Is University 3.0 Feasible in Russia?

Is University 3.0 Feasible in Russia?

Karpov A.O.

Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Cand. Sci. (Physic. and mathem.), Head of Department, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia

ID of the Article:

For citation:

Karpov A.O. Is University 3.0 Feasible in Russia? . Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2018. No 9. P. 59-70


The paper addresses the issues related to prerequisites and ways of the University 3.0 development in the Russian socio-cultural context. Russian and foreign universities are compared in executing the missions of training, research and socio-economic development. Findings of the comparison show a catastrophic lag in the Russian higher education system. Data of global university ratings, Project 5–100, the Rating of Russian HEIes-2017 are used to appraise classical missions. To analyze the third mission, comparisons are made to foreign universities based on indicators of innovation and entrepreneurial activities; data of monitoring performance of Russian universities and information from foreign sources are used. To study the potential of the country for the University 3.0 development, an index of prerequisites for its development (University Development Index or UDI) was designed. Composite and elementary components of the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) are used as UDI parameters that characterize opportunities for an effective implementation of the three University’s missions. Based on calculated values of UDI, Russia’s extremely low potential for creating University 3.0 is revealed in comparison with a sample of culturally differentiated countries. Socio-economic and cultural factors hindering the University 3.0 development in Russia are discussed. Examples of social structures to be built to enable the University 3.0 creation in Russian conditions are offered. This results in a conclusion that scientific methods are required in the University 3.0 designing.

University 3.0; knowledge society; rating; development index; social structure


Antonczyk R. C., Salzmann A. J. (2012) Venture capital and risk perception. Z Betriebswirtschaft. Vol. 82. Iss. 4. Wiesbaden: GablerVerlag: 389–416.

Auzan A. A. (2013) The Mission of the University: the view of an economist. Voprosy Obrazovaniya [Issues of Education]. No. 3: 266–286. (In Russ.)

Auzan A. A. (2015) Path Dependence Problem: The Evolution of Approaches. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta [Moscow University Economics Bulletin]. No. 1: 3–17. (In Russ.)

Baughn C. C., Neupert K. E. (2003) Culture and National Conditions Facilitating Entrepreneurial Start-ups. Journal of International Entrepreneurship. Vol. 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 313–330.

Bologna process and engineering education. (2009) Report. Moscow. No. 38: 28–29. (In Russ.)

Freire P. (1985) The Рolitics of Еducation. Сulture, Рower, and Liberation. Westport, Connecticut; London: Bergin & Garvey.

Hofstede G. (1986) Cultural Differences in Teaching and Learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Vol. 10. Amsterdam: Elsevier: 301–320.

Ignatov A. A. (2012). The role of Bayh-Dole Act-1980 in the transfer of scientific knowledge and technologies from American universities to the corporate sector results of thirty years of experience. Nauka. Innovatsii. Obrazovaniye [Science. Innovations. Education]. Iss. 12. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskoi kul’tury: 159–188 (In Russ.)

Joanne C. S.M., Lateef F. (2014) The Flipped Classroom: Viewpoints in Asian Universities. Education in Medicine Journal. Vol. 6. Iss. 4. Penang: University Sains Malaysia: 20–26.

Karpov A. O. (2012a) Education in the Knowledge Society: A Research Model. Vestnik Rossijskoj Akademii Nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences]. No 2: 146–152. (In Russ.)

Karpov A. O. (2012b). Engineering Platform for Technology Transfer. Voprosy Economiki [Issues of Economic]. No. 7: 47–65. (In Russ.)

Karpov A. O. (2018) Universities in Knowledge Society: Theory of Creative Spaces. Voprosy Philosofii [Issues of Philosophy]. No 1: 17–29. (In Russ.)

Karpov A. O. (2017) University 3.0 – Social Mission and Reality. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 9: 114–124. (In Russ.)

Lane J. E. (2013) Higher Education System 3.0: Adding Value to States and Institutions. In: Higher Education System 3.0: Harnessing Systemness, Delivering Performance. New York: State University of New York Press: 3–26.

Marhl M., Pausits A. (2011) Third Mission Indicators for New Ranking Methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 5. No. 1 (June). Taipei: HEEACT & Airiti Inc: 43–64.

Needs and Constraints Analysis of the Three Dimensions of Third Mission Activities. (2012) Brussels: DG EAC of the European Commission.

Overview of the MIT Innovation Initiative (2016) Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Response to the Communication from the Commission «The Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge» (2003). Brussels: European University Association.

Shane S. (1993) Cultural Influences on National Rates of Innovation. Journal of Business Venturing. Vol. 8. New York: Elsevier: 59–73.

The Innovative and Entrepreneurial University: Higher Education, Innovation & Entrepreneurship in Focus (2013) Washington: U. S. Department of Commerce.

University of Cambridge Enterprise: Annual Review (2016) Cambridge: Cambridge Enterprise Limited.

Wissema J. G. (2009) Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in Transition. Cheltenham; Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Zak P. J., Knack S. (2001) Trust and Growth. The Economic Journal. Vol. 111. Oxford: Blackwell: 295–321.

Content No 9, 2018