The paper addresses the issue of the potential for Russian higher education to become the core of an innovation-driven economy, an institution for the production of knowledge and its integration into society. In addition to the mission of learning, an indicator of this potential for Russian universities is the level of implementation of research and socio-economic development missions. The genesis of the second and third missions of universities is used as a theoretical basis in this study. The author gives prominence (...) to four historical stages that characterize the University 2.0 development (learning and research) in the formation of a research model of cognitive attitudes. In the context of a comparative analysis of higher education development in Russia and Europe, the article examines the emergence of University 3.0 – the key institution of a knowledge society that fulfills three academic missions (learning, research, socio-economic development). The author proposes the NCI&E-model of University 3.0, which includes the basic models of Network University, Creative University, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial University, and provides a brief description and interrelations of these models. This work discusses issues associated with the failure of the Russian “5–100” project in terms of listing its participants in the top 100 of global university rankings such as THE, QS, and ARWU. The authenticity of the formation of the entry list for the “5–100” project is called into question. A comparative analysis of Russian and foreign universities concerning the implementation of the third mission is provided, including the use of the index of University 3.0 development prerequisites proposed by the author. The author concludes that Russian higher education has low potential for the development of University 2.0 at the global level and for the creation of University 3.0. The author offers recommendations for addressing the problem of Russian higher education modernization, considering the development of its scientific and theoretical base and forming a strategic complex of development programs. (shrink)

The article distinguishes between the various arguments traditionally offered as justifications for the principle of academic freedom. Four main arguments are identified, three consequentialist in nature (the argument from truth, the democratic argument, the argument from autonomy), and one nonconsequentialist (a variant of the autonomy argument). The article also concentrates on the specific form these arguments must take in order to establish academic freedom as a principle distinct from the more general principles of freedom of expression and intellectual freedom.

The current reorganisation of universities is part of a European policy aimed at strengthening Europe’s position with regard to the emerging global knowledge economy. The transformations in view of this overall goal are hardly accompanied by a critical discussion about the function or role of universities within and for society. The common assumption that universities offer a specific ‘general education’ by linking teaching to research, goes back to the modern university idea as conceived by Wilhelm von Humboldt. This article intends (...) to show that philosophical attempts to restore the modern university model as a normative standard for criticising actual developments at European universities, have become problematic for contextual reasons that beg the basic assumptions of this model. Instead of answering the question of the ‘public role of universities’, the article rather attempts to clarify the problems with which this question is connected, from a political–philosophical perspective. It is argued that the difficulties in which the contemporary discourse about universities constantly becomes entangled, reflect more fundamental impasses and even contradictions that the modern democratic project is experiencing today. (shrink)

Although universities are asked to play a role in the European knowledge society, the precise scope and meaning of this role is still under discussion. A major issue in this debate is the trend to adapt universities to economic needs and demands of society. In view of taking a critical stance against a one-sided economic interpretation of activities and functions of universities, their so-called “public” role is increasingly stressed in the debate as a crucial responsibility of universities that should not (...) be marginalized and therefore deserves our attention. In this paper, which is the introduction to a special issue on the public role of the university, we want to stress the importance of addressing the question of “the role of universities in the Europe of knowledge” in an open way and thus, without prejudices against or in favour of possible answers. It is our contention that a critical view of what is happening in universities today cannot simply rely on authoritative ideas or principles that are vaguely reminiscent of our university traditions. Consequently, this introductory paper pleas for a firmer argumentative and a richer empirical basis that takes account of the fact that our background has thoroughly changed in comparison to traditions that still implicitly inform our judgement of what universities can do, should do or should not do. Finally, we will discuss the way in which the articles collected in this issue are intended stimulating and supporting the debate on the public role of the university in Europe. (shrink)