Shinyaeva Ol'ga Viktorovna, Doctor of sociological sciences, professor, head of sub-department of political science, sociology and public relations, Ulyanovsk State Technical University (32 Severny Venets street, Ulyanovsk, Russia), email@example.com
Akhmetshina Ekaterina Rifovna, Candidate of sociological sciences, associate professor, sub-department of political science, sociology and public relations, Ulyanovsk State Technical University (32 Severny Venets street, Ulyanovsk, Russia), firstname.lastname@example.org
Background. The article discusses a phenomenon of the higher professional education functionality in the context of the role of professional positions of the main actors of the higher school – scientific and pedagogical workers.
Materials and methods. The authors rely on the analysis of the results of the all-Russian research, the data of Rosstat and NRU HSE for 2000–2014 years, as well as a number of copyright interregional quantitative and qualitative studies conducted in 2010–2014. The empirical object is teachers of public universities in different categories (federal, national research and state budget universities) located in different regions of the Russian Federation.
Results. A comprehensive approach to the analysis of primary and secondary information enabled the authors to offer a system of factors of the university functionality change and to identify the most important role of the positions of teaching staff. The authors also studied and described the professional position of scientific-pedagogical staff through the resulting indicators of professional identity: loyalty to the profession, mobility, subjectivity and job satisfaction. Negative trends in all these indicators allowed the researchers to conclude about the exclusion of teachers from participation in higher school reforms and the negative affect thereof on the functionality of the higher school.
Conclusions. The practical significance of the results lies in the context of increasing cohesion within the professional group of scientific and pedagogical workers and increasing the solidarity with the profession. The recommendations have been formulated for the federal, regional and corporate levels.
1. Veber M. Izbrannye proizvedeniya: per. s nem. [Selected works: translation from German]. Moscow: Progress, 1990, 808 p.
2. Dyurkgeym E. Sotsiologiya obrazovaniya: per. s frants. [Sociology of education: translation from French]. Moscow: INTOR, 1996, 80 p.
3. Merton P. Amerikanskaya sotsiologicheskaya mysl': teksty [American sociological thought: texts]. Moscow: Izd-vo MGU, 1994, pp. 379–448.
4. Giddens E. Ustroenie obshchestva. Ocherk teorii strukturatsii [Society’s structure. Essay on the theory of structuring]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt, 2005, 528 p.
5. Burd'e P. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya [Economic sociology]. 2005, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 60–74.
6. Dzheri D. Bol'shoy tolkovyy sotsiologicheskiy slovar' [Great explanatory sociological dictionary]. Moscow: Veche, AST, 2001, vol. 2, P-Ya. 528 p.
7. Shinyaeva O. V., Akmanaeva D. Kh. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Obshchestvennye nauki [University proceedings. Volga region. Social sciences]. 2011, no. 4, pp. 60–71.
8. Akhmetshina E. R. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Povolzhskiy region. Obshchestvennye nauki [University proceedings. Volga region. Social sciences]. 2009, no. 4, pp. 80–87.