Efficiency Assessment of Higher Education Institutions: Contradictions and Paradoxes. Part I

higher education, focused on training, which will be in demand by the modernised economy in the strategic perspective, is one of the conditions for the implementation of the Decree the President of the Russian Federation of 07 May 2018. In this regard, the importance of an adequate efficiency assessment of the training system in general and in higher education is growing.

Aim. In the context of the initiated discussion on methodological improvement of efficiency assessment of universities, the aims of the present article are the following: to discuss the existing criteria and indicators (proposed by the macroregulator) of the expertise; to justify the inconsistency of such criteria and indicators to obtain real information on the innovative potential and the quality of human potential of graduates.

Methodology and research methods. The research work was carried out on the basis of a systematic approach and inductive research method. To confirm the hypothesis, the method of comparative analysis and the following general scientific methods were applied: analytical review of scientific literature and normative documents, generalisation, comparison and analogy.

Results and scientific novelty. Based on the performance monitoring data, the author presents the results of the evaluation of some universities, recognised as centers of innovation, technological and social development of the regions according to the indicators proposed by the Ministry of Education and Science. The conducted analysis indicates the complexity of the formulation of conclusions regarding the innovative potential of universities due to the incorrectness of the approach proposed by the macro-regulator. The shortcomings of the new project proposed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education to assess the effectiveness of universities and their leaders are revealed. It is necessary to revise the methodology applied. When assessing university efficiency, principle focus should be emphasised on: a) identifying the fact and the dynamics of the increment of knowledge and skills of trainees (primarily, the degree of formation of abilities to learn and independently gain new knowledge); b) assessment of the economic component of the human potential of graduates, involving the introduction of indicators, by which it is possible to judge their demand in the labour market. Three measurement control points are proposed: the level of remuneration at the initial stage of career, in five and ten years after graduation. As a basic indicator of the university innovation activity, it is proposed to consider the share of the profits derived from the use of intellectual activity results in the total income of the organisation. In technical universities, this indicator can be used with additional indicators: number of patents per 100 scientific and pedagogical workers; the number of patents per 100 published articles indexed in the world scientometric databases. In order to maximise the potential of in-service teachers, the principles of financing universities should be changed, as well as the target rates should be introduced to attract young scientific and pedagogical personnel.

Practical significance. The research results can be used to improve the methodology for efficiency assessment of universities, as well as to avoid the institutional traps in higher education and science.

1. Benneworth P., Hospers G. J. The new economic geography of old industrial regions: Universities as global-local pipelines. Environment and Planning. 2007; 25 (6): 779–802.

2. Youtie J., Shapira P. Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy. 2008; 37 (8): 1188–1204.

3. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovations: from National Systems and «Mode 2» to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy. 2000; 29: 109–123.

4. Cowan R., Zinovyeva N. University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy. 2013; 42 (3): 788–800.

5. Ter Wal A. L. J., Boschma R. Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. Annals of Regional Science. 2009; 43 (3): 739–756.

6. Agrawal A., Cockburn I. The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 2003; 21 (9): 1227–1253.

7. Feldman M. P. The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2001; 10 (4): 861–891.

8. Unger M., Polt W. The knowledge triangle between research, education and innovation – a conceptual discussion. Foresight and STI Governance. 2017; 11 (2): 10–26. DOI: 10.17323/2500–2597.2017.2.10.26

9. Romanov E. V. Ineffective university: Myth and reality. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2012; 6: 70–76. (In Russ.)

10. Belyakov S. A., Fedotov A. V., Figurin A. V. Integration processes in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2013; 6: 8–18. (In Russ.)

11. Bolotov V., Motova G., Navodnov V. The Monitoring of monitoring: What’s wrong with the Ministry’s new approach to supervision of effectiveness of higher education institutions’ performance? Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2019; 23 (3): 5–13. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2019.03.015

12. Kuzminov Ya., Sorokin P., Froumin I. Generic and specific skills as components of human capital: New challenges for education theory and practice. Foresight and STI Governance. 2019; 13 (2): 19–41. DOI: 10.17323/2500–2597.2019.2.19.41

13. Soboleva I. V. Chelovecheskij potencial rossijskoj ehkonomiki. Problemy sohraneniya i razvitiya = Human potential of the Russian economy. Problems of preservation and development. Moscow: Publishing House Nauka; 2007. 202 р. (In Russ.)

14. Egorov V. K. Specific features of human potential development of a new generation in Russia. Ekonomicheskiye i sotsialnyye peremeny: fakty. tendentsii. prognoz = Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2017; 10 (3): 100–113. DOI: 10.15838/esc/2017.3.51.5 (In Russ.)

15. Charnes A., Cooper W., Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decisionmaking units. European Journal of Operational Research. 1978; 2 (6): 429–444.

16. Beasley J. Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society. 1995; 46 (4): 441–452.

17. Warning S. Performance differences in German higher education: Empirical analysis of strategic groups. Review of Industrial Organization. 2004; 24 (4): 393–408.

18. Abankina I. V., Aleskerov F. T., Belousova V. Y., Zinkovsky K. V., Petruschenko V. V. Evaluating performance of universities using data envelopment analysis. Voprosy Obrazovaniya = Educational Studies. 2013; 2: 15–48. (In Russ.)

19. Athanassopoulos A. D., Shale E. Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the U K by the means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Education Economics. 1997; 5 (5): 117–134.

20. Romanov E. V. The phenomenon of tacit knowledge loss in high school: Causes and consequences. Part I. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2019; 21 (4): 60–91. DOI:10.17853/1994–5639–2019–4-60–91 (In Russ.)

21. Kurbatova M. V. Reform of the higher education as institutional project of the Russian bureaucracy: Content and consequences. Mir Rossii = Universe of Russia. 2016; 25 (4): 59–86. (In Russ.)

22. Kurbatova M. V., Donova I. V. Effective contract in higher education: Some results of project implementation. Journal of Institutional Studies. 2019: 11 (2): 122–145. DOI: 10.17835/2076–6297.2019.11.2.122–145 (In Russ.)

23. Balatskiy E. V. Trends in the development of the university sector. Mir Rossii = Universe of Russia. 2015; 4: 72–98. (In Russ.)

24. Balatskiy E. V. “Trap of classroom hours” and a new model of education. Vysshchee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2017; 2: 63–68. (In Russ.)

25. Polterovich V. M. Institutional traps and economic reforms. Ekonomicheskie i matematicheskie metody = Economics and Mathematical Methods. 1999; 35 (2): 3–20. (In Russ.)

26. Zhuk А. А., Fursa Е. V. Narrative analysis of institutional traps of education and science in Russia. Journal of Institutional Studies. 2019; 11 (1): 176– 193. DOI: 10.17835/2076–6297.2019.11.1.176–193 (In Russ.)

27. Volchik V. V., Maslyukova E. V. Reforms, tacit knowledge, and institutional traps in education and science. Terra Economicus. 2019: 17 (2): 146–162. DOI: 10.23683/2073–6606–2019–17–2-146–162 (In Russ.)

28. Kurakova N. G., Tsvetkova L. A., Zinov V. G. Russian patent landscape, created by the residents of the country: analysis of the identified issues. Ekonomika nauki = The Economics of Science. 2016: 2 (1): 64–79. (In Russ.)

29. Romanov E. V. Threats to the human capacity of regional higher education institutions. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of Region. 2018; 14 (1): 95–108. DOI: 10.17059/2018–1–8 (In Russ.)