Condiciones asociadas a la calidad del cuidado materno

Previous sections presented the outlines of the political and economic principles of Kyrgyzstan in the context of Central Asia, as well as the historical development of the higher education system in the country. This chapter discusses how the chosen approach of domestication can contribute to the field of higher education studies in post-socialist countries and Kyrgyzstan. First, Kyrgyzstan has been widely studied from the perspective of internationalization providing an interesting angle of insight into the broader Central Asian education policy context. Comparing other Central Asian countries, the higher education system of Kyrgzystan has been studied by international scholars more than other higher education systems.

During the early period of independence, reforms of higher education was underpinned by the notion of bringing democratic values, internationalization, and ethnic and religious peace to the society. The key role was played by President Akaev by concentrating on the development of social and political organizations. Moreover, internationalization has become more or less intentionally an important component of the current transformation of the Kyrgyz universities. Since independence, the state-funding for higher education has been in decline and for many higher education institutions, international cooperation is also a way to collect external funding. For many higher education institutions, internationalization is an essential component of their institutional development. First, internationalization in the Kyrgyz context is a way to bring donor interest and foreign direct investment to the higher education sector, which is severely underfunded with significant difficulties in keeping key staff in place, due to the relatively poor state of the Kyrgyz economy and state finances. The internationalization activities in Kyrgyzstan may include: inviting faculty members holding degrees from distinguished international universities, publishing in the leading international research journals, introducing English language instruction and dual-degree programs, getting involved in interinstitutional collaborations with education institutions abroad, and others. Each institution finds its own path to internationalization depending on its location, size and profile.

Teleshaliyev (2013) points out in his article that teachers have limited opportunities to participate actively in shaping their ‘professionalism’. Teachers in Kyrgyzstan are facing two policy tendencies in two different systems: western managerialism and the legacy of Soviet ideology. Managerialism, according to which, all problems have managerial solutions, dominates the education system and reform thinking by many international donors. International donors use political control imposed from top, which has several consequences for teachers and teaching, for example more centralized curriculum mandates, longer hours of

work and teaching for the test. At the same time, the legacy of Soviet professionalism is still visible in Kyrgyzstan, under which teachers are simply informed about decision and not consulted at all.

Earlier research had shed light on how locally embedded practices and longer socio-historical, political and economic practices and discourses facilitate the education transformation in post-socialist countries (e.g. Minina et al 2018). For instance, comparative studies on national interpretations of quality assurance reforms in Russia, China and Brazil has demonstrated that borrowing of global reforms can actually be locally based political projects and practical solutions (Minina et al 2018). In the context of Kyrgyzstan, the paradigm between internationalization and localization is considerable. Even though travelling reforms and globally inspired ideas are widely spread in the higher education system of Kyr-gyzstan, local and national features must be taken into account.

Steiner-Khamsi, Silova and Johnson (2006, 239) argue that when we are studying travelling policies, the timing when global reform is adopted or borrowed is important, whether reforms are borrowed at an early, middle or late stage (Steiner-Khamsi, Silova and Johnson 2006, 221). Earlier studies of outcome- based education reforms in post-Soviet countries in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and Mongolia, have shown that actual reforms haved varied considerably between these countries. Even though the reform package presented in different post- Soviet countries at the beginning of the debate did not differ significantly, reforms acquired different meanings in different national contexts. Policy rhetoric became remarkably similar across the region after the collapse of Soviet Union in 1991.

Most of the post-socialist countries moved from a socialist education policy to more western-oriented approaches (See Silova 2011). These reforms started from the higher education sector and the idea was to establish a National Scholarship Test (NST) to provide fair access to universities (Steiner-Khamsi, Silova and Johnson 2006, 226). In the end, these reforms also touched general education as teachers were retrained, lawmakers institutionalized reforms and aid agencies pushed their neoliberal best practices (Steiner-Khamsi, Silova and Johnson 2006, 228). The role of the USAID behind these reforms and in the domestic field battle was significant and international pressure became visible and arguments related to national and cultural traditions were silent. Eventually during the process there became strong attitudes against American-led educational reforms and nostalgic thoughts about the Soviet educational system (Steiner-Khamsi, Silova and Johnson 2006, 225).

As written earlier, there are various terms to describe this fundamental change in higher education policy in Kyrgyzstan. In this research I have utilized the term travelling reforms to describe the changes made in the higher sector in Kyrgyzstan. Simultaneously, I have argued that in one way or another, the reforms implemented in the higher education sector in Kyrgyzstan are linked to international principles and models. However, my interest is not only in studying

how the government of Kyrgyzstan has adopted the international language of global reforms, standardization and different internationally inspired reforms. Instead, my focus is to examine the domestication process – how actors in the field of higher education compound national, cultural, and historical aspects into the travelling reforms.

5 DOMESTICATION DISCOURSES

In earlier chapters, I discussed the backgrounds to this study, namely the methodological approach of discursive analysis (Chapter 2), the theoretical approach to domestication (Chapter 3) and the development of the higher education sector of Kyrgyzstan (Chapter 4). In this chapter, I examine how travelling reforms are debated within the higher education sector in Kyrgyzstan. From the empirical data I divided them into three key discourses of domestication of travelling reforms. Through these three discourses, the dynamics of the post- Soviet transformation becomes visible. The discourses are:

I. Discourse on quality II. Discourse on modernization III. Discourse on internationalization

The empirical research data have been drawn from policy document analyses of the key guiding higher education policy documents, and interviews with the rectors of the universities and other actors from higher education. Each of the discourses is described in its own section. First, I have described the discursive shift of the concepts of these discourses – quality, modernization and internationalization – and then demonstrate the use of these concepts in the field of higher education in Kyrgyzstan. The definitions of these concepts are closely linked to the discourses they are presenting. I investigated the metaphors and word choices be-hind those concepts. Second, I have presented the operationalization of the concepts and have analyzed the action attached to each discourse. The analysis focuses how different actors use discourses to justify their understanding of higher education policy. In the following table (in Table 3) an overview of the analytical focusses in each of the three discourses are described.

Discourse Focus of the discourse Analytical focus

I Discourse on

quality

Analysis of the policy shift in higher education and new policy guidelines

x Analysis of the discourse on quality: how is the quality perceived by different actors? x Which themes are crucial for the

discourse on the quality? x How are these themes justified or

rejected in the discourse on quality?

x Analysis of the quality assurance and evaluation reforms: metaphors and reasoning of these reforms

II Discourse on modernization

The transformation and development of the HE and implementation travelling reform

x Analysis of discourse on modernization: how is the modernization perceived by different actors?

x Which themes are crucial for the discourse on modernization? x Focus on activity involved in

modernization: how is the reform of accreditation justified and opposed at the field of HE? x Analysis of role of different

national actors: how do the roles of actors affect the acceptance of international reforms? III Discourse on internationalization The dynamics of internationalization, global reforms and partnership

x Analysis of the discourse on internationalization: how is the internationalization perceived and conceptualized by different actors?

x Analysis of the cooperation with different actors in the field of HE x Analysis of the impact of Russia

on HE of Kyrgyzstan

x Analysis of the reforms related to internationalization: Bologna Process

Table 3. An overview of the analytical focus in the three discourses.

As written in an earlier chapter, the idea of a domestic field battle is that when actors are adopting new policy programs, they justify them by linking them into national, cultural and local features. Similarly, when policy programs are written, these new concepts are linked to the national and cultural context in the receiving country. When reforms or global discourses are rejected, decisions are combined with national interests. After gaining independence from the Soviet Union, the principles governing the higher education of Kyrgyzstan changed. New concepts such as quality and efficiency were introduced and at the same time old concepts such as modernization and equality got new meanings. Saarinen (2011) has writ- ten how cultural artifacts and phenomena both reflect what is happening in a society and contribute to current policy processes. In the sections that follow, the empirical findings are presented through these three discourses.

The empirical findings are presented through these three discourses in separate sections. First, is the discourse on the quality followed by the discourse on

modernization and the discourse on internationalization in the next two sections. A summary of the findings follows in Chapter 6. In that chapter I also discuss how the domestication of travelling reforms appears through these three discourses. How these discourses are combined and which parts of the discussion about travelling reforms is not covered within these discourses. Also, in Chapter 6, findings about these three discourses are discussed through Bourdieu’s theory of discursive space. In discursive space, the current understanding of higher education system ‘doxa’ is either justified with the orthodoxical discourse and challenged by the heterodoxical discourse. With Bourdieu’s framework of discursive space, it is possible to interpret the findings and deepen the understanding of the domestication of travelling reforms.