Innovators from Within and from Without the Education System

  • Diana KorolevaEmail author
  • Tatiana Khavenson
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)


The chapter describes characteristics of Russian innovators acting within and without formal education system in comparison with Russian population as a whole. The study gives an indication of values (according to Schwartz’s theory) and motivational (PSED questionnaire) structure inherent to innovators as well as socio-demographic information such as education and occupation. The main values that underlie innovators’ activity and distinguish them from average Russian person are Universalism, Benevolence, Self-Direction and Stimulation. On the contrary such values as Conformity and Power are less important for innovators. Concerning motivation to innovation four types of motives that trigger innovative project launching were identified: social, status, financial and innovative. Social and innovative motivations serve as universal drivers of nowadays innovators in education. While financial and social motivations could play a distinguishing role for different groups of innovators. The main inference is that innovators from both sides of education, guided by the needs of others; even if they represent business oriented project, they always have a social mission. In conclusion the discussion on how the emergence of visible flow of grassroots innovation will change the education system.


  1. Baumol, W. J. (2004). Education for innovation: Entrepreneurial breakthroughs vs. corporate incremental improvements. National Bureau of Economic Research (No. w10578).Google Scholar
  2. Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational Leadership, 50, 12–12.Google Scholar
  3. Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Germak, A. J., & Robinson, J. A. (2014). Exploring the motivation of nascent social entrepreneurs. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gorgievski, M. J., Ascalon, M. E., & Stephan, U. (2011). Small business owners’ success criteria, a values approach to personal differences. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2), 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological Review, 65(1), 19–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kasof, J., Chen, C., Himsel, A., & Greenberger, E. (2007). Values and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 19(2–3), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measure. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(5), 622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koestner, R., Lekes, N., Powers, T. A., & Chicoine, E. (2002). Attaining personal goals: Self-concordance plus implementation intentions equals success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koroleva, D. O., & Khavenson, T. E. (2015). The portrait of a twenty-first century innovator in education. Russian Education and Society, 57(5), 338–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning goals driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marsh, C., & Huberman, M. (1984). Disseminating curricula: A look from the top down. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(1), 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics. (2016). Retrieved June 1, 2016, from
  14. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rudduck, J. (1991). Innovation and change: Developing involvement and understanding. England: Open University.Google Scholar
  16. Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. In A. H. Cole (Ed.), Change and the entrepreneur: Postulates and patterns for entrepreneurial history (pp. 63–84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116
  18. Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagie, G. (2000). Value consensus and importance a cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 465–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546–557.Google Scholar
  22. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stum, J. (2009). Kirton’s adaption-innovation theory: Managing cognitive styles in times of diversity and change. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 2(1), 66–78.Google Scholar
  25. Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the teacher in computer supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Webb, M., & Cox, M. (2004). A review of pedagogy related to information and communications technology. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(3), 235–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations