Pro et Contra. Система взглядов университетских преподавателей на преимущества и недостатки своей профессии

This article discusses the results of a field study conducted in 2019 at Tomsk State University (TSU) and Tyumen State University (TyumSU).

The purpose of the study is to investigate the motivations behind educators’ choice of their profession and the aspects they say as its advantages and disadvantages.

Methodologically, the study is based on 43 in-depth interviews with lecturers of TSU and TyumSU. These universities are located in Siberian cities and are among the group of the leading higher education institutions in Russia.

The study shows that the lecturers associate the benefits of work at the university with the opportunities provided by the ‘5-100 Project’ to attain the world standards; good working conditions; prestige of work at a reputable university; stability of university employment; feeling of belonging to the academic; and so on.

Most educators are dissatisfied with such aspects of university work as bureaucratization; redundancies; short-term contracts; the lack of transparency and inefficiency in funds distribution; and irregular working hours.

We found that despite some divergence of views, the faculty of the TSU and TyumSU share a lot of opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of university work. Thus, the cases of the two Siberian universities provide us with the insights into a larger picture of the Russian system of higher education.

These findings can be useful for HR services of universities for recruiting and retaining personnel.

1. OECD. Trends Shaping Education 2019. OECD Publishing, 2019. Аvailable at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/trends-shaping-education-2019_trends_edu-2019-en (accessed 01.02.2020). (In Eng.).

2. Nepreryvnoe obrazovanie vzroslogonaseleniya v Rossii: vovlechennost’, istochniki finansirovaniyai os-novnye effekty ot uchastiya [Continuing Education in Russia: Engagement, Sources of Funding, and Main Effects of Participation]. Monitoring ekonomiki obrazovania, 2018, vol. 132, no 12. 32 p. (In Russ.).

3. Korshunov I. A., Kuzheleva K. S., Grachev B. A., Sergeev K. A. Obuchenie i obrazovanie vzroslyh: vostrebovannye programmy, vozrastnaya i otraslevaya struk-tury [Adult Training and Education: Popular Programs, Age and Industry Structure]. Moskow, HSE Publishing House, Institute of Education, 2018. 44 p. (In Russ.).

4. Fedotov A. V., Belyakov S. A., Klyachko T. L. Strukturnye izmeneniya i transformaciya paradigmy gosu-darstvennoj politiki v nepreryvnom professional’nom ob-razovanii [Structural Changes and the Transformation of the Paradigm of the Government Policy on Lifelong Professional Education]. University Management: Practice and Analysis, 2018, vol. 22, no 5, pp. 67-74. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2018.05.050. (In Russ.).

5. Korshunov I. A., Gaponova O. S., Peshkova V. M. Vek zhivi - vek uchis’: nepreryvnoe obrazovanie v Rossii [Live Рукопись поступила в редакцию 21.05.2020 Submitted on 21.05.2020 and Learn: Adult Continuing Education in Russia / Eds. I. A. Korshunov, I. D. Frumin]. Moskow, HSE Publishing House, 2018. 312 p. DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-1779-6. (In Russ.).

6. Dezhina I. G. Dopolnitel’noe professional’noe obra-zovanie dlya razvitiya perspektivnyh tekhnologij: vklad vuzov [Supplementary Vocational Education for Advanced Technological Development: the Contribution of Universities]. University Management: Practice and Analysis, 2018, vol. 22, no 5, pp. 22-31. DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2018.05.046. (In Russ.)

7. Korshunov I. A., Peshkova V. M., Malkova N. V. Uspeshnye strategii realizacii programm dopolnitel’nogo professional’nogo obrazovaniya v professional’nyh obrazovatel’nyh organizaciyah i vuzah [Successful Strategies for Implementing Programs of Continuing Education in Educational Organizations and Universities]. Voprosy obrazovania, 2019, no 1, рp. 187-214. (In Russ.).

8. Konova T. A., Nesterov V. L. Ocenka effektivnos-ti ispol’zovaniya material’no-tekhnicheskoj bazy vu-zov v sisteme pokazatelej kachestva podgotovki specialis-tov [Efficiency of the Use of the Material and Technical Facililities of Universities in the Specialist Training Quality Indicator System]. Fundamentalnye issledova-nia, 2014, no 12 (10), pp. 2103-2107. Available at http://fun-damental-research.ru/ru/article/view?id=36533 (accessed 06.03.2020). (In Russ.).

9. Baryshnikova M. Yu., Vashurina E. V., Sharykina E. A. [et al.]. Rol’ opornyh universitetov v regione: modeli transformacii [The Role of Flagship Universities in Regions: Models of Transformation]. Voprosy obrazovania, 2019, no 1, pp. 8-43. (In Russ.).

10. Egorov A., Leshukov O., Froumin I. «Regional Flagship» University Model in Russia: Searching for the Third Mission Incentives. Tertiary Education and Management, 2020, vol. 26, no 1, pp. 77-90. DOI: 10.1007/s11233-019-09043-y. (In Eng.).

11. Muhina T. G., Koposov E. V., Borodachev V. V. Istoriya i perspektivy razvitiya otechestvennoj sistemy dopolnitel’nogo professional’nogo obrazovaniya v uslovi-yah vysshej shkoly [History and Prospects of Development of the National Vocational Training System in Higher Education]. N. Novgorod, NNGASU Publishing House, 2013. 289 p. (In Russ.).