Higher Education

, Volume 72, Issue 3, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Learning autonomy: higher education reform in Kazakhstan

  • Matthew Hartley
  • Bryan Gopaul
  • Aida Sagintayeva
  • Renata Apergenova
Article

Abstract

Higher education is a key economic and social priority in the global arena. Many countries have sought to advance reforms aimed at increasing access, promoting greater educational quality, and ensuring financial responsibility and sustainability. Often, strategies for achieving these aims are informed by experiences elsewhere. However, transporting education policy reforms can be problematic. Kazakhstan, a signatory of the Bologna Process, offers an example of a country seeking to improve student access and success and promote greater fiscal efficiency to advance the overall quality of its higher education system (Merrill in Int High Educ 59:26–28, 2010). A key strategy for achieving these goals is through reforms in university governance. In Central Asia, policy makers advance education reforms in order to accomplish several goals, including meeting “the new demands of ethnic nationalism, a globally competitive economy, and a labour market freed from administrative control” (Anderson and Heyneman 2005, p. 361). In Kazakhstan, policy makers have concluded that a system predicated on decentralized control with greater institutional autonomy (and accountability), along the lines of the US system, offers a promising strategy for improving the overall quality of its higher education system. This research collected on-site data on Kazakhstani higher education and presents the most recent data since efforts from OECD and World Bank in 2006 [OECD in Higher education in Kazakhstan (reviews of National Policies for Education). OECD, Paris 2007]. This research utilized semi-structured interviews with senior higher education administrators (53), members of the Ministry of Education and Science (6), a representative from the government (1), and experts from the World Bank (2) for a total of 62 participants. The results of the study show that academic leaders in Kazakhstan want greater autonomy. However, there is no clear consensus about what level of fiscal and academic autonomy is desirable and whether all institutions are prepared to manage themselves without Ministerial oversight. The roles of key constituents in academic governance have also not yet been clearly defined.

Keywords

Higher education reform Governance Autonomy Kazakhstan 

References

  1. Anderson, K. H., & Heyneman, S. P. (2005). Education and social policy in central Asia: The next stage of the transition. Social Policy & Administration, 39(4), 361–380.Google Scholar
  2. Boin, A., & Christensen, T. (2008). The development of public institutions: Reconsidering the role of leadership. Administration & Society, 40(3), 271–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bray, N. (2010). The deanship and its faculty interpreters: Do Mertonian norms of science translate into norms for administration? The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 284–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunner, J. K., & Tillett, A. (2007). Higher education in Central Asia: The challenges of modernization. Case studies from Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic and Uzbekistan. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. (2012). 2012 investment climate statement: Kazakhstan. Accessed August 23, 2013 from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2012/191174.htm
  6. Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). A transformative perspective on administrative reforms. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), New public management: The transformation of ideas and practice. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. doi:10.2307/2095101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobbins, M., Knill, C., & Vogtle, E. M. (2011). An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education, 62, 665–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duck, J. D. (2001). The change monster: The human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York, NY: Crown Business.Google Scholar
  11. Gerber, T. P., & Schaefer, D. R. (2004). Horizontal stratification of higher education in Russia: Trends, gender differences, and labor market outcomes. Sociology of Education, 77(32), 32–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harrison, M. (1994). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models and processes (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Hartley, M. (2003). The promise and peril of parallel governance structures. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 923–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heyneman, S. P. (2010). A comment on the changes in higher education in the former Soviet Union. European Education, 42(1), 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, M. S. (2008). Historical legacies of Soviet higher education and the transformation of higher education systems in Post-Soviet Russia and Eurasia. In D. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The worldwide transformation of higher education (pp. 159–176). Bingley: JAI Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones, G. A., & Oleksiyenko, A. (2011). The internationalization of Canadian university research: A global higher education matrix analysis of multi-level governance. Higher Education, 61, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 435–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review(March/April), 2–9.Google Scholar
  19. Luong, P. L. (2002). Institutional change and political continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, perceptions, and pacts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin, J. (1992). Culture in organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. London: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. McLendon, M. K. (2004). Straddling market and state: Higher education governance and finance in Kazakhstan. In S. P. Heyneman & A. J. DeYoung (Eds.), The challenges of education in Central Asia (pp. 275–294). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Merrill, M. (2010). Central Asia: Increasing under diversity. International Higher Education, 59, 26–28.Google Scholar
  25. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD–World Bank. (2007). Higher education in Kazakhstan (reviews of National Policies for Education). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. Olcott, M. B. (2010). Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled promise?. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment.Google Scholar
  28. Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raza, R. (2009). Examining autonomy and accountability in public and private tertiary institutions. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  30. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Schwab, K. (2012). The global competitiveness report: 2012–2013. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  33. Silova, I. (Ed.). (2010). Globalization on the margins: Education and post-socialist transformations in Central Asia. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Taylor, B. E., Chait, R. P., & Holland, T. P. (1999). The new work of the nonprofit board. In Harvard Business Review on Nonprofits (pp. 53–75). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. http://www.amazon.com/Harvard-Business-Review-Nonprofits-Paperback/dp/0875849091.
  35. Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Yergebekov, M., & Temirbekova, Z. (2012). The Bologna Process and problems in the higher education system of Kazakhstan. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1473–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Hartley
    • 1
  • Bryan Gopaul
    • 2
  • Aida Sagintayeva
    • 3
  • Renata Apergenova
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Warner School of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of RochesterRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Graduate School of EducationNazarbayev UniversityAstanaKazakhstan

Personalised recommendations