Читать книгу Universities and Civilizations - Franck Leprevost - Страница 18

The first part of the triptych is, of course, about identification, but above all, about the role of leading universities. The first aspect of identification is “easy”: international rankings have become a major tool for the graduation of leading universities. These international rankings form the thermometer that we consult. The main question of this first part of the triptych is, however, different. Indeed, the role of leading universities is not often addressed. While the answers may vary considerably from one place to another or from one period to another²¹, some common features can nevertheless be identified. What are these motivations? What are these common features and their weight in academic initiatives to create world champions from leading countries? Finally, what are the missions of these leading universities? These questions will be addressed in the “why?” section. The last of these questions are considered again, but under a different aspect in the concluding chapter of the book.

The second part asks “where?”. In other words, where are the best universities in the world? We propose a civilizational reading of the development of leading universities and their positioning in the context of a geostrategy of higher education and research. Our approach is different from and complementary to the book (Hazelkorn 2015) and the collective work (Hazelkorn 2017) led by Hazelkorn, where there is a notable emphasis on case studies. We propose a unified vision in light of the world rankings of universities. We address the question of “where?” in a context that may be broader than that of a single country or, when dealing with a single country, taking it as the spearhead of a broader civilization. Our focus, at this stage, is on civilizations and their flagship countries and seeks to draw global trends. This question of “where?” is based on a careful examination of the results of international rankings for both the flagship countries of civilizations and the civilizations themselves. This section therefore focuses on a review of the methodology used by the THE, QS, Leiden and Shanghai rankings, and the results of the Top 20, Top 200 and Top 1000 of these rankings, both for flagship countries and for civilizations, over a period of about 10–15 years, depending on the rankings.

Ideally, this work should be complemented by a targeted study of universities in each of the “seven or eight major civilizations of the world” and, within them, their flagship countries, if there are any²².

The third part, completing the triptych, should ask the question “how?”, within a conceptual framework of civilization and leading countries. This is a complex task and we are only initiating it in this part of our study.

Let us describe the complexity. In contrast to the three blocs that organized the world during the Cold War (free world, communist bloc, and non-aligned states), seven or eight civilizations constitute Huntington’s contemporary groupings of States (Huntington 1997, chapters 1 and 2). The organization of this geography has not remained without opposition. Among the protests expressed, not against this view of the world as civilizations, but against what civilizations digest and the boundaries to which they claim to adhere to according to Huntington (the first paragraph in the Appendix gives this assignment to the corresponding civilizations of the countries included in the various rankings), the strongest have come from Europe. Since Europe is also the historical cradle of universities, it is only fair to summarize the criticisms that have been expressed from the old continent.

Western civilization has two components. One is Anglo-Saxon (mainly USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia) and has English as its linguistic unit. The other component, European²³, is more linguistically fragmented²⁴. For example, for Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Huntington’s proposal of a dilution of European nations into a Western bloc is questionable: “Huntington’s scheme has a heuristic value: it allows us to orient ourselves, but loosely” (Chevènement 2016, p. 136). It might therefore be necessary to distinguish between Anglo-Saxon civilization and European civilization, considering the memory²⁵ that some nations retain, and to see France, for example, as the flagship of European civilization. However, this does not always seem to be the case. Europe increasingly seems to revolve²⁶ around Berlin rather than Paris.

So, is Europe a civilization apart, fundamentally different from the North American Anglo-Saxon civilization? Or has it been taken into the United States’ orbit as a “junior partner”, in other words, as a minor and residual component of Western civilization? Like Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Régis Debray is also critical of the reading proposed by Samuel Huntington. However, he leaves little doubt about the direction of his aforementioned work. The legendary mediologist states:

In 1919, there was a European civilization with American culture as a variant. There is, in 2017, an American civilization, whose European cultures seem, with all their diversity, at best, adjustment variables, at worst, indigenous reserves.

On a chessboard, this is called castling. On a battlefield, a defeat. (Debray 2017, p. 48)

Taking note of this castling and defeat, the United States of America, is indeed the leading country of Western civilization, including Europe. This is the view taken in this book²⁷ although, we allow ourselves a brief review of continental academic Europe in the concluding chapter of this book, as well as in a substantial footnote. In order of priority, it would be advisable to begin by studying the “how?” across Western civilization and the USA²⁸.

It is probably through Chinese civilization, and its flagship country, China, that the landscape of higher education and research should continue to be studied as a counterpoint to what is happening within Western civilization. Anticipating our conclusions, let us say that the academic center of gravity is rapidly shifting towards China and the civilization it nurtures²⁹. It would then be a matter of further study into the Indian civilization and its flagship country, India. The case of Japanese civilization is simpler, in that it coincides with Japan and does not go beyond it³⁰. It would then be time to deal with the case of the Muslim civilization, Latin American civilization, the possible African civilization (remember that the term “possibly” belongs to Huntington), three (or two) civilizations without a clearly identified flagship country. Lastly, this overview would be incomplete if we omitted the Orthodox civilization and its flagship country, Russia.

The previous paragraph describes the complexity of dealing with the question “how?”, for all civilizations and their flagship countries. Rather than doing nothing, given the magnitude of the task, we have chosen to do what we can. We are starting this vast program today with Russia³¹, the flagship country of Orthodox civilization.

Two reasons guide our choice of analysis of the “how?” for the Russian version: the calendar³², temporal by definition, and the immersion, spatial³³ in this case.

Firstly, Russia launched the ambitious 5-100 project in 2012, aimed at propelling five Russian universities into the top 100 in the world by 2020. By the time we write the final lines of this book, this will be on the horizon.

Secondly, our analysis is based on an in vivo experience of almost nine months during the year 2016, in one of the first universities selected by the 5-100/2020 project, and on the expertise and consulting activities that several of these Russian universities have requested since then.

In the fourth chapter of the present work, we satisfy the diktat of the Russian emergency, by dealing with the third part of the triptych – the “how?” – in the context of the flagship country of Orthodox civilization, Russia. We analyze the chances of success and the obstacles encountered by Russian institutions in their conquest of international academic summits. Lastly, we propose options for strategic choices to be made at the governmental level.

Let us now continue the description of the contents of the other parts of this book.

Practically every page of this study is filled with numbered notes. They are grouped together in the “Notes, Insertions and Tangents” section of this book. The title reflects the fact that these notes often contain much more than details. Some give a historical or literary perspective (or both); several initiate possible avenues of development (some of which are mentioned in the foreword); and others address subjects that may seem more distant from the heart of the book’s subject but which, in our minds, are nevertheless linked to it in one form or another. A mathematician would say that they are related to, and positively correlated with, our concerns at the moment.

The “Appendices” section contains a certain amount of information, tables and graphs on which the different chapters are based. A “Reference” brings together the main sources used in this book.

We try to bring together the main points of emphasis of the previous chapters in Chapter 5, under the heading “Conclusion: Analysis and Perspectives”. Here, we identify the main trends of our study regarding the winners of the race for global intellectual leadership, as measured by the rankings. We even risk drawing trajectories that seem probable to us. Since the universities were born in Europe, we take advantage of this section to outline the situation of continental European universities within Western civilization. They confirm – without necessarily comforting – a prophecy by Paul Valéry from a hundred years ago, recalled in this same chapter. Beyond divisions and competitions, elite universities have important responsibilities, especially in tackling difficult problems. If the question of “why?” initiates the triptych, we mutate it in this chapter into “for what?”. We are indeed questioning the very mission of universities, wherever and whoever they are, and the responsibility of elite universities in particular, in the unprecedented context of population explosion, advances in robotic automation, and migrations of both technology and people.

This work does not have all the answers. It gives an angle, and identifies the dynamics of positions among the world’s elite in higher education and research. We believe in the sustainability of these dynamics. We hope that this book will provide some hindsight when it comes to influencing public policy and university reforms. This hindsight is necessary so that the short time for action does not obstruct the long time for strategic thinking in this competitive sector that is crucial to the sovereignty of nations, at a time when important forces are at work and when civilizational balances that were thought to be stable are faltering.

Throughout this book, we aim to contribute to the task that Albert Camus spoke of in his speech at the reception of the Nobel Prize in 1957:

Every generation, no doubt, believes it is destined to remake the world. Mine, however, knows it will not. Its task may be greater. It is to keep the world from falling apart. (Camus 1957, pp. 18–19)

At least, we try to do so by naming things as we see them, with all the lucidity and intellectual honesty we are capable of.

This study does not solely rely on lectures, graphs and scholarly analysis. It also draws³⁴ on stories, novels, plays, films, songs and pictorial works. It was not conceived in a theoretical, abstract and dry manner in the reassuring environment of an immovable office. Nomadism, quarrelling³⁵ and leaving the sphere of comfort are the main determining factors.

Let us begin this journey.