Benchmarks of Internationalization in BRICS countries and Russian regions

current and desired rationales helps analyze UrFU’s shift towards the international dimension and infer its internationalization strategy.

Previous experience of other countries’ excellence initiatives and internationalization of higher education institutions was also taken into account when formulating the research questions. BRICS countries were chosen for the described purposes as a comparison group due to several reasons. These are explained in detail in the following section.

2.4 Benchmarks of Internationalization in BRICS countries and Russian regions

of these universities (Altbach & Bassett, 2014; Khomyakov et al., 2020; Li, 2018; Qin, 2014;

Rensburg et al., 2015; Schwarzman et al., 2015).

At the same time, higher education systems, as well as other constituents of the socio-economic development of these countries, are too different to be able to compare them in one respect. Altbach and Bassett (2014) noted:

In vitally relevant respects, the four BRIC nations differ greatly from each other across the spectrum of higher education measurement norms. The four come from different academic traditions (although with some similarities between China and Russia), use different languages, have employed quite different academic strategies, and have no history of academic cooperation or competition. Neither students nor professors from these countries engage in regular or systematic exchanges or partnerships. (p. 30)

The authors also stated that BRIC countries do not share a united approach to academic excellence. For example, while China and Russia struggle to improve the global competitiveness of their universities, the same cannot be claimed for Brazil and India.

Therefore, they concluded that grouping the BRIC countries, which could be useful for the economic purposes, does not make a lot of sense for higher education studies (Altbach &

Bassett, 2014, p. 30).

After discussing the reasons for reviewing higher education internationalization in BRICS countries, this section further addresses the approaches and strategies of

internationalization in the countries belonging to the group. As regards China, Cai and Yan (2015, p. 163) wrote that the internationalization of higher education is a consistent result of the integration of China into the global economic space and an essential step for the

development of the higher education system. As in the case of Russia, governmental strategies are in place for developing world-class universities in China and enhancing the competitiveness of Chinese universities.

Building world-class universities, or innovation universities as they are called in India, is also considered an important factor. At the same time, the modes of

internationalization in India are different from China or Russia. Trilokekar and Embleton (2015, p. 322) indicated that, apart from developing “innovation universities”, initiatives such as having foreign educational providers in India, approval for them to establish degree

programs or independent campuses and creating conditions for the decrease of brain drain are considered as strategic priorities. However, these have not been implemented yet and were frozen at the time of this study.

As regards the case of Brazil, De Magalhães Castro (2015, p. 286) hypothesized that internationalization is an underregulated area. The author noted that despite much activity in internationalization in academic research and education since 1970, data on

internationalization are “scarce and scattered”. Available statistics did not include the number of exchange students and professors, and only one system existed for the validation of foreign diplomas (the one for holders of foreign diplomas in Medicine).

Altbach and Bassett (2014, pp. 31-32) described the activities of BRICS countries at international level. Among this group, China and India were the countries sending the highest number of students abroad, and their students tended to go to English-teaching universities.

Exchange schemes in Brazil, initiated by its government, focused mostly on Europe, while Russia instead did not send a comparatively significant number of students abroad. In 2014, China was the only country out of four to have a relevant national strategy in building world-class universities, while Russia was concurrently starting to take the first steps. On the other

hand, Brazil and India were lacking a coherent strategy for improving the quality of higher education internationalization as a whole.

In addition to the difference among the approaches to higher education

internationalization in BRICS countries, cooperation between these countries in terms of higher education should also be addressed. Rensburg et al. (2015, p. 275) found that BRICS countries were not the most attractive destinations even among other BRIC students within the group. The fact that “little cooperation has been developed so far in the area of higher education among the BRIC countries” and that substantial differences characterize their higher education systems, has also been considered by de Wit et al. (2015, p. 274). Rensburg et al. (2015, p.275) concluded that, on the basis of a survey of 200 students from BRICS and non-BRICS countries regarding their preferred study destinations, BRICS nations have not yet realized their full potential in terms of being internationally attractive destinations for students, including exchange ones. This is mostly due to the language barrier and the small number of English-taught programs. China was identified as the only exception as it has been actively engaging in the commercialization of international higher education.

Altbach and Bassett (2014, p. 30) also considered that BRIC countries, having different languages and various academic traditions, had elaborated different strategies of university development and, historically, had not had any cooperation or competition in the area of higher education. Meanwhile, the authors noted that two countries – Russia and China – share many similarities in higher education, mainly as regards the roots of their current academic systems, the models of government policy, and the attention paid to non-elite segments of higher education.

This section illustrated that the approach of gathering BRICS countries in one comparison group for higher education internationalization has been criticized by experts in the field. The countries are developing joint programs, both exchange and research schemes,

but their universities still maintain several differences in terms of higher education

internationalization. Almost all the countries have a different academic history and strategies for developing higher education, as well as little experience of joint cooperation before their grouping into BRICS. However, the situation is different for China and Russia. These countries share many similarities as regards the past of their higher education, and the successful realization of Chinese excellence initiatives is a stimulating starting point for studies on the implementation of REIs in China and their impact on the internationalization of universities across the country.

2.4.2 The Case of China: The Impact of Excellence Initiatives on University Internationalization

This section begins with a description of historical similarities between Chinese and Russian higher education systems. Then, it outlines the key reforms that have been

implemented in the area of higher education since 1970 and, in particular, it describes two excellence schemes. Finally, the section reviews publications on the effects of excellence initiatives and specifically their influence on the internationalization of higher education institutions.

As mentioned above, the key reason for choosing China for a review on the experience of excellence initiative implementation is the historical similarity of its higher education development with the Russian Federation. Both countries initially had education systems which were different from Western ones. Moreover, the Soviet Union system of higher education was taken as an example after the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949 (Mao & Shen, 1989). The features of Russian higher education were delivered to the Chinese universities: the centralization of the higher education system and control over the curriculum (Lewin et al., 1994), the university specialization on teaching and the creation of institutes for carrying out research, such as the Chinese Academy of Science (Hayhoe, 1987).

These characteristics later became obstacles to the excellence of universities in both countries.

As Rui (2014, p. 18) pointed out, the turning point in the internationalization of higher education in China occurred in the 1970s when Deng Xiaoping implemented the strategy of

“groping for stones to cross the river” and proclaimed that Chinese higher education should strive towards three directions: modernization, the world, and the future. This move sought to level down ideological differences between the Chinese and Western approaches in their higher education systems. By the 1980s, China had put in place a series of reforms based on foreign models, and from the 1990s onwards, the achievement of world-class higher

education became its priority. Traditionally, Chinese research institutes and the industry have played a main role in conducting research and providing technology advances (Hong, 2006;

Liu & White, 2001, p. 1093). As a result of the increasing involvement of China in the global economy, studies on the research and development systems in other countries, and the

necessity to improve the Chinese technological expertise, the universities were found to be in a position where they had to undertake a more active position in performing research (Fischer

& von Zedtwitz, 2004; Orcutt & Shen, 2010) and developing education. The list of

implemented reforms includes the Program for Education Reform and Development in China (1993), the Education Act of the People’s Republic of China (1995) and two REIs: the 211 Project and the 985 Project.

In 1998, the 985 Project was started with the aim of promoting the international competitiveness of a group of Chinese universities by providing them with additional funding. Initially, nine universities were chosen and later 39 became program participants.

The 211 Project was launched in 1995 in order to increase the research standards of high-level Chinese universities and it was initially aimed at involving more universities than the 985 Project. As a result, 116 Chinese universities participated in the excellence

initiative. In addition to a description of the historical proximities of higher education systems in Russia and China and the range of reforms in Chinese tertiary education in the last 50 years, this section focuses on the effects of the two excellence initiatives which jumpstarted the expansion of Chinese universities in the global higher education market in 1999.

Nowadays, excellence initiatives in China are perceived as among the most effective programs in improving higher education competitiveness in the world. The implementation of two REIs prompted the dramatical improvement of Chinese universities’ positioning in global rankings. Indeed, although in 2000 no Chinese university was included into the top 300 of ARWU ranking and only four institutions were included in the top 500, according to ARWU 2016, the number of Chinese universities in the top 300 increased up to 24 and up to 54 ones in the top 500. More importantly, the excellence initiatives changed the Chinese academic culture and shifted it towards excellence as well as the development of awareness of the process of international competition in higher education and competitiveness of universities in China (Wang et al., 2011, p. 56).

A number of studies have focused on measuring the results of both projects in different dimensions. Several academic papers have evaluated the changes in research productivity (Yang & You, 2017; Yufang, 2017; Zhang et al., 2013; Zong & Zhang, 2017).

Zhang et al. (2013, p. 774) provided an estimate of the efficiency of the 985 Project in terms of number of publications and came to the conclusion that lower-tier universities may benefit more from the excellence initiative than first-tier ones. A quasi-experimental study by Zong and Zhang (2017) also showed that participation in Project 985 had a positive effect on the publication activity of the studied universities. However, the excellence initiative “has not had the desired effect on Tier 1 universities” and “a long-term tendency of publication saturation” was observed. This could be caused by academic “burn out”, as the authors suggested (Zong & Zhang, p. 13).

Wen (2012) analyzed the scientific collaboration pattern of co-authored papers for the universities participating in 985 Project and found that the studied institutions demonstrated clear preference when choosing partners for collaboration and that factors such as location, subjects, types of universities and co-authors influence their choice. Rhoads et al. (2014) discussed the impact of 211 Project and 985 Project on faculty life and academic culture using the evidence from four leading Chinese universities. The authors showed that

participation in two excellence initiatives, and in particular the impact of Project 985, have drastically transformed the academic culture and institutional contexts towards

internationalization and a global perspective.

Other studies investigated the effects of excellence initiatives on Chinese universities’

internationalization. Ma and Yue (2015) examined the evidence from a student survey in 39 universities participating in the 211 and 985 projects. They found that the 985 universities obtained the highest level of internationalization, the second-tier universities in terms of international dimension were 211 Project ones and non-degree-offering institutions. Other degree-offering universities came last in terms of institutional internationalization. This study proves that, despite excellence initiatives in China having a research focus, their links with the internationalization of education (student/faculty mobility and other overseas academic activities, international curriculum) are direct. The second research finding is that academic disciplines differentiate the level of internationalization: the researchers found that law and art are the subject areas with the lowest level of internationalization, while economics, management and education have the highest internationalization level.

Other research has identified the strong link between the internationalization of Chinese universities and excellence initiatives. Rui (2014) noted that the dramatic growth of Chinese universities’ international positions has resulted from the implementation of

excellence initiatives. At the same time, the researcher indicated some drawbacks in the

pursuit of becoming internationally competitive universities: “In striving for ‘international’

standing, top Chinese universities compare themselves with Oxford and Yale but forget the long history of these institutions — let alone their own” (Rui, 2014, p. 18).

In contrast, several researchers have described internationalization in Chinese higher education (Chen & Huang, 2013; Hu, 2007; Huang, 2003; Jin, 2012), but have not focused on the connection between the modern processes of university internationalization and the implementation of excellence initiatives in China. Moreover, the 211 Project is mentioned in the theoretical study of the role of government in higher education internationalization in the paper by Li (2016, p. 50), but another key excellence initiative is not mentioned at all.

As these studies on Chinese excellence initiatives have shown, Projects 211 and 985 strongly influenced the internationalization of Chinese universities and their advance compared to non-participating institutions. In addition to a dramatic improvement in the positions of a group of Chinese universities in global higher education rankings, the excellence schemes effected an increase in research productivity and research focus of the participating universities, as well as a growth in the number of international students. The studies also reflected on the perceptions of a growing level of internationalization by students of 211 and 985 institutions. However, they did not focus on the perceptions of other groups of stakeholders, such as faculty, staff and university leadership, or on the transformations in their universities during the rapid internationalization as a result of both projects. Thus, the effects of excellence initiatives on the international dimension of Chinese universities still remain underexplored.

Several conclusions emerge from section 2.4: first, different contexts of higher education internationalization in the BRICS countries make the comparison difficult. With regard to the topic of this study, only two countries chose a similar way of developing higher education systems through the booster effect of national excellence initiatives. China has

been focused on consistently developing world-class universities since the 1990s, and Russia started following a similar strategy twenty years later. Second, not only the challenges and the goals in each country vary, but also the interest of the students studying in other BRICS countries as a result of the limited number of existing study programs in English. The only exception was China due to the availability of a range of English-taught programs. This is why the case of China was chosen for benchmarking within the present study. Thirdly, as shown above, the research-oriented excellence initiatives Project 211 and Project 985 have radically influenced the internationalization of Chinese higher education institutions both in terms of developing research and educational capacity. They also helped to improve visibility and competitiveness of Chinese universities across the world and they changed the academic culture in the country and the way universities’ stakeholders perceive internationalization processes.

Finally, the case of China illustrated that all the effects listed above were achieved over a longer period of time than the duration of Project 5-100. On the one hand, it shows that the chosen way could lead the Russian institutions to their desired results. On the other, it requires more time than the standard number of years of the Russian excellence initiative and could be achieved by consistently pursuing the chosen strategy for at least a decade.

2.5 Features of Business School Internationalization