Advertisement

The Analysis of Leadership in Russian Scientific Sphere

  • Liudmila Goncharenko
  • Sergey Sybachin
  • Irina Savchenko
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

The paper is dedicated to the analysis of the condition of the Russian scientific sphere. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, science was in stagnation because of numerous problems such as lack of systematization, bad conditions for scientists’ work, and many others. To solve those problems nowadays, funding has been increased, additional motivational factors have been added, and measures have been implemented to decrease corruption in scientific sphere. According to forecast, in 2019–2020 condition of science will improve, and Russia will strengthen its positions in the global ratings. This article covers the issues of establishment of the Russian science and presents generalized data in graph forms. These data concern global rating, expenditure, budget, and position of Russia in comparison with other developed countries. The analysis is an inseparable part of a scientific article as it allows to follow the dynamics of the development of the Russian science. It is essential that this paper has a very clear focus and practical importance strengthened by target setting, analysis of the problem, and marked directions of its problem-solving in order to improve indicators of statistic data as well as indicators connected with leadership and dominance implied in real life.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The article is prepared within the implementation of a project part of a state assignment on request of Ministry of Education of Russian Federation. The topic of the task is “Development of methodological background and organizational-economic mechanism of strategic management of economic security of Russia” (Assignment No. 26.3913.2017/ПЧ).

References

  1. Alimo Metcalfe B, Alban Metcalfe RJ (2001) The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire. J Occup Organ Psychol 74(1):1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appelt S, Galindo-Rueda F, de Pinho R, van Beuzekom B (2015) Which factors influence the international mobility of research scientists? OECD Science, Technology and Industry, Working Paper 2015/02Google Scholar
  3. Chiabai A, Platt S, Strielkowski W (2014) Eliciting users’ preferences for cultural heritage and tourism-related e-services: a tale of three European cities. Tour Econ 20(2):263–277.  https://doi.org/10.5367/te.2013.0290 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Federal state statistics service (2017) Data on the number of organizations engaged in research and development, the number of researchers. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/science_and_innovations/science/#. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  5. Fischer T (2017) Leadership process models: a review and synthesis. J Manag 6:1726–1753.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316682830 Google Scholar
  6. Gulicheva E, Osipova M (2017) Program-target method of pricing for international educational services. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 6(1):21–27.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2017.6.1.3 Google Scholar
  7. Jiroudková A, Rovná LA, Strielkowski W, Šlosarčík I (2015) EU accession, transition and further integration for the countries of central and eastern Europe. Econ Soc 8(2):11–25.  https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2015/8-2/1 Google Scholar
  8. Koudelková P, Svobodová P (2014) Knowledge creation & sharing as essential determinants of SMEs innovation. Int Econ Lett 3(1):12–20.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2014.3.1.3 Google Scholar
  9. Le Mouel M, Squicciarini M (2015) Cross-country estimates of employment and investment in organisational capital: a task-based methodology using the PIAAC database. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, OECD Publishing (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  10. OECD (2015a) Frascati Manual 2015. Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development, the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  11. OECD (2015b) Connecting to knowledge. OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard, p 125–153Google Scholar
  12. Petrova Y (2016) Innovative leadership. Almanac Mod Sci Educ 65:1–15Google Scholar
  13. Ratai NV (2016) Science in Russia and the leading countries of the world. Science, technology, innovation. https://issek.hse.ru/data/2016/09/20/1123278216/NTI_N_19_20092016.pdf. Accessed 22 Oct 2017
  14. Shishkin AV (2012) Strategic guidelines for the integration of education, science and business: international experience. Bull Altai Sci 3(2):131–133Google Scholar
  15. Strielkowski W, Höschle F (2016) Evidence for economic convergence in the EU: the analysis of past EU enlargements. Technol Econ Dev Econ 22(4):617–630.  https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.890138 Google Scholar
  16. Zielińska A (2016) Information as a market product and information markets. Czech J Soc Sci Bus Econ 5(4):31–38.  https://doi.org/10.24984/cjssbe.2016.5.4.4
  17. Zlyvko O, Lisin E, Rogalev N, Kurdiukova G (2014) Analysis of the concept of industrial technology platform development in Russia and in the EU. Int Econ Lett 3(4):124–138.  https://doi.org/10.24984/iel.2014.3.4.2

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liudmila Goncharenko
    • 1
  • Sergey Sybachin
    • 1
  • Irina Savchenko
    • 2
  1. 1.Research Institute for Innovative EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation
  2. 2.Prague Business SchoolPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations