Skip to main content

Learning autonomy: higher education reform in Kazakhstan

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. The current university partners are Colorado School of Mines; Duke University; National University of Singapore; University College London; University of Cambridge; University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of Pennsylvania; University of Pittsburgh; and University of Warwick.

  2. The Law “On Languages”, passed in 1986 indicates Russia to be “the language of inter-cultural cooperation”. The Law “On Languages”, passed in 1997 states that the Russian language has equivalent status to Kazakh and may be used in office work, accounting, statistical financial records, military, law enforcements and legal proceedings.

References

  • 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.

  • Boin, A., & Christensen, T. (2008). The development of public institutions: Reconsidering the role of leadership. Administration & Society, 40(3), 271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62, 503–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. (1994). Diagnosing organizations: Methods, models and processes (Vol. 8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, M. (2003). The promise and peril of parallel governance structures. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 923–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyneman, S. P. (2010). A comment on the changes in higher education in the former Soviet Union. European Education, 42(1), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotter, J. P. (1995). Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review(March/April), 2–9.

  • Luong, P. L. (2002). Institutional change and political continuity in Post-Soviet Central Asia: Power, perceptions, and pacts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (1992). Culture in organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (2002). Organizational culture: Mapping the terrain. London: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Merrill, M. (2010). Central Asia: Increasing under diversity. International Higher Education, 59, 26–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD–World Bank. (2007). Higher education in Kazakhstan (reviews of National Policies for Education). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olcott, M. B. (2010). Kazakhstan: Unfulfilled promise?. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspectives. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raza, R. (2009). Examining autonomy and accountability in public and private tertiary institutions. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London, UK: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (2012). The global competitiveness report: 2012–2013. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silova, I. (Ed.). (2010). Globalization on the margins: Education and post-socialist transformations in Central Asia. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Tierney, W. G. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 59(1), 2–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan Gopaul.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartley, M., Gopaul, B., Sagintayeva, A. et al. Learning autonomy: higher education reform in Kazakhstan. High Educ 72, 277–289 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9953-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9953-z

Keywords

  • Higher education reform
  • Governance
  • Autonomy
  • Kazakhstan