Global Changes in Higher Education: Post-Covid Times
https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-8-65-70
Abstract
In this article we talk about education as a global phenomenon that includes many actors with their own political interests. In this regard, the question of the anthropological component of modern education, including in the international context, arises extremely sharply: what kind of person is formed by the new global education, to whom it applies, and what values it forms. Main trends in global education policy are defined. The formation of a global educational policy has not yet been completed, and the pandemic of coronavirus infection has brought both positive and negative aspects. We name both of them: the advantages and disadvantages of pandemic situation that shifted the global higher education into the different format. Also, we make the forecast on further higher education development.
About the Authors
J. P. Bayer
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (North-West Institute of Management, Branch of RANEPA)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Julia P. Bayer, Head of “Sociology” and “Social work” programmes, Associate Professor, PhD in Sociology
St. Petersburg
N. A. Churaev
Committee for Science and Higher Education of the Government of Saint-Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikita A. Churaev, Chief specialist of the Department of Development of Programs and Projects in the Field of Vocational Education
St. Petersburg
References
1. Ball S. J. (2012). Global education inc. London: Routledge., Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London: Routledge.
2. Bieber T. (2010), ‘Playing the Multilevel Game in Education-the PISA Study and the Bologna Process Triggering Swiss Harmonisation’, in K. Martens, A. Nagel, M. Windzio and A. Weymann (eds), Transformation of Education Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 105–131.
3. Green A. (2003), ‘Education, Globalisation and the Role of Comparative Research’. London Review of Education, 1, (2), 84–97.
4. Lingard B., & Rawolle S. (2011). New scalar politics: Implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47, 489–502.
5. Lingard B., Rawolle S. and Taylor S. (2005), ‘Globalising policy sociology in education: working with Bourdieu’. Journal of Education Policy, 20, (6), 759–777.
6. Martens K. and Wolf K. D. (2009), ‘Boomerangs and Trojan Horses: The Unintended Consequences of Internationalising Education Policy Through the EU and the OECD’, in A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, and P. Maassen (eds), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 81–107.
7. Martens K., Nagel A., Windzio M. and Weymann A. (2010), Transformation of Education Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Mundy K. (1998), ‘Educational Multilateralism and World (Dis)Order’. Comparative Education Review, 42, (4), 448–478.
9. Mundy K. (1999), ‘Educational multilateralism in a changing world order: UNESCO and the limits of the possible’. Journal of Education Development, 19, (1), 27–52.
10. Mundy K. and Menashy F. (2011), ‘Varieties of Organized Hypocrisy: The Case of the World Bank and Private Provision of Education’, paper presented to Workshop ‘Studying International Organisations in Social Policy’, Bremen, 21 October.
11. Mundy K. and Murphy L. (2001), ‘Transnational Advocacy, Global Civil Society? Emerging Evidence from the Field of Education’. Comparative Education Review, 45, (1), 85–126.
12. Bayer Ju. P. Actor approach to researching global educational policy // Administrative consulting. 2019. № 3. P. 72–78. (In Rus)
13. Torkunov A. V. Education as a soft power tool in Russian foreign policy // MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2012. № 5. P. 85–93. (In Rus)
Review
For citations:
Bayer J.P., Churaev N.A. Global Changes in Higher Education: Post-Covid Times. Administrative Consulting. 2021;(8):65-70. https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2021-8-65-70
Views:
705
Email this article 