18.97.14.89
Addressing inertia and isolation in teaching and studying global environmental change in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
Addressing inertia and isolation in teaching and studying global environmental change in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
Annotation

It is typical for the region of the former USSR that universities and research centres have decent expertise in mono-disciplinary research while multi- and transdisciplinary studies are not yet well developed, even if adopting research agendas across a broader range of disciplines appears to be a clear way for higher policy relevance or a gainful publication strategy. This observation is the main rational behind this overview taking stock of the problem. It is based on an extensive evidence collected by authors, who through the recent decades gained extensive experience of stock-taking studies, coordination of international capacity-building projects for higher education, directed over a dozen of summer schools and coordinated a research training network addressing multidisciplinary aspects of environmental sciences in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The objective of this paper is to identify drivers and root-causes of the problem, and to outline directions for possible solutions.

Our findings demonstrate that poor performance of research communities in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine often has to do with structural issues, such as resilient institutional legacies of the past either from the USSR epoch or the shocking socio-economic transition of the 1990s. These legacies are enhanced by low financial allocation to research and higher education, as well as top-down and paperwork-intensive management of the academia by the state. There are no simple solutions to this situation, as something needs to be done beyond the scope of a national higher education or research reform. The Bologna process potentially provides solutions to some problems, e.g. it provides for university autonomy, calls for internationally recognizable qualification frameworks (or at least for one compatible with established practices in the European Higher Education Area) and supports academic mobility. However, its implementation in the region, especially in Belarus and Russia, is problematic. EU capacity building and academic mobility support plays an important role, and at the moment represent the most serious attempt to alleviate the situation.

About authors
Anton Shkaruba
Senior researcher
Chair of Environmental Protection and Landscape Management, Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu, Estonia
Ruben Zondervan
Head
«RZ. Research. Management. Communication», Zaandam, the Netherlands
Olga Likhacheva
Associate Professor
Pskov State University
Anna Skryhan
Associate Professor
Belorussian-Russian University of Mogilev
References

1. 1. Frumina E., West R. (2012), Internationalisation of Russian Higher Education: The English Language Dimension, British Council, Moscow. URL: https://www.britishcouncil.ru/sites/default/files/internationalisation_of_russian_higher_education.pdf (accessed 10.07.2019).

2. Holm P., Goodsite M. E., Cloetingh S., Agnoletti M., Moldan B., Lang D. J., Leemans R., Moeller J. O., Buendía M. P., Pohl W., Scholz R. W., Sors A., Vanheusden B., Yusoff K. and Zondervan R. (2013), ‘Collaboration between the natural, social and human sciences in Global Change Research’. Environmental Science & Policy, no. 28 (Special Issue: Responding to the Challenges of our Unstable Earth (RESCUE)), pp. 25–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.010

3. Kiselev V. N., Nechaeva E. K. (2014), Some aspects of developing interdisciplinary scientific research in Russia, Yearbook of Russian Educational Legislation, no. 9, pp. 222–238.

4. Maksimuk L., Levonyuk L. (2017), Formation of professional competence of students in the process of vocationally-oriented foreign languages teaching at non-linguistic high schools, Human sciences. Pedagogical series, no. 4 (36), pp. 167–176.

5. NFS (2003), Complex Environmental Systems. Synthesis for Earth, Life, and Society in the 21st Century. A 10-Year Outlook for the National Science Foundation. NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education. URL: https://www.nsf.gov/ere/ereweb/ac-ere/acere_synthesis_rpt_full.pdf (accessed 10.07.2019).

6. Pérez-Soba M., Verweij P., Saarikoski H., Harrison P. A., Barton D. N., Furman E. (2018), Maximising the value of research on ecosystem services: Knowledge integration and guidance tools mediating the science, policy and practice interfaces, Ecosystem Services, no. 29, part C, pp. 599–607. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.012.

7. Sarkki S., Balian E., Heink U., Keune H., Nesshöver C., Tinch R., van den Hove S., Watt A., Young Niemelä J., Tinch R., Van Den Hove S., Watt A., Waylen K. A., Young J. C. (2019), Managing science-policy interfaces for impact: Interactions within the environmental governance meshwork, Environmental Science & Policy (in press, available on-line). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.011

8. Shkaruba A., Kireyeu V., Likhacheva O. (2017), Rural-urban peripheries under socioeconomic transitions: changing planning contexts, lasting legacies, and growing pressure, Landscape and Urban Planning, no. 165, pp. 244–255. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.006.

9. Shkaruba A., Skryhan H. (2019), Chernobyl science and politics in Belarus: The challenges of post-normal science and political transition as a context for science-policy interfacing, Environmental Science and Policy, no. 92, pp. 152–160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.11.024.

Полная версия доступна только подписчикам
Подпишитесь прямо сейчас