The Russian science as a factor of soft power

Can Russian science be a soft power and an alternative to the tough approaches dominant today in international politics? By its potential, it can become a soft power, but there are still too many obstacles. To overcome them, not major agitation projects are necessary, but a continuous work on changing the conditions of organization of science and attitude towards it in the society.

Can Russian science be a soft power and an alternative to the tough approaches dominant today in international politics? By its potential, it can become a soft power, but there are still too many obstacles. To overcome them, not major agitation projects are necessary, but a continuous work on changing the conditions of organization of science and attitude towards it in the society.

Soft power in politics

The “soft power” concept coined by Joseph Nye and meaning the “ability to achieve desired goals based on voluntary participation of allies, and not through coercion or payment” [1]> is commonly used by political scientists and historians. This term is unusual in respect to science and science policy since science is generally not regarded as a key factor of influence in international relations – not as a soft or as a hard power. Joseph Nye himself did not include science in the resource base of soft power [2], confining himself to three components – culture, political values, and foreign policy [3]. However, if science (especially fundamental science) is a powerful resource of a country, then it is possible to regard it as a potential soft power.

An approach to science as a factor of soft power is most obvious for the USA, where the world’s best universities are located. There, science has the most favorable conditions for research – infrastructure and creative conditions. Scientists from many countries, including from developed Western countries, seek temporary or permanent work there. As a result, the constant influx of personnel strengthens not only the American science itself, but also the economy, and thus the foreign policy potential of the country.

The soft power of the Russian science

In Russia, there is a prerequisite “for” and “against” turning science into a factor of soft power in terms of international relations. The following can be regarded as positive changes in recent years.

1. The continuing and, in some areas, growing image of creative fundamental science that contributes to the development of world science. This mainly concerns areas traditionally strong for Russia (previously for the Soviet Union) – theoretical physics, mathematics, and some areas in chemistry. Finally, advances in material science have been obvious recently.

2. The country’s desire to make science more open than before, including through involvement of foreign experts in assessment of research projects, development of relations with Russian-speaking scientists working abroad. For the last five to seven years, attempts have also been made to adopt Western models in the scientific and educational sphere – namely, to strengthen the university science, promote its integration with education, develop the innovative infrastructure of higher education institutions in order to make them able to execute the so-called “third mission” – engaging in commercialization research and development results.

3. The promotion and formation of positive image of science abroad through foreign centers of culture and science have been implemented not so long ago. In particular, such centers, which are primarily involved in the promotion of Russian language and literature, are working in Italy and Spain; a center opened in London in spring 2012.

4. Striving for the development of university science and this goal has been laid down by at least five Russian universities in the world’s top 100 universities by 2020 (). This can be achieved only through scientific successes since any rankings are largely based on an assessment of scientific merits of universities (in particular, such factors as citation index of scientific publications of university professors, amount of funds attracted by them for research, number of Nobel laureates, scientists awarded Fields medals and other prestigious international awards), and their degree of internationalization.

The weakness of Russian science

At the same time, there are powerful obstacles to the transformation of Russian science into a factor of soft power. Among these obstacles, which concern mainly the methods of implementing decisions taken, are the following.

1. In science, state paternalism continues prevailing and is even intensifying, as can be seen on the dynamics of financing and changes in the organizational and legal forms of scientific activity. The share of budgetary expenditure in the total research funding has reached 70% and is rising. This makes the situation in Russian science the exact opposite of what is typical in developed countries and even in Russia’s BRICS partner countries. There, business is the main source of R&D financing, while state’s share does not exceed 40-45%.

2. In science, the hierarchical system of relations inherited from the Soviet Union is preserved. There are very small horizontal interactions, which makes the whole system very inflexible.

3. The arsenal of methods of “coercion” to research and innovation is expanding. Now, universities are required to report on the number of small innovative companies created, which leads to a profanation of the very idea of developing small innovation business. Large companies with state participation are required to implement innovative development program and pay a portion of their funds to R&D institutions, regardless of whether they need the services of a university or not. Another campaign has quickly turned around, but, apparently, is going to diminish – a campaign on building technology platforms, where companies, research institutes and universities should develop and implement R&D projects. For the private sector, there is also development of a number of tools compelling them to invest in research and development. The term “compulsion to innovation” is being increasingly used in official documents on science and innovation policy and in the speeches by officials.

4. Creating a positive image of science is problematic at a time when conflicts between departments are becoming one of the central topics of discussion not only domestically but also abroad. The whole world has been watching the battle between the leadership of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Ministry of Education and Science for a long time, and this does not add respect for the country as a whole.

5. The Skolkovo project is a separate problem that affects the strength of the international influence of science. Because of the non-transparency of the management structures, and the variability of the general concept, it is not possible at the moment to form an image that would be attractive both domestically and abroad. On the one hand, the management of the Skolkovo Foundation reports on the progress and improvement in the image of the Foundation in the eyes of the population. On the other hand, heads of the Foundation’s advisory structures warn of the strengthening of its bureaucracy. Besides, the methods of attracting financial resources in this project caused a growing bewilderment. For example, government enforcement of companies to invest in the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology endowment, according to expert and public opinion, can strike out Skolkovo achievements, such as attraction of well-known foreign companies in Russia, development of new educational projects such as the Open University, and promotion of development of relations between participants in the innovation process.

6. There is a growing defense focus of budget spending on research and development. The budget orientation until 2014 inclusive shows that the share of defense research will continue growing. The proportion between the appropriations for civil and defense research is gradually shifting towards the post-Soviet situation. This certainly makes science an impact factor, but one of the tools of hard power.

Mixed signals

Thus, the international community is receiving mixed signals. However, the most difficult obstacle is the old mentality – more risks and restrictions, rather than creating the conditions and general environment. The case here is not calculating financial components of a research work in a different way or adjusting the rules of interaction with representatives of the Russian science diaspora, inventing new self-appraisal indices for universities, etc. The problem is more complex: major changes are needed at the level of the basic principles of regulation in the field of science, namely, greater autonomy under the rule of law, which includes in the area of organization of scientific process and personnel policy. An accounting approach to all aspects of scientific activity is, in fact, at the forefront. A striking illustration is the new goal for universities – to raise salaries of the teaching staff due to an increase in teaching load by 1.5 times. In fact, this is a path leading to the development of high-quality science in universities [4].

It is important to examine those that teach and what are being taught in universities, how to make teaching focused on the international market, how teachers’ salaries should depend on their academic qualifications, what should be the role of grant funding, etc. And in this context, we consider only the issues directly concerning the scope of science and those, which do not affect the state of economic and political environment and atmosphere in general. This is a separate and even larger problem since the problem of science is in many ways a reflection of the general problems of social order. Meanwhile, fairly aggressive rhetoric continues in the foreign policy, despite the fact that under the selected aspects of interaction (for example, in the abolition of visa regime with EU countries), there is a mood to discuss and agree on a constructive regime. A typical example of an approach from a position of strength is a discussion of the possibility of bringing into action the country’s new resource – water resources. As V. Putin wrote in his article – Russia and the Changing World – “... a geopolitical competition for water resources, with the ability to produce water-intensive goods will unfold in the near future. We have a strong trump card in our hands”.

Raise the prestige and earn respect

How can we achieve respect for science? How can we widely disseminate knowledge about scientific achievements? Scientific success is not only increasing the citation index of articles of Russian authors. Scientific advances are becoming known to the world thanks to the opportunities for Russian scientists to participate in international conferences and forums, and in exchange visits – all these at their own expense and not at the expense of the host country. For now, this kind of international presence is very limited, especially financially. Opportunities to present research results at conferences are not available to all, even to well-known scientists, including those who have grants of Russian scientific funds. After all, direct representation of scientists abroad is more important and as a factor of influence is more essential than any state-organized “centers of culture and science”. Therefore, if for some aspects, the Russian science is in a position of science in third world countries, it may evoke sympathy, while respect – only individual scientists, but not the country as a whole.

Russian science will not become international without deep internal changes. Visitors, including world-class scientists, will be selected in it, but that is not enough for science in general to become a factor of a country’s attractiveness, and hence its “soft power” in international relations. There is need for consistent painstaking work, and not resource-consuming short-term jerks, in conjunction with the situational nature of decision-making, i.e., what is happening now. It is important to emphasize that transformation into a “soft power” cannot be an objective for development of Russian science. It objectively will be the factor of “soft power” if its attractiveness for other countries and regions will increase.

1. Nye J.S. Soft power and the US-European relations // Journal of Freethought – XXI. 2004. #10.

2. The term “soft influence” can be viewed as a more successful replacement of the term “soft power”. This term was proposed by Zevelev I.A. and Troitsky M.A. See Zevelev I.A. and Troitsky M.A. Power and influence in US-Russian Relations: Semiotic analysis. Sketches of the current policy. No. 2. Moscow: Scientific and Educational Forum on International Relations, 2006. P. 7.

3. Nye J.S. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. N.Y.: Public Affairs, 2004. P. 11.

4. Ministry of Education News // Search, May 18, 2012, #19-20. P. 3.