Search

This paper examines the agency of international students in the context of university transformations in post-Soviet Ukraine. Conflict-driven political, social and economic changes in the country have laid the groundwork for the redesign of institutional policies related to the internationalization of Ukraine's higher education. However, it is not clear to what extent local universities have managed to engage the creative power and agency of international students in these transformations. By examining how international students' agency is constructed at 12 public universities, and triangulating comparative findings with data from the Ukrainian State Centre for International Education at the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, and from publicly available sources including social media, this study delves into the complexities of student agency development in the postcolonial discourses at Ukrainian universities. On a theoretical level, this paper enriches the knowledge base on tensions between institutional and human agencies in international higher learning.

The Soviet legacy has kept Georgian universities relegated to a peripheral status regionally and globally. In the post-Soviet era, some Georgian intellectuals sought opportunities to enhance creativity, openness and international collaboration at their universities for European Union integration; however, others nurtured nostalgia for unchallenged authority and hierarchy within the bounds of a tightly controlled and insular academia. These two forces give rise to important questions about the agency of professors in effecting change that would enhance local engagement with the European and global networks of science and development. This article presents insights from seasoned Georgian professors, who share their experience of the Soviet legacy and struggles in creating an open and innovative academic profession in independent Georgia. The research engages the concept of de-Sovietisation as a transformational strategy and examines the challenges of using this strategy to enhance academic engagement in the global domains of knowledge-making.

This paper conceptualizes intellectual dissent as a galvanizer of academic freedom in a post-totalitarian academia that is moving toward democratization. Drawing on the case of Ukraine, the analytical narrative describes difficulties in overcoming legacies in universities emerging from repressive rule that discouraged creativity, initiative, and critical inquiry, and having to envisage a transition to democratic governance in the context of neoliberal geopolitics. The case analysis suggests that intellectual dissent is essential but limited in its ability to establish the praxis of academic freedom under increasing control by oligarchic governments and a self-serving bureaucracy. By exploring interdependencies between intellectual dissent and academic freedom, this paper lays ground for an analytical framework that can be helpful in rethinking the prospects of universities at the crossroads of authoritarianism and democracy.

This paper explores integrity dilemmas experienced by Russian academics in the context of building a world-class university. Interviews with professors and managers of major research universities in Moscow provide critical insights into the organisational and attitudinal incongruities generated by a coercive state--a challenge that Russia has been unable to rise above following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scepticism as to the "master model" of competitive performance is evident in relation to the Russian 5-100-2020 excellence scheme, the overseers of which prioritise "reputation management" over integrity in governance and performance. In addition to exposing the consequences of deficient institutional autonomy, which prevail in the context of a post-totalitarian society, this paper calls for enhanced critical inquiry into university excellence programmes imposed by performativist and vanity-driven governments.

A major cluster of economic engines that have changed Asian higher education, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have all developed high-income societies as well as world-class universities which linked local "knowledge economies" to global science and created hubs for international collaborations and mobility. However, there has been limited analysis of interdependencies between the rise of world-class universities and changes in the flows of international talent. This paper elaborates on the concept of higher education internationalization that aims at enhancing geopolitical equity in global mobility and re-positioning local students for improved access to the world-class excellence. The paper compares key themes and patterns that define the Tiger societies' unique positions in the field of global higher education.

With increasing influence of illiberalism, freedom should not be considered or interpreted lightly. Post-truth contexts provide grounds for alt-right movements to capture and pervert notions of freedom of speech, making universities battlefields of politicised emotions and expressions (Peters et al., 2019). In societies facing these pressures around the world, academic freedom has never been challenged as much as it is today (Gibbs, 2019). As Peters and colleagues note (2019), conceptualisations of 'facts' and 'evidences' are politically, socially, and epistemically reconstructed in post-truth contexts. At the same time, with intelligence commodified, reified or marginalised, freedom of speech and of mobility can entail fights for entitlements, or escapes from local responsibilities (Calitz, 2018; Lo, 2019). The decline and corruptions of democratic free speech and academic freedom, or the absence of forces to defend them, are thus serious challenges. These challenges grow as the competition of ideas, sometimes under the rubric of academic freedom, often implies the power struggle and questioning of statuses in the so-called 'marketplace of ideas'. Competition as a value invoked in some conceptualisations of freedom, becomes more important than human dignity, which was originally supposed to expand and strengthen under democratic conceptions of freedom in higher education (Macfarlane, 2016). What had been happening to freedoms, of speech, teaching, and learning, across different subject positions and cultures of higher education, remains largely underexplored, as alt-right movements, neoliberalism and illiberalism, and post-truthism values and orientations expand.

The legacy of totalitarianism thwarts discourse and practice of academic freedom in post-Soviet universities. For legacy-holders, "academic freedom" causes disorientation, irresponsibility, demoralization and inequity. They see more threats than benefits from empowering decision-makers who are non-compliant with local bureaucracy. For innovators, freedoms enhance flexibility and creativity. However, granting such freedom also reinforces value clashes on campuses and tends to intensify feelings of guilt and shame in regard to actions which show a disrespect of authority and tradition. While both legacy-holders and innovators endeavour to redefine their practices and norms in their teaching, they appear to still struggle to shed their predispositions to a paternalistic and colonial philosophy of education. Presumably curative, their engagement with international networks of scholarship exposes their particular positions of vulnerabilities to that end. Both groups continue to push patriotism and cultural idiosyncrasy in order to hedge their power and status in the global marketplace of ideas. As in the past, a discourse of anti-westernization prevails, shoring up legacies of regulative thinking, indoctrination, and insularity. Progressive academics succeed primarily by taking bold steps to go above and beyond the dominant discourses and norms within their universities and policy-building communities. This article explicates why, in turn, a "surrogate academic freedom" tends to emerge as a conundrum across the post-Soviet higher education space.

A crisis constitutes a catalyst for rethinking academic responsibilities in societies facing a major threat. When a crisis escalates, such rethinking moves to the centre of both academic and social discourses, resulting in scrutiny, as well as synergy of scholarship and citizenship. Delving into the existential threats faced by Ukrainian scholars during the genocidal campaign unleashed against their country by Russia in 2022, this paper re‐examines academic citizenship in times of war. The interviews analysed in this paper contribute to identifying synergies between scholarship and citizenship, and unpacking a collective agency shaped by crisis. Once peripheralized by neoliberal universities, academic citizenship is acquiring new meanings, while it reframes communal obligations and repositions professional duties in view of the life‐and‐death choices brought on by the war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationalization is known to enhance university capacities in cross‐border learning and encourage institutional transformations for improved quality of scholarship and education. Studies on internationalization of research and teaching are, however, under‐problematized with regard to asymmetries that pervade different collaborating systems and cultures. This paper addresses this gap by elucidating asymmetries in the Greater Bay Area of China (GBA), which is dealing with differences in legacies and experiences of internationalization in university research and teaching. At a time when the governments in the three constituent jurisdictions of GBA—Guangdong Province, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), and Macao SAR—encourage universities to collaborate across jurisdictional borders, this study applies a bibliographic analysis to shed light on asymmetries and mitigation strategies in internationalization of research and teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Communicating the means and ends of internationalization can be daunting amidst competing agendas in higher education. This paper examines how elite global journals in social sciences deal with discursive dilemmas while addressing geopolitical agendas in the internationalization of post-Soviet higher education. In particular, this paper seeks to understand how the "prestige economy" agencies have shaped explanations of problems of the Soviet legacy in disparate national contexts of post-Soviet higher education. Under the growing resurgence of Russian imperialism, the study delves into claims and concerns of social scientists from post-Soviet republics, who remain on the periphery of the global "prestige economy," as well as in the subaltern position to the geopolitical agendas championed by the Russian government. While examining the research on geopolitics in the internationalization of divergent systems and institutions of higher education in the region, the paper also tries to shape a more nuanced analysis of the under-investigated tensions within the post-Soviet world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]