Russian Education for Innovative Economy: “the Pressure Points”


Dezhina I.G.

Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Head of Research Group, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Leading researcher, Gaidar Institute of Economic Policy, Moscow, Russia. i.dezhina@skoltech.ru

Kliucharev G.A.

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Prof., Director of the Center for the Sociology of Education, Science. Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia. Kliucharev@mail.ru

DOI: 10.31857/S013216250001957-5
ID of the Article:


For citation:

Dezhina I.G., Kliucharev G.A. Russian Education for Innovative Economy: “the Pressure Points” . Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2018. No 9. P. 40-48




Abstract

The paper is focused on the problems of continuous education in Russia that is playing a growing role while the country is moving towards innovative economy. The continuous education may be implemented in various forms, from university and online courses to companies-based supplementary post-graduate education. The study is based on the results of a survey conducted among 80 experts that represent stakeholders in the Russian innovation system. The interviews were conducted in 2016–2017 in 12 regions of Russia with experts, employed in federal and regional administrations, venture and investment funds, institutes for development, technology parks, incubators, paten offices, private companies, universities, and research institutes. The survey was centered on such questions as whether the current state of higher education satisfies the needs of innovative, science intensive industries; on the role of corporate education; on how the special professional education is evolving and what are the major barriers for its development. The survey has demonstrated that higher education institutes are rather passive in terms of initiating new educational techniques; the gap between needs of science-based industries and quality of university graduates is still big. Moreover, higher education institutes are losing in competition with new, mostly digital, forms of education that the open market is suggesting. Corporate education in its current form is mostly affordable for large state companies while small and medium-size enterprises are looking for intermediaries at the market that may help them to identify and train new workforce.


Keywords
continuing education; universities; high-tech industries; Research and Development (R&D) innovations; Russia

References

Becker G. S. (1975) Human Capital and Personal Distribution of Income: An Analytical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University Press: 94–144.

Dezhina I. G., Medovnikov D. S., Rozmirovich S. D. (2018) Evaluating the Demand of Russian Medium-Size Technological Companies in Cooperation with Higher Educational Institutes. Zhurnal Novoj ehkonomicheskoj associacii [Journal of the New Economic Association]. No. 4 (36): 81–105. (In Russ.)

Didenko D. V. (2015) Intellectual-intensive Economy: Human Capital in the Russian and World Socio-Economic Development. St. Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Russ.)

Dohmen D., Cristobal Lopez V., Yelubayeva G. (2016) The Macro-Economic Benefits of Adult Learning. Research Institute for the Economics of Education and Social Affairs. URL: http://2016.economicsofeducation.com/user/pdfsesiones/171.pdf (accessed 01.03.2018).

Gershunskij B. S. (1998) The Philosophy of Education for the 21-st Century. (Search of practically-oriented educational Concepts). Moscow: Sovershenstvo. (In Russ.)

Gromkova M. T. (2012) Andragogy: Theory and Practice of Adult Education. Moscow: Yuniti-Dana. (In Russ.)

Knowles M. (1973) The Adult Learner. The Definitive Classic and Adult Education and Human Resourse Development. Elwood &Richard Swanson.

Knowles M. S. (1984) Andragogy in Action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San-Francisco.

Latov Yu.V., ed. (2014) Continuing Education is a Stimulus of Human Development and a Factor of Socio-Economic Inequalities. Moscow: IP RAS, TsSPiM. (In Russ.)

Lindemann E. (1944) Symtomatology and Management of Acute Grief. American Journal of Psychiatry. Vol. 101.

Mezirov J. (2000) Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mokir J. (2014) The Lever of Wealth. Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. Moscow: Izd-vo In-ta Gaidara. (In Russ.).

Mincer J. (1970) The distribution of labor incomes: a survey with special reference to the human capital approach. Journal of Economic Literature 8. No. 1 (March): 1–26.

Mincer J. (1974) Schooling, Experience and Earnings. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ranga M., Etzkowitz H. (2013) Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education. No. 27(4).

Rogers С. (1969) Freedom to Learn: A View of What Education Might Become. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merill.

Schultz Th. W. (1971) Investment in human capital: the role of education and of research. New York. Free Press.

Vershlovskij S. G. (2013) Adulthood as a category of andragogy. Voprosy obrazovaniya [Educational Studies]. No. 2: 285–298. (In Russ.)

Zmeyev S. I. (2015) Education of Adults and andragogics in the Realization of the Concept of continuing Education in Russia]. Otechestvennaya i zarubezhnaya pedagogika [Domestic and foreign pedagogy] No. 3 (24): 94–102. (In Russ.).

Content No 9, 2018