Close

Search

Loading...

VISITING ADVISERS PROJECT (VAP)

Themes of visits

Themes of visits

Looking at the central themes which were formulated for the visits in the framework of the VAP, these were closely related to the themes central to the UP:

  • University Administration and Finance
  • Academic Structure and Governance within the University
  • Meeting the Students' Needs, and the role of Students in Institutional affairs
  • Technology and Higher Education, and
  • The University and the Civil Society.

These come back frequently as central themes where the VAP visits did focus upon, as becomes clear from Annex 7, and as indicated in the numbers below:

  • University Administration and Finance: Russia 21 x, FSU 11 x, CEE 19 x, Total 51 x
  • Academic Structure and Governance within the University: Russia 27 x, FSU 14 x, CEE 15 x, Total 56 x
  • Meeting the Students' Needs, and the role of Students in Institutional affairs: Russia 10 x, FSU 7 x, CEE 13 x, Total 30 x
  • Technology and Higher Education: Russia 8 x, FSU 4 x, CEE 6 x, Total 18 x
  • The University and the Civil Society, including links with stakeholders and the region: Russia 15 x, FSU 4 x, CEE 9 x, total 28 x.

From these figures it also becomes clear that the first two themes have been more present than the other three. If we look at other themes than the five from the UP, we find the following other five key themes, mentioned frequently:

  • Strategic Planning: Russia 16 x, FSU 4 x, CEE 7 x, Total 27 x
  • Quality Assurance: Russia 9 x, FSU 2 x, CEE 8 x, Total 19 x
  • Academic Programming, Teaching and Learning, Curriculum Development: Russia 4 x, FSU 5 x, CEE 10 x, Total 19 x
  • Internationalization: Russia 6 x, FSU 3 x, CEE 9 x, Total 18 x
  • Research and Research Management: Russia 3 x, FSU 5 x, CEE 6 x, Total 14 x.

Other themes mentioned more than two times are: HRM, Continuing Education, Interdisciplinary studies, Alumni, resource management, facility management, national higher education systems.

The top ten themes are rather broad and it is relevant to mention the topics that come back rather frequently in the reports: fundraising and diversity of resources; challenges in relation to the market; profile, status of the university; credit systems and credit transfer mechanisms; university autonomy; university leadership; student evaluations by faculty; tuition fees; outreach programs; and more recently also: implications of the Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy for the institution.

We saw little difference between Russia, FSU and CEE and also between the period of the WKKF grant and the three Carnegie Corporation grants. One can say that in Russia and FSU the themes:

  • University Administration and Finance: Russia 21 x, FSU 11 x, CEE 19 x, Total 51 x
  • Academic Structure and Governance within the University: Russia 27 x, FSU 14 x, CEE 15 x, Total 56 x

appeared to be more relevant than in CEE, and Strategic Planning more for Russia than for FSU and CEE.

And the themes:

  • Academic Programming, Teaching and Learning, Curriculum Development: Russia 4 x, FSU 5 x, CEE 10 x, Total 19 x
  • Internationalization: Russia 6 x, FSU 3 x, CEE 9 x, Total 18 x

appeared to be slightly more relevant in CEE than in Russia and FSU. But the differences are too marginal to come to hard conclusions.

The increased interest for the international dimension and Bologna Process and Lisbon Strategy were an illustration of the new reality of European higher education.

Given all this, there appears to have been a need for the VAP. At the same time, as has been mentioned before, the relevance of the program under the current situation seems to have decreased, as illustrated by the fact that from 2009 onwards it was more difficult to stimulate institutions in Russia and FSU to participate.