in both countries from the late 1980s, as well as continuities and changes in those consummated SES, particularly until the mid-term of Cristina Kirchner and the second government of Lula, in 2009. Assuming the peculiarities of the original point of view of the university in each country, similarities and differences were searched in the evolution of HES. The focus of HE tracking in Brazil and Argentina, in a comparative analysis, centered the approach axes in HE private and public categories. Having as analysis unit the HES of both countries, the methodology focused in comparative education. In the analysis of the expansion and privatism processes in HE, the observed variables were the quantitative growth of IES; the enrollment and access to public and private education establishments; the completion in the HES; the public funding and some programs for the HE in both countries. The research verified, in the systems of Brazil and Argentina, HE from the perspective of comparison in the framework of differences in each HES historical formation and their respective adjustments, changes in legislation and the potential redevelopment of HE establishments towards a logic induced by capital. The comparison of the historical configuration of the university in both countries showed the original presence of private enterprise in Brazils HE much more prevalent than in Argentina, signaling the role of one and another legal nature the public and the private , besides more elitist or massify characteristics in each HES. In the analysis of compared variables, it was measured up, particularly in the 1990s, most voracious privatism in the HE of both countries. In the 2000s, although some traits not suppressed of previous situation stays, there was, in Argentina, a greater rupture from the 1990s privatist policies. In Brazil, in spite of public policies growth regarding access expansion, it is observed, simultaneously to the increased number of public HES, the carrying and intensification of other privatism forms of stimuli.

No bojo das conflituosas transformações decorrentes de políticas neoliberais-privatistas estão as universidades e o Sistema de Educação Superior (SES). Ao longo da década de 2000, apesar de as políticas neoliberais-privatistas terem ganho repúdio de amplos setores da sociedade, o que contrastou com a defesa mais explícita desse modelo político em década anterior, subsistiram não poucas permanências e traços do privatismo, sobretudo na Educação Superior (ES). Tal como países em desenvolvimento, Brasil e Argentina vivem, em ritmos, formas e intensidades específicas, o paradoxo de ter o respectivo SES pressionado por políticas privatistas, ao mesmo tempo em que a esses sistemas se impõem desafios de expansão da cobertura de vagas e melhoria na qualidade da educação que permitam a efetiva democratização das oportunidades no nível superior do ensino. Em meio a complexos problemas, um dos direcionamentos que podem ser identificados é a articulação da expansão do ensino superior com o privatismo. Nessa linha, a presente pesquisa analisou os processos de expansão e privatismo da ES no Brasil e na Argentina, buscando investigar, do ponto de vista do desenvolvimento da esfera pública e privada, o progresso do ensino superior ocorrido entre 1989 e 2009. O período abordado na análise se justifica por contemplar o vigor do neoliberalismo nos dois países a partir do final dos anos 1980, bem como permanências e mudanças consumadas nos referidos SES, particularmente até a metade do mandato de Cristina Kirchner e o segundo Governo de Lula, no ano de 2009. Partindo de peculiaridades do ponto de vista original da universidade em cada país analisado, buscaram-se semelhanças e diferenças na evolução dos SES. O foco do acompanhamento do ensino superior brasileiro e argentino, em análise comparativa, centrou os eixos de abordagem nas categorias ES pública e ES privada. Tendo como unidade de análise o SES dos dois países, a metodologia utilizada recaiu sobre a educação comparada. Na análise dos processos de expansão e privatismo na ES, as variáveis observadas foram as seguintes: crescimento quantitativo das IES; matrícula e acesso nos estabelecimentos públicos e privados; terminalidade nos SES; financiamento público e alguns programas para a ES nos dois países. A pesquisa verificou, dentre os sistemas do Brasil e da Argentina, o ensino superior no âmbito de diferenças de formação histórica de cada SES e os respectivos ajustes, as mudanças na legislação e o potencial reordenamento dos estabelecimentos da ES em direção a uma lógica induzida pelo capital. A comparação da configuração histórica da universidade em ambos os países evidenciou a presença original da iniciativa privada na ES no Brasil muito mais dominante do que na Argentina, sinalizando o protagonismo de uma e outra natureza jurídica a pública e a privada , além de características mais elitistas ou massificadas nos respectivos SES. Na análise das variáveis comparadas, aferiu-se, em especial nos anos 1990, maior voracidade do privatismo na ES de ambos os países. Na década de 2000, apesar de alguns traços não suprimidos de permanências da situação anterior, evidenciou-se, na Argentina, maior ruptura com as políticas privatistas dos anos 1990. No Brasil, em que pese o incremento de políticas públicas quanto à expansão do acesso, observa-se, simultaneamente ao aumento numérico de IES públicas, a continuidade e intensificação do privatismo sob outras formas de estímulos. / In the midst of the conflicting arising changes given the neo-liberal privatist political model, stands the University and Higher Education Systems (HES). Throughout the 2000s, despite neo-liberal privatist policies won repudiation of broad sectors of society, which contrasted with the more explicit defense of this political model in the previous decade, more than a few traces of privatism and permanencies survived mainly in Higher Education (HE). Amid these complex problems, one of the directions that can be identified is the articulation between HE expansion and privatism. In this way, the present study examined the processes of expansion and privatism of HE in Brazil and Argentina in order to investigate, in view of the development of public and private spheres, the progress of higher education that occurred between 1989 and 2009. The period covered in this analysis is justified by contemplating the effect of neo-liberalism in both countries from the late 1980s, as well as continuities and changes in those consummated SES, particularly until the mid-term of Cristina Kirchner and the second government of Lula, in 2009. Assuming the peculiarities of the original point of view of the university in each country, similarities and differences were searched in the evolution of HES. The focus of HE tracking in Brazil and Argentina, in a comparative analysis, centered the approach axes in HE private and public categories. Having as analysis unit the HES of both countries, the methodology focused in comparative education. In the analysis of the expansion and privatism processes in HE, the observed variables were the quantitative growth of IES; the enrollment and access to public and private education establishments; the completion in the HES; the public funding and some programs for the HE in both countries. The research verified, in the systems of Brazil and Argentina, HE from the perspective of comparison in the framework of differences in each HES historical formation and their respective adjustments, changes in legislation and the potential redevelopment of HE establishments towards a logic induced by capital. The comparison of the historical configuration of the university in both countries showed the original presence of private enterprise in Brazils HE much more prevalent than in Argentina, signaling the role of one and another legal nature the public and the private , besides more elitist or massify characteristics in each HES. In the analysis of compared variables, it was measured up, particularly in the 1990s, most voracious privatism in the HE of both countries. In the 2000s, although some traits not suppressed of previous situation stays, there was, in Argentina, a greater rupture from the 1990s privatist policies. In Brazil, in spite of public policies growth regarding access expansion, it is observed, simultaneously to the increased number of public HES, the carrying and intensification of other privatism forms of stimuli.