• Ешқандай Нәтиже Табылған Жоқ

Бюллетени и Вестники - Библиотека аль-Фараби | Казахский национальный университет имени аль-Фараби

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2023

Share "Бюллетени и Вестники - Библиотека аль-Фараби | Казахский национальный университет имени аль-Фараби"

Copied!
54
0
0

Толық мәтін

(1)

eISSN 2522-1051

Central Asian Journal of

Social Sciences

and Humanities

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

(2)

Proprietor of the Edition: Al-Farabi Kazakh National University Editor-in-chief: K.S. Mukhtarova

Certificate № 15155-Ж Registered on March 12th, 2015 in the Ministry of Cultural and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Computer page makeup and cover designer: A. Kaliyeva

IB № 14905

Signed to publishing 09.09.2021. Format 60x84/8. Offset paper.

Digital printing. Volume 4,5 printer’s sheet. Edition: 300. Order No 8573.

Publishing house «Kazakh University»

www.read.kz Telephone: +7 (727) 3773330, fax: +7 (727) 3773344 Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

KazNU, 71 Al-Farabi, 050040, Almaty

Printed in the printing office of the Publishing house «Kazakh University».

Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD:

Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities is a peer-reviewed academic journal covering all branches of social and humanitarian areas: historical; philological; philosophical, social, psychological, educational and legal sciences.

The editors aim to maintain the publication of results of research faculty, doctoral and postgraduate students of Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, as well as scholars from various domestic and foreign universities and research institutes.

Chukubayev Yermek Samarovich

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Head of the Department of International Relations and World Economy, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Tynybekov Serikkali Tynybekovich

Doctor of Law, Professor, Head of the Department of Civil Law and Civil Procedure, Labor Law, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Ibrayeva Galiya Zhunusovna

Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Chair of UNESCO, International Journalism and Media in Society,

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan) Sultangalieva Gulmira Salimzhanovna

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of World History, Historiography and Source Studies, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Gerd Hofmeister

Professor Erfurt University (Germany) Tolujew Juri Ivanovich

Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor, Fraunhofer Institute IFF (Germany, Magdeburg)

Onyusheva Irina

Doctor PhD, Professor, Stamford International University (Thailand)

Potluri Rajasekhara Mouly

Associate Professor of Management & Marketing, College of Business, Al Ghurair University of Dubai

Lehtisaari Katja Marleena

Doctor of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki (Finland) Mikhail Molchanov

Professor in the Political Science, St. Thomas University (Canada) Pierre Chabal

Doctor of Political Science, Professor University Le Havre (France)

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Shabdenova Aizhan Bazarkhanovna

Senior Lecturer of the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University

(Almaty, Kazakhstan) e-mail: aija2005@mail.ru TECHNICAL SECRETARY Utkelbay Rysbek Erlanuly

e-mail u.rysbek@gmail.com. Teacher of Department of International Relations and the World Economy, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan) VICE OF SCIENTIFIC EDITOR

Dabyltayeva Nazym Esbergenovna

Candidate of economic science, deputy head of the Department of International Relations and the World Economy,

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

(3)

© 2021 al-Farabi Kazakh National University

IRSTI 14.07.01 https://doi.org/10.26577/CAJSH.2021.v7.i3.01 Ž. Rimantas1 , A. Kusainov2 , K. Yessenova2* , A.Sembaeva2

1Vilnius University, Lithuania, Vilnius

2Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Kazakhstan, Almaty

*e-mail: kamchat_esenova@mail.ru

Educational development in a period of transition:

the case of Kazakhstan

The development of education in the post-socialist space is one of the most interesting objects for comparative research. Countries that had similar or even identical education systems before the fall of the socialist regime can today serve as a research platform for testing modern theories of social development. According to modernization theory, the “underdeveloped” post-socialist countries had to catch up with their more “advanced” Western counterparts. Due to the fact that in all countries the goals of the reforms were similar, the expected result should have been more or less the same.

However, despite the recommended reforms of Western consultants, different trajectories are observed in the educational system. Obviously, the prevailing tendencies in the educational system are divergence instead of convergence. According to the theory of dependence, the world is a single economic system, and countries, in turn, perform different roles and functions.

On the example of Kazakhstan, we see that over 30 years of independence, the education system of independent Kazakhstan has received a worthy international recognition.

During the years of Independence, a national model of education has been formed, aimed at improving the quality of training of human resources, meeting the needs of the individual, society and the state. A regulatory legal framework has been formed. The laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On education”, “On higher education”, “On science”,

“On the rights of the child in the Republic of Kazakhstan”, “On the state educational accumulative system”, “On the commercialization of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities “,” On the status of a teacher

“and others.

Key words: Post-socialism, educational transformations, transitory period, theories of modernization and dependency.

Ž. Rimantas1,A. Кусаинов2, К.Есенова2*, A.Сембаева2

1Вильнюс университеті, Литва, Вильнюсқ.

2Әл-Фараби атындағы Қазақ ұлттық университеті, Қазақстан, Алматы қ.

*e-mail: kamchat_esenova@mail.ru

Ауыспалы кезеңдегі білім беру жүйесінің дамуы:

Қазақстан жағдайы

Постсоциалистік кеңістіктегі білім беруді дамыту салыстырмалы зерттеудің ең қызықты нысандарының бірі болып табылады. Социалистік режим құлағанға дейін өте ұқсас немесе тіпті бірдей білім беру жүйелері болған елдер қазіргі заманғы әлеуметтік даму теорияларын тексеру үшін зерттеу алаңы бола алады. Модернизация теориясына сәйкес, “дамымаған” постсоциалистік елдер өздерінің “дамыған” батыстық әріптестерін қуып жетуі керек еді. Барлық елдерде реформалардың мақсаттары ұқсас болғандықтан, күтілетін нәтиже көп немесе аз болуы керек еді. Алайда, Батыс кеңесшілерінің ұсынылған реформаларына қарамастан, білім беру жүйесінде әртүрлі траекториялар байқалады. Әлбетте, білім беру жүйесінде конвергенцияның орнына дивергенция басым тенденцияларға ие. Тәуелділік теориясына сәйкес әлем біртұтас экономикалық жүйе болып табылады, ал елдер өз кезегінде әртүрлі рөлдер мен функцияларды орындайды.

Қазақстанның үлгісінде біз Тәуелсіздіктің 30 жылы ішінде Тәуелсіз Қазақстанның білім беру жүйесі лайықты халықаралық мойындауға ие болғанын көріп отырмыз.

Тәуелсіздік жылдарында адами ресурстарды даярлау сапасын арттыруға, жеке адамның, қоғам мен мемлекеттің қажеттіліктерін қанағаттандыруға бағытталған білім берудің ұлттық моделі мен нормативтік құқықтық база қалыптастырылды. Қазақстан Республикасының “Білім туралы”, “Жоғары білім туралы”,

“Ғылым туралы”, “Қазақстан Республикасындағы баланың құқықтары туралы”, “Мемлекеттік білім беру жинақтау жүйесі туралы”, “Ғылыми және (немесе) ғылыми-техникалық қызмет нәтижелерін коммерцияландыру туралы”, “Педагог мәртебесі туралы” және басқа да Заңдары қабылданды.

Тәуелсіздіктің отыз жылында 67 жоғары оқу орны жұмыс істей бастады. ЖОО-дағы ПОҚ дәрежелілігі 24,3%-ға ұлғайды. Интернационализация деңгейі 18708 шетелдік студенттерге артты. 2011 жылмен салыстырғанда 2020 жылы 950 студент академиялық ұтқырлық бағдарламасы бойынша білім алды. 2014

(4)

4 Educational development in a period of transition: the case of Kazakhstan

жылмен салыстырғанда, 2020 жылы гранттар саны 4057-ге артты. 1993 жылмен салыстырғанда бүгінгі күні 1030 адамға артық Президенттік стипендия алады. 2018 жылмен салыстырғанда ақылы оқуға дайындық бейіні бойынша ҰБТ-дан босатылған ТжКБ түлектерінің контингенті 23478 адамға артты.

Түйін сөздер: постсоциализм, білім беру жүйесінің өзгеруі, ауыспалы кезең, модернизация және тәуелділік теориясы.

Ž. Rimantas1,A. Кусаинов2, К. Есенова2*, A.Сембаева2

1Вильнюсский университет, Литва, г. Вильнюс

2 Казахский национальный университет имени аль-Фараби, Казахстан, г. Алматы

*e-mail: kamchat_esenova@mail.ru

Развитие образования в переходном периоде:

случай Казахстана

Развитие образования в постсоциалистическом пространстве является одним из самых интересных объектов для сравнительного исследования. Страны, в которых до падения социалистического режима были довольно похожие или даже идентичные системы образования, на сегодняшний день могут служить исследовательской площадкой для проверки современных теорий социального развития. Согласно теории модернизации,

«слаборазвитые» постсоциалистические страны должны были догнать своих более «продвинутых» западных коллег. В связи с тем, что во всех странах цели реформ были похожи, то и ожидаемый результат должен был быть более или менее одинаковым. Однако, несмотря на рекомендованные реформы западных консультантов, в образовательной системе наблюдаются разные траектории. Очевидно, что в образовательной системе преобладающие тенденции имеет дивергенция вместо конвергенции. Согласно теории зависимости мир представляет собой единую экономическую систему, а страны, в свою очередь, осуществляют разные роли и функции.

На примере Казахстана мы видим, что за 30 лет независимости система образования независимого Казахстана получила достойное международное признание.

За годы Независимости сформирована национальная модель образования, направленная на повышение качества подготовки человеческих ресурсов, удовлетворение потребностей личности, общества и государства Сформирована нормативная правовая база. Приняты законы Республики Казахстан «Об образовании»,

«О высшем образовании», «О науке», «О правах ребенка в Республике Казахстан», «О государственной образовательной накопительной системе», «О коммерциализации результатов научной и (или) научно- технической деятельности», «О статусе педагога» и другие.

За тридцать лет независимости стало функционировать на 67 вузов больше. Остепененность ППС вузов увеличилась на 24,3 %. Степень интернационализации увеличилась на 18708 иностранных студентов. По сравнению с 2011 годом в 2020 на 950 студентов больше прошли обучение по программе академической мобильности. По сравнению с 2014 годом, в 2020 году количество грантов увеличилось на 4057. По сравнению с 1993 годом на сегодняшний день получают Президентскую стипендию на 1030 человек больше. По сравнению с 2018 годом контингент освобожденных от ЕНТ выпускников ТиПО по профилю подготовки на платное обучение увеличилось на 23478 человек.

Ключевые слова: постсоциализм, образовательные трансформации, переходный период, теории модернизации и зависимости.

Introduction

The development of education in the post- socialist period is one of the most interesting objects in the field of comparative research, since the study reveals the main trends in the development of educational systems in the context of globalization, ways to overcome the crisis in the field of education.

Post-socialist countries, which had fairly similar or even identical education systems before the fall of socialist regimes, can serve as a serious testing ground for modern theories of social development. However, the peculiarities of the post-socialist transition did

not become the main subject of interest of Western sociologists, at least in the field of education.

The purpose of the article is to investigate how Kazakhstani education has developed over thirty years of independence and its compliance with world trends.

Research methods

The study used a comparative method. The information base was the results of research by domestic and foreign scientists on the development of education in the transition period on the example of Kazakhstan.

(5)

Literature review

From the standpoint of comparative studies, the world educational space unites national educational systems of different types and levels, significantly differing in philosophical and cultural traditions, the level of goals and objectives, and their qualitative state. At present, it is customary to talk about the modern world educational space as an emerging single organism in the presence of global trends in each educational system and the preservation of diversity (Ivanova S., 2021).

As a result of the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991, a unified education system with its own regulatory and legal framework common to all republics, a single language of communication and education was destroyed. The countries of the post-Soviet space began to develop their own national educational systems, some of them, based on the Soviet educational system, others, focusing on Western educational norms and rules (Mirosyan T., Elkina I. 2018.).

The initial transition period after the revolutionary changes of 1989-1991. It was greeted by researchers with a certain interest; however, most developments in post-socialist education were viewed from the point of view of modernization theory. In their opinion, the “underdeveloped” post-socialist countries had to catch up with their more “advanced”

Western counterparts. The researchers based their opinion on the assumption that “there is one Western educational model that needs to be replicated in post- socialist countries, and that there is only one way to implement this model” (Bain, 2010). Reform recipes for countries were similar, so the outcome was expected to be more or less the same.

The term “post-socialism” was quite neutral and therefore suitable for describing the ambiguous present and unclear future – and not only post- socialist countries, but rather the world as a whole. It emerged immediately after the collapse in the role of a conventional concept from attempts to comprehend the emerging situation, the direction of development of which could not be predicted. And it blended well with other popular “post-” models at the time, such as postmodernism (Jameson, 1991) and postcolonialism (Spivak, 1990), all of which expressed a sense of a break with what came before and of change opening a new era.

Post-socialist countries have been termed

“countries in transition,” implying the temporary nature of the post-socialist period (Rado, 2001).

Almost three decades have passed, and the transition is far from over. Post-socialism is still alive and well

(Silova, 2010), and many vestiges of the socialist past can still be observed in the educational structures of the former socialist countries. Despite the similar nature of the reforms advocated by Western consultants, different trajectories of change in education can be observed. Divergence instead of convergence seems to be the dominant development trend. The divergence approach argues that, despite economic transformation and modernization processes, countries not only maintain their cultural differences, but there is also a return to roots movement and a struggle for local culture, values and character traits (Waitzberg, 2007).

At the beginning of the transition, researchers observed two competing trends – “borrowing from the West” and “returning to the roots” (Anweiler, 1992). It appears that in at least some countries in the region, the latter trend has become predominant over time. This can be explained not only by the cultural choice of peoples: such a turn can also be due to the economic context. Some countries began to develop their economic potential in accordance with the needs of the world market, while others decided to rely mainly on the export of their natural resources, because the “shock therapy” of the transformation of the planned economy into a market economy turned out to be too radical. Weizberg (2007) notes that the main object of modernization theory is the theory of dependence, which assumes that the world is a single capitalist economic system in which different countries perform different roles and functions. “Core” or “developed” countries produce industrialized products with high added value and sell them to “peripheral” or “developing”

countries, which supply cheap raw materials to the main countries. Consequently, not all countries have the same opportunities to achieve the same economic development, and their education systems have different development opportunities. Dependency theory seems to be better suited to explain the differences that are now evident when comparing former socialist countries.

As a result of different strategic choices, the countries of the region can be divided into at least three relatively different groups: the new EU member states; geographically and politically divided countries with a distant and vague prospect of EU membership (for example, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine); and countries that did not necessarily rely on Western recommendations to reform their education and are looking for their own ways (Silova, 2009). Although the new EU member states seem to be more advanced in reform implementation and manage to achieve better results in education (OECD, 2016), the third

(6)

6 Educational development in a period of transition: the case of Kazakhstan

group, consisting of post-socialist countries seeking to build their educational systems on their own, seems to be probably the most interesting object. for a case study. The countries that are outside the zone of direct influence of the EU education policy are Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the republics of Central Asia. The Republic of Kazakhstan, which is a typical representative of the third group of countries, can serve as an interesting example of a country seeking its own way of developing education.

Results and discussion

A typical example of a country that is under pressure from global forces and at the same time is trying to find its own path of development is the Republic of Kazakhstan.

By historical standards, 30 years of Independence is a short period. But, for a quarter of a century, a lot has changed. A new generation has grown up. Almost 50% of the population) were born in independent Kazakhstan.

How did Kazakhstani education develop against this background and does it correspond to world trends? To what extent does modern Kazakhstani education contribute to the country’s sustainable development?

Thanks to the close attention of the Head of State to the education system, painstaking and creative work of hundreds of thousands of teachers, the education system has achieved serious results.

Hundreds of Kazakhstani schoolchildren win gold medals at international subject Olympiads and competitions. More than twelve thousand of the most talented students studied at the best universities in the world under the President’s program “Bolashak”. For 30 years of independence, about 140 thousand of our citizens have received higher education in foreign universities. In TIMSS-2015, our schoolchildren showed impressive results, which turned out to be higher than the international average and the indicators of their peers from the USA, England, Germany, Canada, Australia, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Malaysia, Turkey and others. countries.

For 2021, the number of countries in which Kazakhstanis can study for free within the framework of intergovernmental agreements concluded at the initiative of the Ministry of Education and Science has increased.

To date, grants to Kazakhstanis are allocated by Slovakia, Azerbaijan and Vietnam.

Also, Kazakhstani students will be able to receive a diploma from the prestigious US university

– the University of Arizona, while continuing their studies in the republic. We are talking about students of the North Kazakhstan University named after M.

Kozybayev. This will become possible within the framework of the achieved strategic partnership with this university.

To date, fourteen Kazakhstani universities have entered the international academic ranking QuacquarelliSymondsWorldUniversityRankings, which is one of the most authoritative rankings of universities in the world. Moreover, this year some universities have strengthened their positions, moving up several ranks.

Over the years of independence, 6 state programs have been implemented aimed at developing the education system.

For our study, the system of higher education for the years of independence seems to be relevant.

Let us compare the results of the higher education system at the time of gaining independence in Kazakhstan and today (table 1).

Table 1

At the time of gaining

independence Today

Functioned 61 higher educational institutions

128 higher educational institutions and over 30 years of independence 3.2 million personnel with higher

education were trained The graduation of specialists

with higher education amounted to 42.2 thousand

people

176.4 thousand people

As can be seen from the table, over the 30 years of independence, 67 more universities began to function. This is a significant result.

Since 1999, the universities of Kazakhstan have switched to a new model of forming the student contingent of higher educational institutions on the basis of the state educational order (table 2).

Table 2 – Qualitative composition of the teaching staff (PPP) Years Graduation of teaching

staff of universities

1999 24%

2021 48,3%

(7)

As you can see, the degree of teaching staff in universities increased by 24.3%.

A law was also adopted to expand the academic and managerial independence of universities.

Since 2010, Kazakhstan has been a member of the Bologna Process. The transition to a three-stage model of personnel training has been carried out:

bachelor’s – master’s – doctoral studies.

An important indicator of the quality and attractiveness of the Kazakh system of higher education is the degree of its internationalization (table 3).

Table 3 – Degree of internationalization over the years of independence

Years Number of foreign students

2010 10 361

2016 12 837

2019 39 558

2020 29 069

As you can see, since 2010, the degree of internationalization has increased by 18708 foreign students. This is a fairly high figure.

The number of Kazakhstani universities in the QS international ranking of the best universities in the world has grown from 5 to 10 (for 2011, 2020, respectively).

Al-Farabi Kazakh National University entered the top 200 best universities in the world according to the QS rating.

Since 2011, a program of academic mobility of students has been implemented. About 18 thousand students were trained in the best foreign universities (table 4).

Table 4 – Academic mobility program

Years Number of students

2011 350 человек

2019 603

2020 1 300 человек

Compared to 2011, in 2020, 950 more students were trained under the academic mobility program.

Since 2005, annually 200 best university teachers have been awarded the «Best University Teacher» grant for scientific research (3 thousand people).

In 2020, for the first time, the «Best University Teacher» competition was held in electronic format.

Since 2019, repeated UNT has been introduced (4 times a year).

More than 6 thousand people were admitted to universities (in 2019 – 3 thousand people).

For the first time since 2020, persons who have international certificates (IELTS, TOEFL) have been exempted from taking the UNT block of a foreign language.

Exempt from UNT TVE graduates upon admission to the training profile for paid education.

The contingent of admission of such students in 2020 amounted to 35,297 people, in 2018 – people.

Table 5 – Training profile for paid education

Years Number of students

2018 11 819

2020 35 297

Compared to 2018, the contingent of TVE graduates exempted from the UNT in the training profile for paid education increased by 23,478 people.

An electronic UNT certificate and an electronic certificate of awarding an educational grant have been introduced.

Since 2014, the social project «Mangilik el zhastary – industry!»

Educational grants are allocated annually (Table 6).

Table 6 – Educational grants

Years Number of grants

2014 год 1 050

2020 год 5 107

Compared to 2014, in 2020 the number of grants increased by 4057.

Since 1993, the scholarship of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan has been awarded for academic success (table 7).

(8)

8 Educational development in a period of transition: the case of Kazakhstan

Table 7 – Scholarship of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Years Number of people

1993 58

2020 1 088

Compared to 1993, today, 1030 more people receive the President’s scholarship.

The State educational accumulative system is functioning.

Since 2011, a world-class higher educational institution – Nazarbayev University has been operating in the country. 62 universities (64.8%) are implementing the experience of Nazarbayev University. In 11 universities with a special status, 168 doctoral students were awarded PhD degrees, and they received their own corresponding diplomas.

The international scholarship «Bolashak» was established by the decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 5, 1993 No. 1394. Since 2016, more than 100 foreign top managers and 861 foreign scientists have been attracted.

Measures for training personnel in colleges and universities for specialties in demand have been strengthened, the material base of educational institutions has been updated.

Work has been intensified to stop the activities of higher educational institutions that provide low- quality education.

The salaries of the teaching staff were increased by increasing the cost of the state educational grant.

In 2011, the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan

«On Science» was adopted, which regulates public relations in the field of science and scientific and technical activities and defines the basic principles and mechanisms of the functioning and development of the national scientific system of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Since 2015, work has been underway to stimulate scientific activity by commercializing its results.

Funding for science has been increased, and an additional 3 billion tenge is allocated annually for scientific research of young scientists.

Today Kazakhstani science is open for collaboration with foreign scientists. Significant scientific achievements were obtained in scientific projects and programs.

As the comparison results show, significant achievements were obtained in the higher education system during the years of independence.

Conclusion

The modern direction of the development of education systems in the post-Soviet countries is integration into the world educational space, the transition to a new educational paradigm, as a result of which it is necessary to rethink the historical heritage of national and foreign pedagogy, search for new effective ways of interaction between research and practical activities.

On the example of Kazakhstan, we saw that over 30 years of independence, the education system of independent Kazakhstan has received a worthy international recognition.

During the years of Independence, a national model of education has been formed, aimed at improving the quality of training of human resources, meeting the needs of the individual, society and the state. A regulatory legal framework has been formed. The laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan “On education”, “On higher education”, “On science”,

“On the rights of the child in the Republic of Kazakhstan”, “On the state educational accumulative system”, “On the commercialization of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities

“,” On the status of a teacher “and others.

For thirty years of independence, 67 more universities began to function. The degree of the teaching staff of universities increased by 24.3%.

The degree of internationalization has increased by 18,708 foreign students. Compared to 2011, in 2020, 950 more students were trained under the academic mobility program. Compared to 2014, in 2020, the number of grants increased by 4057.

Compared to 1993, today, 1030 more people receive the President’s scholarship. Compared to 2018, the contingent of TVE graduates exempted from the UNT in the training profile for paid education increased by 23,478 people.

References

Anweiler, O. (1992) Some Historical Aspects of Educational Change in the Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In: Phillips, D., Kaser, M. (eds.) Education and Economic Change in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. Wallingford: Triangle Books, p. 29-39.

(9)

Bain, O. (2010) Education After the Fall of the Berlin Wall: the End of History or the Beginning of Histories? In: Silova, I. (ed.) Post-Socialism is not Dead: (Re)Reading the Global in Comparative Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, p. 27-59.

Spivak, G. C. The Postcolonial Critic: Interview, Strategies, Dialogues. New York: Routledge, 1990.

Silova, I. 2009. Varieties of Educational Transformation: The Post-Socialist States of Central/Southeastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. In: Cowen, R., Kazamias, A. M. (eds.) Second International Handbook of Comparative Education. Heidelberg: Springer, p. 295-320.

Silova, I. (ed.) 2010. Post-Socialism is Not Dead: (Re)Reading the Global in Comparative Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Ivanova S. On the general features of the educational systems of countries in the post-Soviet space // Domestic and foreign pedagogy. 2014. No. 5 (20). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ob-obschih-chertah-obrazovatelnyh-sistem-stran-na-postsovetskom- prostranstve (date accessed: 27.08. 2021

Jameson, F. Postmodernism, Or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism Durham, NC, Duke University Press, 1991.

Kusainov, A. (2013) Quality of Education in the World and Kazakhstan. Almaty: Rond&A.

Kusainov, A. (2016) Crisis in the System of Secondary Education: Ways Out. Almaty: Rond&A.

Mirosyan T., Elkina I. Features of educational systems of the countries of the post-Soviet space: monograph / Under the scientific editorship of S.V. Ivanova. – Volume 2. (Series of scientific works “Education in the countries of the post-Soviet space: 25 years of searching for your own path” in 4 volumes). – M .: Ray. 2018.- 192 p.

Nikitenko, N. V., Dzhamaliev, A. F. (eds.) 2014. Collected Teaching Materials (TM) of Disciplines and Other Methodical Documents. TEMPUS – EDUCA Project „Modernization and Development of Curricula in Pedagogy and Educational Management in the Central Asian Countries“. Bishkek: „Education Network“ Association.

OECD. 2016. OECD PISA 2015 Report. Vilnius: Nacionalinis egzaminų centras.

Rado, P. 2001. Transition in Education. Budapest: Open Society Institute.

University of Cambridge. 2012. Internationalisation and Reform of Secondary Schooling in Kazakhstan. Collaborative Research Programme. Retrieved from; https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/networks/eri/casestudies/kazakhstan/researching/2012%20Report_

short%20version.pdf

Waitzberg, R. 2007. Are Educational Systems Converging or Diverging? A Cross-Country Empirical Test of Theories on Primary Education Official Curricula. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Zelvys, R. 2018. Education Systems in Times of Multiple Crises: The Case of Post-Socialist Transformations. Iranian Journal of Comparative Education, 1, 1, 48-67.

(10)

© 2021 al-Farabi Kazakh National University

ISSN 2522-1043 еISSN 2522-1043 Central Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities №3 (2021) https://jhumansoc-sc.kaznu.kz

IRSTI 06.81.23 https://doi.org/10.26577/CAJSH.2021.v7.i3.02 A.M. Sekerbayeva* , S.S. Tamenova

Turan University, Kazakhstan, Almaty

*e-mail:sekerbayevaaigerim@gmail.com

Managerial challenges and main barriers in universities within the Triple Helix context

The Triple Helix model of innovation is unquestionably the most discussed model for innovation in both developed and developing countries. This model advocates reinforcement of the cooperation between the university, business and government. The world is changing rapidly; consequently, this innovation model is mutating by taking different forms of interactions and collaborating under various conditions, posing various challenges and barriers toward three agents’

interactions. There have been many studies on three helices relationships type, three actors` interaction cases and main challenges. However, few studies concerning the Triple Helix model examined the managerial challenges in academia in realizing the Triple Helix Model and University-Industry linkages. A significant role is imposed on universities as the primary source of new knowledge, ideas, creativity and innovation. To push forward the strengthening of the university-industry collaborations within the Triple Helix model in universities of Kazakhstan, we aimed to define the main managerial challenges and barriers in other developing countries in this model realization. As a result, the systematic literature review displayed many challenging aspects in the universities’ micro-level management and the main difficulties of university-industry collaborations.

Key words: triple helix, university-industry collaborations, managerial issues.

Ә.М. Секербаева*, С.С. Таменова Тұран университеті, Қазақстан, Алматы қ.

*e-mail: sekerbayevaaigerim@gmail.com Университеттерде «Үштік спираль» моделін жүзеге асырудағы басқару мәселелері мен кедергілері

Triple Helix инновациялық моделі сөзсіз дамыған және дамушы елдердегі инновацияның ең көп талқыланатын моделі болып табылады. Бұл модель университет, бизнес және үкімет арасындағы ынтымақтастықты нығайтуды қолдайды. Әлем тез өзгеруде; демек, бұл инновациялық модель өзара әрекеттесудің әр түрлі формаларын қабылдау және әртүрлі жағдайларда ынтымақтастық жасау арқылы өзгеруге ұшырайды, үш агенттің өзара әрекеттесуінде түрлі қиындықтар мен кедергілер тудырады. Үштік спираль қатынастары, үш актердің өзара әрекеттері және негізгі проблемалар туралы көптеген зерттеулер жүргізілді. Алайда, Triple Helix моделіне қатысты зерттеулер және де академиядағы Triple Helix моделі мен университет-индустрия байланысын жүзеге асырудағы басқарушылық мәселелерді қарастыратын зерттеулер саны шамалы. Жаңа білімнің, идеяның, шығармашылық пен инновацияның бастапқы көзі ретінде университеттерге маңызды рөл жүктеледі. Қазақстанның университеттерінде Triple Helix моделі аясында университет-салалық ынтымақтастықты нығайтуды алға жылжыту үшін біз осы модельді іске асырудағы басқа дамушы елдердегі негізгі басқарушылық қиындықтар мен кедергілерді анықтауға бағытталғанбыз. Нәтижесінде әдебиеттерге жүйелі шолу университеттердің микродеңгейіндегі басқарудың көптеген күрделі аспектілері мен университеттер мен өндірістер арасындағы ынтымақтастықтың негізгі қиындықтары көрсетілді.

Түйін сөздер: үштік спираль, университет-өнеркәсіп ынтымақтастыгы, басқару мәселелері.

А.М. Секербаева*, С.С. Таменова Университет Туран, Казахстан, г. Алматы

*e-mail: sekerbayevaaigerim@gmail.com

Проблемы управления и барьеры в университетах в условиях реализации модели Тройной спирали

Модель инноваций «Тройная спираль», несомненно, является наиболее обсуждаемой моделью инноваций как в развитых, так и в развивающихся странах. Эта модель выступает за укрепление сотрудничества между университетом, бизнесом и государством. Мир быстро меняется, следовательно, видоизменяется и инновационная модель, принимая различные формы взаимодействия и сотрудничества в различных условиях,

(11)

создавая различные проблемы и препятствия для взаимодействия трех агентов. Было проведено много исследований по типу трех спиралей отношений, взаимодействия трех субъектов и основным проблемам.

Однако проводилось мало исследований, касающихся модели Тройной спирали, где изучались управленческие проблемы в академических кругах при реализации модели Тройной спирали и связей между университетом и промышленностью. Значительная роль отводится университетам как первоисточнику новых знаний, идей, творчества и инноваций. Для способствования укреплению сотрудничества между университетами и промышленностью в рамках модели Тройной спирали в университетах Казахстана авторы статьи стремились определить основные управленческие проблемы и барьеры в других развивающихся странах при реализации этой модели. В результате систематический обзор литературы выявил множество сложных аспектов управления университетами на микроуровне и основные трудности сотрудничества между университетами и промышленностью.

Ключевые слова: Тройная спираль, сотрудничество университета и индустрии, управленческие вопросы.

Introduction

In the State Program of industrial and innovative development of the Republic Kazakhstan for 2020- 2025 (hereinafter SPIID), it is planned to carry out work in innovative potential and innovation advancement. This State Program dedicated several areas to strengthen the innovation capacity and its development in Kazakhstan, owing to Kazakhstan’s low scores in the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI).

According to Global Competitiveness Report 2019 in GCI by World Economic Forum, Kazakhstan took 55th place and have improved its position by four points compared to 2018. Out of 12 factors of competitiveness, the improvement occurred in 5 aspects, a decrease in 4 factors, and in 3 factors, the positions did not change. Out of 103 indicators, there was an improvement in 33 indicators, deterioration in 49 indicators and no changes in 21 indicators. The competitiveness of Kazakhstan is at an average level in terms of such factors as “ICT”

– 44th place, “Education and skills” – 57th place,

“Macroeconomic stability” – 60th place. And one of the weakest positions of Kazakhstan is “Innovation potential” – 95th place. An average score of an innovative potential is 32 out of 100. Being aware of the statistics in innovation and competitiveness urges us to develop innovative potential, consequently being competitive. There are various innovation models to implement in the context of Kazakhstani reality. One of the most thriving ones is the Triple Helix Model of Innovation. And the most real and reliable one, since three actors are involved in the realization of this model. The first time this term was used as a biological term for gene splicing, they commercialized this innovative idea, and the Federal support developed an ownership patent. Initially, the innovative biological idea had turned into a valuable business.

The main point is to produce the ideas and then employ these ideas for societal issues, strengthening the nation’s whole economy. As the leading agent in this triangle – the universities/ higher education institutions (HEIs), and the industry/

companies, employ the knowledge/skills developed by the Universities. In the Triple Helix Model of Innovation, the University-Industry linkages are typical, thus critical. So, here the entrepreneurial university as a driver of the triple helix [Etzkowitz, 2008: 29]. Although the government plays a crucial part in supporting the business in subsidies/grants, and in the startup development process [Pique et al, 2018: 4] However, UI collaborations remain more significant for innovation management in the context of developing countries. The University -as a knowledge and skills generator, and the industry realise those skills in practical terms by making business and profit. However, in this knowledge transfer process, many issues occur.

Literature review

Generally, the state government documents are devoted to the problematic issues Kazakhstan has to deal with in further development and economic competitiveness areas. One of those documents is the State program of industrial and innovative development for 2020-2025.

World Economic Forum data for Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) is retrieved from the official internet site of trading economics. Due to covid 2019, the GCI 2020 report was missed, and the data displays 2018-2019.

Innovation, innovation management and the Triple Helix model of innovation are widely discussed and explored for the last centuries. Many researchers contributed to the innovation and the triple helix model studies. Such foreign scientists devoted their works to the innovation, triple helix model issues

(12)

12 Managerial challenges and main barriers in universities within the Triple Helix context

along with U-I collaborations as Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff., Drucker P., Zhou Chunyan., Lowe C [Lowe, 1982] Elias G.Carayannis, Elpida T.Samara., Yannis L. Bakouros., Nsanzumuhire Silas., Piqué J., Razak A., Asad Abbas [Asad Abbas et al., 2019],Wan Ming., Hladchenko M., Pinheiro R., Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R [Fagerberg, 2006] and others.

Among Russian scientists, it is worth noting the work of Osmuk L.A [Osmuk, 2019]. Kazakhstani scientists as Dnishev F.M., Alzhanova F.G., Alibekova G.Zh [Dnishev et al, 2015] devoted some of their works to the triple helix model of innovation. Mainly Etzkowitz H worked on research problems as in triple helix model, entrepreneurial science, university- industry linkages, the dynamics of innovation, innovation, etc.; Leydesdorff has many studies in a triple helix, university-industry interactions, innovation system, knowledge-based economy, etc., Carayannis, E – the role of knowledge management, U-I R&D partnerships, Quadruple Helix, innovation ecosystem, innovation, encyclopedia of creativity, innovation and invention, innovation and entrepreneurship -theory, policy, practice etc., Perkmann, M- university engagement with industry, academic engagement and commercialization, open innovation.,Santoro, M- university research centres, university-industry knowledge transfers, U-I interactions, research centres and industrial firms, etc., Hughes, A -Knowledge exchange activities, open innovation, knowledge production, the role of universities, etc., Saad, M- developing countries innovation systems, triple helix strategy, barriers to U-I links, etc.

Research Methodology

The paper aims to explore the managerial challenges the universities face in university- industry collaborations and overall the triple helix model implementation. Besides, we seek to ascertain the main barriers toward collaborations between academia and industry. We employed the systematic review of literature conducted in the field of UIC, such as Silas U.Nzanzumuhire [Nsanzumuhire et al, 2020], Brekke [Brekke, 2020]. We used SLR (a systematic literature review) with limited open recourses available.

A list of relevant literature was obtained using online databases like Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Google Scholar; moreover, the books by reliable scientific publishers (Springer, Routledge, Springer reference, Harper etc) were taken into account.

We searched these databases by applying different combinations. We employed the following search

string in those databases: (University-Industry Collaboration) OR (Triple Helix Management), AND (Triple Helix) all the other key words brought completely irrelevant publications, which were not of our concern. We considered only the articles with open access since the availability of the account access to other publications were limited, or access was not full. Apart from the WoS and Scopus, we used the key search string for the Google Scholar:

“triple helix management”.

The period of publications time ranged from 1980 to 2021. The search started in April 2021 and ended in May 2021. Generally, with a key search

“university-industry collaboration”, the massive publications were about the overall or too specific UI collaborations, models, practical uses, and realizations. However, in some of those articles, we could find out the challenges and barriers toward implementing the TH model. In the search string:

Triple helix management, we could find some articles closely related to our objectives and concerns. The total number in the WoS database with the key search string: Triple Helix Management is 332. In the exact search string, Scopus had 274 publications.

A bulk of those papers are from the US, Brasil, UK, China and other European countries. The number of article paper is 169, conference paper 70. All open access papers number 65 Google Scholar displayed 24 000 documents; however, only the first ten was relevant. The key search string “University-Industry collaboration” yielded 1348 results: article 850 with open access – 296 only in Web of Science, and 5727 total and 2669 articles with 1109 open access in Scopus database. Publications obtained after reading the abstracts. Because the articles we aspire to analyse have high legitimacy, the search approach only included peer-reviewed journal papers available in an electronic database. The most relevant articles with open access had been retrieved; in some cases, the full text was not available.

Initially, we wanted to understand the main challenges the academia faced in UI collaborations, and we chose the period started from 1980 since the articles regarding the triple helix from that year are considered a separate model for innovation and was the term was first used in its commercial sense in the Yale Journal of Biology and medicine. Unlike other systematic reviews, this study focuses only on in-depth problems in micro-level management within academia toward realizing the triple helix model. We mainly highlighted the role of managers’

perceptions in the universities and the main barriers in implementing UI co-operations. Some challenges and barriers were described in a certain country as

(13)

a case study in realizing the TH model. We seek to learn what gets in the way of such co-operations and what we can do about those obstacles as a developing country. As for the content, publications selected according to whether they answered these questions:

1. Does the publication discuss the problems of UI collaborations?

2. What kind of problem does the article discuss?

3. Do the publication discuss the challenges the universities encounter during the Triple Helix Model implementation?

4. Do those challenges discuss the concerns of the managerial aspects of the university?

Finally, relevant articles and book chapters were downloaded manually to the computer; they were added to the MAXQDA2020 software [https://www.

maxqda.com/trial]. In MAXQDA2020 software (demo version), we divided the publications, books, book chapters into two-time range categories. The first-period category documents were from 1980 to 2000, and the second category documents were from 2000 up to the present. Only published work in English language was included. Each relevant article was read repeatedly; major findings were synthesized and compiled into figures.

Discussion and results

For the last decades, there has been many discussions and studies around the triple helix model of innovation, university-industry and university-industry-government collaborations,

entrepreneurship and innovation stuff. However, little research had been dedicated to the triple helix management, even less in micro-level management challenges in the universities.

Since the university is the main agent in transferring the knowledge-based economy, it plays a crucial role in implementing the innovation model triangle, thus affecting regional sustainable development. The university plays a significant role in technology innovation as a knowledge-producing and disseminating institution. The university’s conventional teaching mission is reimagined as it aids the modernization of low- and mid-tech businesses [Etzkowitz H., Webster A et al, 2000].

Multiple research findings even suggested the urge for theoretical, conceptual frameworks of business education for sustainable development apart from innovative teaching approaches and programs [Adomssent et al, 2012]. Being cognizant of the university role in the sustainable economic development of the whole country urges us to find out, facilitate management challenges, and thrive faster. By management, here again, we imply the THM of innovation management.

The following figure is dedicated to the main challenges to develop a hybrid THM in developing countries and, as for developing countries mentioned, here regarded countries of Central and Eastern European (CEECs). The figure 1 is complied by author based on the scientific article on holistic exploration of barriers and enablers [Razak et al, 2015: 7, 8, 9, 10].

Lack of demand for local research

Lack of collaborative

arrangement with local partners Limited commercialization skills

Lack of funding

Lack of commercialization potential of the universities

Inflexible structure

Strict bureaucratic procedure Lack of capabilities

Limited infrastructure

•Inflexible structure

•Strict bureaucratic procedure

•Lack of capabilities

•Limited infrastructure

Traditional Values/Philosophy of Universities

No response to the demand of the researchers

Or vice versa

Weak academic research capacity

Lack of highly trained human recourses

Figure 1 – Main challenges to a hybrid THM development Note*: compiled by the authors according to Razak et al.,2015

(14)

14 Managerial challenges and main barriers in universities within the Triple Helix context

The authors divided these barriers found in this article Razak et al., 2015, into three. The first category goes to the lack of main recourses available in the universities, in either soft skills difficulties, social and financial terms, and the second category concerns infrastructure and procedural policies during the University-Industry collaboration process. The last one involves more of people values and attitudes. By values and attitudes of people, the authors imply the “perception” of the universities` role by researchers, managers and those involved. Furthermore, again, the challenge of academics/researcher and managers` perception of their work in the universities viewed from both perspectives:

the conflict between the classic academic and societal perspective on science [Ernø-Kjølhede et al., 2001: 3-4]

where we can observe how the problem is profound and requires a careful approach.

According to the article by Vick, T.E., and Robertson, M. (2018), the author Perkmann et al.

(2013) suggested four central measures (FCM) that characterize the process of knowledge transfer.

Motivation and barriers are one of the main FCM.

The article examined existing studies on the FCM, and two different systems of knowledge production were offered as an example of barriers. Understanding perceived barriers to U-I linkages is critical because it reveals the significant issues that arise during the knowledge transfer process. Apart from barriers, assessing the outcomes of such engagement becomes challenging for both agents: academia and industry [Vick, T.E et al., 2018]. Not many studies pointed out the importance of motivation in driving U-I collaborations, nor it has been included as the reason.

The understanding motivation that drives both sides to engage with each other is paramount of importance.

In the research paper: Systematic literature review of UK university-industry collaboration for knowledge transfer: a future research agenda, the authors have figured out the distinctions regarding motivations and distinctions between barriers across the two perspectives for the formation of U-I connections in the UK. Those two perspectives are social-political and contextual perspectives [Vick, T.E et al., 2018: 5].

Table 1 – Contextual perspective two significant distinctions Orientation-related Transaction- related

Differences in incentives and orientation

Potential conflicts between university and industry over intellectual property

and university regulations Note* compiled based on the Vick, T.E., & Robertson, M.

(2018)

As can be seen from the table, Bruneel, D`Este and Salter (2010) and Tartari, Salter and D`Este (2012) distinguished two major obstacles toward U-I connections in the UK. The industry says that they experience more transaction-related obstacles, whereas academics view orientation-related barriers as more challenging. Interesting to note that for academics with entrepreneurial experience and for those who have more faith in their industry partners, the orientation-related difficulties become less challenging [Vick, T.E et al., 2018: 6].

If to look upon the barriers to UI collaborations from the universities perspective, in figure below, we can observe the internal premises toward UI linkages apart from the external environment.

In general, in implementing any innovation model, the culture and values of people are the main challenges in any society. It takes time to adapt, perceive as it should be, accept the role to be taken in a new model. To help the people (managers/teachers/

industry employees) to perceive and adapt smoothly, we deem that change management strategies should be employed effectively. Moreover, knowledge transfer’s different organisational forms and management styles are noteworthy to point out that managerial attitudes constituting shared values more than technical issues are more critical for UI linkages success [Razak et al., 2015: 13]. There is much research outside of the TH addressing the barriers to universities switching their role towards being an entrepreneurial university. University culture shows us how the norms and values are essential in changing and adapting a particular model. One of the critical barriers toward UI collaboration is the academic reward and evaluation system in the whole scientific system and the perception of the importance of such reward and evaluation per se. The social contribution carries more values for academia, which is counted by the number of publications and citations in the academic world. According to the research paper of SLR of UK U-I collaboration for KT, individual barriers included a lack of time and motivation, while institutional constraints included a lack of reward/incentive/investment and bureaucracy . It is worth noting that in their commercial interests, the vast majority of scientists are driven by reputational/

career benefits. [Vick, T.E et al., 2018: 6]. One can observe here the intrinsic motivation input and the expected outcome by academicians. In support of this viewpoint, two challenging issues [Saad and Zawdie, 2008] critical for triple helix innovation success should be mentioned. The first is about the various partners’ engagement and commitment inside and within the three triple helix spheres:

(15)

government, industry, and academia. The second is linked to the difficulty of creating mechanisms for coordinating diverse and complicated interactions and interfaces to provide a context and conducive environment for knowledge exchange, learning, and invention. However, a considerable barrier to the TH culture development is that the bureaucratic nature of most institutions in developing nations, including companies and universities, is a significant impediment to knowledge transmission and utilization within and between organizational and institutional sectors [Saad, M., Zawdie, G., & Malairaja, C, 2008:

437]. In the Malaysian experience of triple helix research and technology, according to Saad et al., Ali (2003) describes the challenges of collaborating between universities and businesses as follows:

- Foreign investment dominance in vital industrial industries, particularly electronics.

- Deficiencies in government and industry- provided research funding;

- The venture capital business is still in its infancy.

- a scarcity of research scientists capable of delving into the depths of knowledge;

- Underdevelopment of a creative entrepreneurial culture; and misalignment of the university and industrial goals [Saad, M., Zawdie, G., & Malairaja, C, 2008: 438]. Besides the managerial issues in academia, government policies and systems are important. Here, in the same article [Saad and Zawdie, 2008: 440], Algerian universities dependency on the Ministry for Higher Education was underscored for their programs and policies.

Culture, norms and

values;

People attributes

Research capabilities

Lack of adequate channels to

convey knowledge

Academic reward and

evaluation system

External social environment

Figure 2 – Barriers to University-Industry Collaborations Note*: compiled by the authors according to Razak et al.,2015

Academia managers and scientific workers were more inclined to fulfill their research interests and scientific curiosity than complying with the deadlines of contracts with their business partners in the TH context [Razak et al., 2015: 14]. The problem of social influences and cultural clash which occur between industry and academia obstructs such collaboration or its successful realisation. In reverse, the shared values, habits, belief, views, languages and ways of working lead to productive collaborations. In “the triple helix model for innovation: a holistic exploration of barriers and enablers” article, trustworthiness is addressed as the “starting point and a key ingredient”

by Rosenberg and Nelson in 1994 as cited in the publication by Razak et al.,2015 [Razak et al., 2015:

12]. Meanwhile, in the same article, the author cited Brockhoff and Teichert (1995), mentioning the significant factor influencing the relationships between actors is the “people attributes”. The subset of the peoples` values, norms, habits and attributes are motivations, outcomes of the process (in UI linkages) and academic engagement is suggested by Vick et al.,2018. In “Systematic literature review of UK university-industry collaboration for knowledge transfer: a future research agenda” the authors characterized activities, motivation, barriers to knowledge transfer and outcomes as central

Сурет

Table 2 – Qualitative composition of the teaching staff (PPP) Years Graduation of teaching
Table 3 –  Degree  of  internationalization  over  the  years  of  independence
Table 4 – Academic mobility program
Table 6 – Educational grants
+7

Ақпарат көздері

СӘЙКЕС КЕЛЕТІН ҚҰЖАТТАР

The joint construction of the “Belt and Road” in Central Asia is an important decision for China to maximize the common interests with the Central Asian region on the basis of a pro-

The Importance of Nuclear Deal for Middle East Region While the nuclear deal should improve Iran’s relations with countries and regional actors in the calculations of some Iranian

38 COVID-19 пандемия жағдайында мектеп саясатын жобалау 1-кесте – Мектеп саясатын жобалау Пандемия кезеңінде білім беру ұйымдарында, COVID-19 коронавирустық инфекцияның таралуына

7 The number of new exposed exposed of the first day of being in the compartment, both unvaccinated and vaccinated, is exactly equal to the number, respectively, susceptible and

Thus, induction heating should be considered as method of decay heat imitation when conducting experiments at the “Lava-B” facility for achieving quite uniform temperature field over

18 Исследование процесса рассеяния электрона на ионе в плазме инерционного термоядерного синтеза в магнитном поле Рисунок 1 –Углы рассеяния в зависимости от прицельного параметра для

2.3 Этанолды анықтауға арналған молибден оксиді негізіндегі сенсорлар Молибден оксиді негізіндегі басқа да бір сенсор этанолды анықтау үшін қолданылған.. Аралас молибден және марганец

The results demonstrated that the production levels of TNF-α, IFN-γ and IL-10 in 3D-spheroid MSCs were low and the level of IL-6 was high compared with 2D MSCs Figure 4..