Priorities in the Modern Organization of University Science in the Light of the Principal-Agent Theory

The article focuses on the current state of the balance of interests in the field of organizing research activities in Russian universities. The theoretical framework of the research is the theory of the principal-agent, from the position of which the research management system is considered through the relationship between actors who have different degrees of awareness and potentially actin different interests. The purpose of the study is to compare the problems in the field of organizing funding, digitalization and scientific cooperation, which were the most important for agents, with those strategic decisions that took place at the level of the principal after extensive expert discussions. The following sources were used: 1) the results of the largest expert project implemented at the initiative of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation; 2) the results of a sociological study conducted at the Ural Federal University, where scientists and employees involved in the organization of scientific research were interviewed. A limitation of the study was the difficulty of comparing the results of the qualitative analysis made by the principal and the quantitative assessments given by the agents. In this connection, an emphasis in the interpretation of the results was made not so much on the specific quantitative assessments of the agents as on the comparison of the priorities of the problems expressed by the agents and the solutions generated by the principal. The results of the analysis showed that most of the priority tasks for agents in the field of organizing financing, digitalization, scientific cooperation were reflected in the decisions of the principal. The gaps stem from the lack of solutions aimed at intensifying research work in terms of monitoring the current scientific thematic agenda, and the importance of increasing the weight of this criterion when evaluating scientific projects. There are two ways to reduce the identified gaps: 1) inclusion of the support for the development of aggregators that allow scientists to quickly obtain the most relevant results with growing volumes of data into the list of tasks facing the principal; 2) development of modern analytical information and digital mechanisms for assessing the prospects of topics, which creates conditions for their compliance with the dynamic global research agenda.

1. Whitley, R., Gläser, J., Laudel, G. (2018). The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Re lationships on Scientific Innovations. Minerva. Vol. 56, issue 1, pp. 109-134, doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7

2. Franssen, T., Scholten, W., Hessels, L.K., de Rijcke, S. (2018). The Drawbacks of Project Fund ing for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding. Minerva. Vol. 56, Issue 1, pp. 11-33, doi: 10.1007/s11024-017-9338-9

3. Minashkin, V.G., Samotsvetova, A.M. (2014). Analysis of the Financing of Science and Innova tion of the Russian Federation. Vestnik MNEPU [Bulletin of the MNEPU Academy]. No. 1, pp. 306-313. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

4. Manakhov, S.V. (2013). Development of Scientific Activity in Higher Education Institutions – A New Priority of the State Scientific and Technical Policy of Russia. Vestnik Rossiiskogo eko nomicheskogo universiteta imeni G.V. Plekhanov = Vestnik of the Plekhanov Russian Univer sity of Economics. No. 8, pp. 29-36. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

5. Grishina, O.A., Shibaev, S.R., Staurskaya, A.A. (2018). Financial Sustainability Factors of Rus sian Universities. Chelovecheskiy kapital i professional’noe obrazovanie = Human Capital and Professional Education. No. 1, pp. 25-30. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

6. Popov, E.V., Vlasov, M.V. (2014). Competition Financing for Scientific Organizations in the Re gion. Ekonomika regiona = Economy of the region. No. 4. pp. 73-92. Available at: https://econo myofregion.com/archive/2014/51/2468/pdf (accessed 07.03.2021). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)

7. Lazarev, G. I., Terent’eva, T.V. (2014). Innovative Approaches to University Scientific Research Management in New Terms of a State Policy. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Educa tion in Russia. No. 10, pp. 10-18. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/728 (ac cessed 07.03.2021). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

8. Fadeev, A.S., Gerdy, V.N., Baltyan, V.K., Fedorov, V.G. (2016). The Integration of Education, Science and Industry: The Model of Bauman University. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. No. 4 (200), pp. 55-63. Available at: https://vovr.elpub.ru/jour/article/ view/409 (accessed 07.03.2021). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

9. Koksharov, V.A. (2020). [Changes in Research Organization, Innovation and Higher Education Networks]. In: Doklad na IV Mezhdunarodnom obrazovatelnom forume «Altai-Asiya 2020». (g. Barnaul, 24-26 sentyabrya 2020 г). [Report at the IV International Educational Forum “Altai-Asia 2020”., September 24-26, Barnaul.] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=sOy6f1qi7cc (accessed 07.03.2021). (In Russ.).

10. Koksharov, V.A., Zagainova, E.V. (2020). How University Management Changes During the Pandemic Period. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. Vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 6-14. Available at: https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/ view/1193 (accessed 07.03.2021). (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

11. Terentyev, E.A., Rybakov, N.V., Bednyi, B.I. (2020). Why Embark on a PhD Today? A Typology of Motives for Doctoral Study in Russia. Voprosy obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow. No. 1, pp. 40-69, doi: 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-1-40-69 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

12. Braun, D., Guston, D.H. (2003). Principal-Agent Theory and Research Policy: An Introduc tion. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 302-308, doi: https://doi.org/10.3152/ 147154303781780290

13. Guston, D.H. (1996). Principal-Agent Theory and the Structure of Science Policy. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 229-240, doi: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780335

14. Van der Meulen, B. (1998). Science Policies as Principal-Agent Games: Institutionalization and Path Dependency in the Relation between Government and Science. Research Policy. Vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 397-414, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00049-3

15. Veletanlić, E., Sá, C. (2020). Implementing the Innovation Agenda: A Study of Change at a Re search Funding Agency. Minerva. Vol. 58, Issue 2, pp. 261-283, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11024-020-09396-4

16. Dezhina, I.G. (2017). Science and Innovation Policy of the Russian Government: A Variety of Instruments with Uncertain Outcomes? Public Administration Issues. Issue 5, pp. 7-26, doi: http://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2017-0-5-7-26

17. Kashina, M.A. (2020). Negative Effects of Reforming Russian Graduate School: Analysis and Ways to Minimize. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29, no. 8/9, pp. 55-70, doi: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-8-9-55-70 (In Russ., ab stract in Eng.)

18. Vorobyeva, O.V., Ivannikova, E.M., Malandin, V.V., Sekirinsky, D.S., Karavaeva, E.V., Suley manova, A.I., Teleshova, I.G. (2020). Leadership and Management in Science and Technolo gy: Competency Model. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 29, No. 8/9, pp. 26-38, doi: https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-29-8-9-26-38 (In Russ., ab stract in Eng.)