ON SOME PROBLEMS OF DISSERTATION OPPONENCY
https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-185-198
Abstract
Introduction. Currently, there is a restructuring of the system of training scientific and scientific-pedagogical personnel of the highest qualification. A number of the top-ranking universities and research institutes are given the right to award their own academic degrees. However, the overwhelming majority of dissertational councils (about 2000) continue to work under the guidance and in accordance with the regulatory documents of the Higher Attestation Commission. Therefore, the improvement of the existing system is still relevant.
The aims of this article are the following: to consider the main problems and trends emerging in the process of opposing dissertations; to find out the difficulties and their causes; to define possible ways to reduce current problems.
Methodology and research methods. The methods involve: analysis of normative documents and scientific publications; methods of expert assessments, self-reflection and synthesis of personal experience of the author.
Results and scientific novelty. The main objectives and the existing drawbacks of the work of official opponents are identified. The following questions that arise when opposing dissertations are discussed: the choice and appointment of official opponents by the Dissertation Council, the specifics of the opponents’ performance in the defense process and the payment for their work. It is noted that increasing requirements for opposing dissertations and opponents themselves, increasing the responsibility of opponents leads to additional difficulties in their work, in particular, the increase in labour costs that are not adequately compensated. It is concluded that many problems in opposing dissertations are objective in nature and cannot be overcome only by the forces of the opponent himself. Possible ways of solving the detected problems are indicated. Accordingly, along with increasing requirements and responsibilities in regulatory documents, a complex of the organizational and technological measures should be provided to facilitate the work of the opponent, his additional stimulation, including the financial one.
Practical significance. The author believes that the approaches and recommendations proposed in this article will help to increase the effectiveness of the opponents’ work and, accordingly, assessment system enhancement of the research consistency and academic degrees awarding.
About the Author
V. Ya. Gelman
North-Western State Medical University named after I. I. Mechnikov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Department of Medical Informatics and Physics,
Saint-PetersburgReferences
1. Bedny B., Mironos A., Serova T. About the training of specialists of the highest qualification in the field of exact and natural sciences (expert assessments of postgraduate work). Alma mater (Vestnik vysshej shkoly) = Alma Mater (High School Herald). 2007; 8: 23–42. (In Russ.)
2. Sadkov V. G., Aronov D. V., Koskin A. V., Mashogov P. N. On the modernization of the system of qualification of personnel of higher qualification. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. 2013; 7: 148–152. (In Russ.)
3. Gelman V. YA., Khmelnitskaya N. M. About some problems of training of scientific and pedagogical staff of the highest qualification. Nauka. Innovacii. Obrazovanie = Science. Innovation. Education. 2017; 1 (23): 102–119. (In Russ.)
4. Krivoruchenko V. K. Theses – the most important element of Russia’s innovation. Vestnik Saratovskogo gosudarstvennogo social'no-ehkonomicheskogo universiteta = Bulletin of the Saratov State Social and Economic University. 2008; 4: 196–202. (In Russ.)
5. Korosteleva O. N. Opposition of dissertations as a stage of examination of scientific work: Statistical analysis. Izvestiya Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo ehkonomicheskogo universiteta = Izvestiya of St. Petersburg State Economic University. 2015; 5 (95): 113–117. (In Russ.)
6. Korosteleva O. N. Evaluation of the effectiveness of expert groups in the examination of scientific and qualification work. Sociologiya nauki i tekhnologij = Sociology of Science and Technology. 2017; 3: 87–93. (In Russ.)
7. Anikin V. M., Poyzner B. N. Opponing the dissertation: through the letter of the norm-to the principles of objective evaluation. Izvestiya vysshih uchebnyh zavedenij = News of Higher Schools. 2017; 25, 6: 79–98. DOI: 10.18500/0869– 6632–2017–25–6-79–98 (In Russ.)
8. Zagvyazinsky V. I. On the quality of dissertation work on pedagogy. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2008; 2: 24–29. (In Russ.)
9. Reznik S. D., Sazykina O. A. On the role and reputational responsibility of opponents of dissertational works. Sovremennye nauchnye issledovaniya i innovacii = Modern Scientific Research and Innovations. 2014; 11, Part 2: 160–165. (In Russ.)
10. Reznik S. D., Sazykina O. A. On the reputational responsibility of opponents of dissertational works. Jekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia. 2016; 1 (47): 197–204. (In Russ.)
11. Maleina M. N. Perfection of the legislation on participation in postgraduate education of the official opponent on the dissertation. Ezhegodnik rossijskogo obrazovatel’nogo zakonodatel’stva = Yearbook of the Russian Educational Legislation. 2009; 2: 146–152. (In Russ.)
12. Zaguzov N. I., Pisareva S. A., Tryapitsyna A. P., Vershinina N. A. Toolkit for assessing the quality of the dissertation research on pedagogy (the beginning). Sibirskij pedagogicheskij zhurnal = Siberian Pedagogical Journal. 2007; 14: 17–34. (In Russ.)
13. Kovtun N. N. Deficiencies in the work of dissertation councils? And only... Yuridicheskoe obrazovanie i nauka = Legal Education and Science. 2011; 3: 7– 10. (In Russ.)
14. Feldstein D. I. Dissertational research in the field of pedagogy and psychology: the current state and ways of improving quality. Vysshee obrazovanie segodnya = Higher Education Today. 2008; 2: 59–66. (In Russ.)
15. Tkachenko E. V., Belkin A. S. The Dissertation Council on Pedagogy: Opposition in the system of Councils. Obrazovanie i nauka = The Education and Science Journal. 2004; 2 (26): 54–60. (In Russ.)
16. Arister N. I., Reznik S. D. Efficiency of attestation of scientific personnel: experience, problems, prospects. Jekonomicheskoe vozrozhdenie Rossii = Economic Revival of Russia. 2011; 2: 175–192. (In Russ.)
17. Lukinova S. A. Problems of the legal regulation of labour of a university teacher. Leningradskij yuridicheskij zhurnal = Leningrad Legal Journal. 2013; 2: 177–182. (In Russ.)
18. Lukinova S. A. Wages of a university teacher: A comparative legal analysis. Leningradskij yuridicheskij zhurnal = Leningrad Legal Journal. 2015; 1: 293– 301. (In Russ.)
19. Rostovtsev A. A. Date-sociology and some problems of scientific attestation. Nauka. Innovacii. Obrazovanie = Science. Innovation. Education. 2015; 18: 243–254. (In Russ.)
20. Lapko G. K. Features of corruption in the education system. Sovremennyj uchenyj = The Modern Scientist. 2017. 7: 296–299. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Gelman V.Ya. ON SOME PROBLEMS OF DISSERTATION OPPONENCY. The Education and science journal. 2018;20(5):185-198. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-185-198
Views:
1051
Email this article 