Sergey Zuev,
Pro-rector of Moscow Higher School for
Social and Economic Science,
Director of Regional Studies Center of
Academy of National Economy of the
Government of the Russian Federation,
Moscow
I think the concept of University City is mainly a metaphor. Certainly, there is a set of universities, which are essential parts of their cities’ economy and are the basis of the city brands. However, it is a unique case when the concept of «city» coincides with the concept of “university”. In strict sense, we can say it only about very old and culturally authoritative university brands like Oxford and Cambridge.
Very often, the universities become the basis for comparably interesting projects of territorial re-designing. For example, Lester (UK), a former textile center, now a city centered by the university. However, the times change, thus the renowned phenomena like Cambridge and Oxford becomes “memorial” phenomena (I cannot say it about Sorbonna or Bologna). Their reputation stays incredibly high, but their experience cannot be reproduced. It makes no sense, because the reality challenges the traditional university format.
Transformations in the contemporary world are extremely fast, and it causes inability traditional system of education to estimate these new competences and qualification that emerge of their professional (or, I even should say, “labor”) activity. The life is much richer than any super refined system of education which can appear as an invention and project. Therefore, contemporary university with its ideals of universality should and must try to assimilate these areas of human choice, these sources of new experience and skills. The university must develop new types of technical and applied thinking, facilitate emergence of new types of activity; at the same time, it will never satisfactorily cover all actual opportunities that show up in contemporary world, contemporary city. By the way, you should consider it a problematic challenge, which immediately turns into the development engine of the contemporary university.
Nobody should take my statement as a statement of the necessity to develop new specializations. The idea is that a new function should appear in the contemporary education system, a natural part of which are universities. Beyond education, they should provide a qualification assurance for people who obtained this qualification somewhere out of this educational institution. If we look at existing competences and qualifications, the multitude cannot be covered by any, regardless how broadly understood, education system.
If we acknowledge the fact, it makes the concept of “university” and “city” (or even “region”) conceptually equal. Thus, I would propose to discuss the existence and status of the universities from functional point of view. This position implies that every time we should conceive the concrete role of the university in various types and forms of contemporary spatial and temporal organization of city and region.
– Before the revolution, in Russia had been a visible educational skeleton completed from seven education district centered on big core universities (Moscow, Kazan’, etc.) Today, there is a recognizable tendency in the USA to identify the state capitals with university net. Every state develops its own university, competing with others. It is interesting that the professors closely cooperate with the state government, taking part in influential business or authoritative structures.
Is there a territorial skeleton, which would help the regions to make their developmental take-offs in contemporary Russia?
– I do not think so. I am not even ready to discuss its development if by “region” we understand an administrative district. There are different approaches in detaching the regions. We can specify regions following economic parameters, or by cultural or education reasons which all do not necessarily coincide. The situation when a historical-cultural region has no university is rather lifelike.
We should pay attention to another question. It has been attentively noticed that on the postindustrial stage, the education system is much more “politicized,” i.e. embedded into the decision-making process. Some countries, like Germany, have certain historical reasons for it. In Russia, even when we repeated the Humboldt system, the principles of united education and investigation, and total academic independence, were taken as inappropriate. We should admit that a qualitative education is not possible without a certain degree of participation in practical investigations. Meanwhile, in Russia, since the Soviet period, the innovation centers are excluded from the system of education and concentrated mainly in military industry. The concept of various university profiles – like, you know, research, education, business universities, - emerged because of that. These word exercises, classifications of formally understood institutions, drive us away from the understanding of the problem, that the intellectual maintenance of decision making process becomes harder, especially in globalization framework.
– How does the applied intellect find its position in the decision-making systems? Alternatively, to put it differently, to what extent contemporary institutes of political communication and power do integrate the intellectual component?
– As a matter of fact, the measure may vary a lot. Sometimes, “false panels” may take place, when they must accept scientists because of special regulations. The essence of the problem is that the level of the situation indeterminacy on different levels (be it city, regional, global levels) is so high that no serious decision may happen without test probations by intellectuals: analytics, researchers, and project developers. Surely, it makes a sense to discuss the problem only if we seriously take concepts such as strategic vision, scenario approach, and long-term prognosis and similar others, that are the source of influential political and economic decisions today.
It does not necessarily mean that these practices must be exercised exactly by university. There are other institutions, which produce strategically indispensable intellectual product: various expert nets, corporative analytical bureau, agency groups, and so on. However, you will not deny that in countries with the classic Western democracy, the university, which traditionally concentrates the intellectual activities, cannot afford to stay aside. It can discover its place in political decision-making system as a true research institute, or as a source of intellectual elites which travel between such areas as intellectual investigations, business, political decisions, social relations and others.
The last perspective is highly characteristic for American social system. Almost every US State Secretary came from university. The situation in Russia cannot be compared yet, unfortunately…
– Are the projected national or federal universities able to pretend to take these positions?
– All the projects you mention are to a high degree empty. You can invest vast amount of resources and efforts into these projects; however, everything inevitably will be wasted until the university becomes an organic component of the decisions that really influence on the territories, their industry, infrastructure and social systems. The proposed Federal University is an exemplary “thing in itself,” or, more precisely, “thing for nobody,” although it carries out its traditional educational function. Until its political status is vague, and it does not participate in the decision-making systems, the Federal university cannot share the responsibility of existing authority in Russia, which forces it to choose definite methods of management. The University education reform should be coordinated firstly not with the education itself (which no doubt must be seriously touched, too), but with Russian ontology and practice of power.
– At the same time, there are cities whose market strategies bet on the development of their own universities. For example, Tomsk positions itself as “Siberian Athens,” and Novosibirsk tries to attract the regional human stream. Attracting creative people, their universities raise the capitalization of the regions and cities thereby develop the labor market. In this sense, the cities determine themselves as university cities. What should they do next to be successful?
It is clear that the recruitment of creative people is the key factor of success. In contemporary innovation economy, the biggest enterprises can grow where they would find the people. People are the vial resources of the economy. Consequently, the cities that champion the competence for these people, would take serious advantage on them in attracting the innovative, as well as highly profitable, businesses. Besides, these businesses automatically “bring’ with them supplementary services and infrastructures, like financial nets, information modules, environmental inventions, etc.
Should the universities try to achieve this strategic target? At least, these, which position themselves as innovation centers? Surely, they should. Nevertheless, no University, regardless how influential it is, would be able to solve the problem without the whole city. A set of questions about attracting the human capital, are the area of responsibility of the city developmental management systems. We can say it about Tomsk, Novosibirsk, and Rostov-on-Don, where the Southern Federal University should reside. The core question here is the problem of the strategy of the city.
In general, the horizon of development for the university is the city. Of course, the city itself, in the face of its ambitious authorities, can strive for development. Both perspectives should be co-measured. The university, of course, can serve as the “development leader” for the other parts of the city system; we should not miss this perspective.
Conversed Katsiaryna Handrabura
Translated by Mikhail Nemtsev
