Improving Social Science in the Former Soviet Union: The U.S. Role (1992)

The group began its discussion with a consideration of what is meant by emergency aid in the context of assisting the social sciences in the Russian Federation. The term was judged to encompass those activities that are urgent and demand immediate attention or that threaten serious, negative consequences if action is not taken in the immediate term. Projects that could be undertaken quickly, that would be stimulative of longer term measures, and that could provide encouragement to a demoralized scientific community were also seen as falling within the purview of this session. The group also focused on measures that were considered to have a high probability of success, that could be implemented at relatively low cost, and that had a high probability of receiving funding in the near term.

The issue of providing assistance to the Russian Federation, rather than to all the successor states of the former Soviet Union, was also discussed. Although the impetus for the meeting came from the president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the group urged that the needs of the social sciences in the other republics not be overlooked and that efforts be made to include social scientists from the other republics in any programs developed as a result of the meeting.

The key issues before this group can be divided under two headings, conservation and communications. Under the heading of conservation attention focused on library and archive collections. Both the buildings themselves and the collections they house are decaying and in some instances are on the verge of irretrievable ruin. Materials that constitute not only priceless and irreplaceable Russian national resources, but also vital international research collections are at risk, not only from decay, but from potential commercialization and theft. The group determined that the preservation of the most important collections merited emergency attention. As a first priority they recommended that funds should be found to preserve the unique collection at INION and the holdings of a small number of other core libraries. However, the group stressed that such funding should be contingent on INION’s making its resources available to all researchers, irrespective of their institutional affiliation.

A second major effort under the rubric of conservation is that of preventing a social science

“brain drain,” as scholars either abandon their studies for alternative means of employment or cease to enter fields that they believe cannot provide a livelihood. At the very moment when its policy makers are most in need of trained social scientists to advise on policies ranging from the economy to the educational system, and when an incipient civil society needs to be able to establish an independent capacity to critique public policy, the Russian Federation faces the possible loss of a generation of social scientists. As a first step to ameliorate the situation, the group proposed that an emergency research fund be established that would provide small, short-term grants to individual researchers. These grants would be awarded on the basis of merit, and recipients would be selected on the basis of a competitive, peer-review process. The group also judged that priority should be given to young researchers.

Communications and information sharing received the greatest attention at this session. Providing social scientists in the Russian Federation with access to each other, to data sources, to research materials, and to the international scientific community were seen as priority needs. The contemporary economic disarray, the long tradition of censorship and limited access to information, and the physical and intellectual isolation of many social scientists make this an area of prime concern. Ideally, every center of social science activity—libraries, research centers and universities—should be provided with computers, modems, and access to electronic communication systems, particularly Internet. Although this would require a considerable outlay of funds, it would be the most cost-effective way to accomplish a series of goals in the shortest possible time period: it would provide access to foreign and domestic resources and information, establish and maintain networks of scholars, promote the sharing of information and research collaborations, provide opportunities for computer-assisted learning, enable researchers to engage in desktop publishing, provide access to online databases, and promote video conferencing. If the costs of such a program are seen as too great, the group stressed that, as a minimum, a core group of five or six of the most important libraries should be provided with this equipment in the immediate future.

The international scientific community should undertake a major effort to provide social scientists in the Russian Federation with access to the wealth of social science information and materials that exists elsewhere. The long-standing suppression of these disciplines and the paucity of international materials in the country’s research and training libraries make this a priority area. Such a project was not judged to be part of the mandate of this group, however, as it would require large-scale and long-term efforts. The group recommended that professional associations in every discipline of the social sciences provide subscriptions to their journals to at least one central library in the Russian Federation. The group also proposed that these associations attempt to identify the most important international literature in their fields and assist their acquisition by major Russian libraries.

The group did not consider that the provision of Western materials alone would be adequate to the task of establishing professional communications and information-sharing linkages either within the Russian Federation or between social scientists there and the international community. The group concluded that the establishment of independent, professional, peer-reviewed journals in the Russian Federation demands immediate attention. The group proposed that assistance be made available on a competitive basis to such publications or to individuals and groups seeking to establish such journals and encouraged Western scholars to take an active part on their editorial boards if invited to do so.

In the interests of increasing international communication and upgrading the skills of targeted groups within the social science community, the group considered the utility of the Salzburg model

as an emergency measure. The group agreed that month-long seminars on particularly salient topics (such as information technologies and ethnic conflict) could be organized at a conference site within the Russian Federation in the immediate future, at a reasonable cost in terms of both funds and effort. Such a project would make it possible for social scientists there to meet with their international counterparts, discuss their fields, their curricula, and the issues they deem most important. Broad participation could be assured by making invitations available on a competitive basis and disseminating information through the Vega Laboratory. Telecommunications could be used to encourage follow-up collaborations, discussion, and ongoing interaction. The group also recommended an expansion of grants for holding international conferences in the Russian Federation, with first priority to be given to conferences dealing with issues of information and communication. As an additional step, it suggested that international and American professional associations should assist scholars in the Russian Federation to participate in their annual meetings and important international conferences, on a competitive basis.

Another topic that was deemed to merit emergency status was the need to identify and document small linguistic and cultural groupings that are on the verge of extinction. Delay could mean that irretrievable information would be lost, and unique opportunities for research and study would be lost.

The group also suggested that educational television and radio programming deserve Western support. The dissemination of educational programming in the social sciences over the air waves, both through Radio Liberty and public and commercial radio and television, was seen as a highly cost-effective way of reaching social scientists outside the major research and training centers.

Consensus was also achieved on the need for ongoing information sharing and communications between the various organizations and institutions involved in assisting social science in the Russian Federation. The group opposed the establishment of a new bureaucratic entity or any attempt to impose centralized constraints on the provision of assistance. But the group agreed on the utility of a facilitating committee, both to avert duplication of effort and to enhance efforts to focus attention and resources on critical needs. Ideally such a committee would include representatives of such organizations as IREX, SSRC, the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies (AAASS), the American Political Science Association (APSA), and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, among others. It was also suggested that such a facilitative body include representatives of corresponding organizations in the Russian Federation, including the Committee on Higher Education (of the Russian Ministry of Science, Higher Education, and Technology) and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

The working group focused its attention on the question of how best to institutionalize American aid to post-Soviet social science. It considered a number of different kinds of institutional approaches, such as working through already existing universities, academies, or institutes in the Russian Federation; establishing an American university there; and organizing an American-run summer workshop program.

Of these options, the group recommended a series of month-long workshops, organized by

Americans through an umbrella organization (an “American Social Sciences Institute,” perhaps), following the model of the Salzburg Institute. Among the considerations that informed this choice were the following:

• A workshop approach is more flexible than working through already established curricula and institutional schedules in the Russian Federation.

• Workshops can engage the talents of American social scientists far more readily than long-term (semester or year) programs. Few American social scientists would be able to work in the Russian Federation for more than a month, but many could participate in a shorter workshop format.

• Participants believed it important not to enter into the politics of privileging certain institutes, academies, or universities with a prestigious American program. Post-Soviet scholars will participate in the institute’s programs, but as individuals, rather than as institutional representatives, and the institute itself should be independent.

• The content of workshops or courses could vary according to proposals submitted by organizers and to needs as they develop in the Russian Federation. Workshops should, however, address both research and teaching needs, as well as administrative procedures. Examples of possible workshop topics include theories of ethnic conflict, training in clinical psychology and social work, and administrative subjects, such as how to organize a competition for fellowships and information access.

• Participants in workshops or courses should be chosen by conference organizers through competitions or other peer-review procedures. Workshops should be widely publicized in the entire area of the former Soviet Union.

• Workshops could involve both a core faculty and shorter term visitors and could include instructors from the former Soviet Union as well as Western ones.

• With regard to venue, participants recommended two different locations, for different goals. One location would be a central “neutral” facility, in the former Soviet Union or a European setting. Such a base location would allow participants to escape their institutional commitments and obligations. It could also provide ongoing support for workshop programming, such as coordinating the visits of core and short-term faculty. The other location would be in the Russian Federation or in other areas of the former Soviet Union, at different sites chosen for specific research purposes or for the purposes of geographic diversification of the social science community in the former Soviet Union.

• Organizers and participants should be drawn from the international social science community and not be exclusively from the United States and the Russian Federation.

• Programs run through an ongoing institute would permit return participation and other kinds of follow-up activities. Such ongoing contacts encouraged by an institute are important to supporting participants in their efforts to transform social science in the Russian Federation and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union and also to sustaining interactions within the national and international social science communities.

• Geographical diversification is an imperative: participants and local organizers should not be drawn only from Moscow and St. Petersburg.

• The U.S. and other foreign organizers should include both disciplinary and area-studies experts in all projects.

This institutional approach—a series of workshops organized by an independent institute—was seen to be the most efficacious means of meeting five following goals:

1. making innovative American social science programs available to former Soviet students and scholars as rapidly as possible;

2. encouraging the institutional and geographical decentralization of social science in the Russian Federation;

3. creating new and multiple networks of ex-Soviet scholars;

4. supporting younger ex-Soviet scholars who are not attached to existing institutions or have very junior positions in them; and

5. establishing a mechanism that can support multiple initiatives from U.S. scholars and that can respond to social science needs as they arise and change.

The working group considered and rejected two other options: exchange programs and longterm instructional projects. With regard to the former, the group recognized the value of exchange programs, but believed that the design of such programs should be left to the institutional partners (in most cases, American universities and their partners in the Russian Federation). With regard to the latter, long-term instruction (for example, an American University in the Russian Federation or an international university project), the group believed that such activities would require extraordinary resources and organizational effort and that the returns on such endeavors would not justify the expense at this time.

1. Top priority should be given to broadening access to electronic mail and other computer networks so that teachers, scholars, and libraries can communicate with each other and with colleagues outside the Russian Federation. Access to such sources is vital if social science is to overcome the isolation that characterized the old Soviet system. It will not only allow social scientists in the Russian Federation to keep up with ideas and information from the international community, but it will also allow them to learn about teaching programs and research projects in other parts of the country that might have a bearing on their own work.

   Equally important, the group recommended that Western programs put special emphasis on helping to upgrade library holdings and library staffing and organization in the Russian Federation. This would involve, first, ongoing support for acquisitions. Programs should provide advice on acquisitions policies and should direct material support to purchase materials so that key libraries can support contemporary social science research and teaching that accords with international standards. Given the numbers of people served by such libraries, providing these materials can be one of the most cost-effective means of upgrading social science. Along with direct support for library acquisitions, the group also recommended programs to provide training for librarians and archivists. This would aid in managing the new resources to be made available, and it would especially help to demonstrate new alternatives for making materials more accessible to students, teachers and researchers.

2. Support should also be provided for groups and organizations in the West that wish to contribute materials to libraries in the Russian Federation. The group suggested encouraging American professional associations in the social sciences, such as the American Sociological Association, the American Economics Association, and so on, to contribute at least one subscription for their professional journal to a major library in the Federation.

3. To upgrade the teaching of social sciences, the group recommended the provision of sample curricula and syllabi for a variety of courses. These should identify topics, materials, and concepts to be covered, as well as methods of evaluating student performance.

4. Improving the teaching of social sciences also rests on the establishment of an effective accreditation system for education institutions. The group would not recommend that Western social scientists conduct such accreditation directly (as was implied in recommendations from some participants in the conference); rather, Western social scientists should help to establish accreditation procedures and standards, and they might also be asked as individuals to help evaluate the work of particular educational institutions.

5. Ultimately, the success of both teaching and research in the social sciences will depend on the availability of accurate and timely data on society in the Russian Federation. A good deal has already been collected, from censuses to mass surveys. But extraordinarily little of it is in usable or accessible form: published census data may be abundant, but they are not in a form that lends itself to analysis; surveys often remain the possession of the author or the sponsoring institute. Scholars are thus deprived of a crucial channel for evaluating changes in society over time, and they are deprived of the opportunity to evaluate and compare data collected in different areas and by different approaches.

The group also discussed several other possible recommendations, but there was too little time to fully consider them. One idea is for U.S. institutions to investigate the potential and the costs of computer-assisted instruction and of televised instruction. Another is for professional associations in the social sciences in the United States to work more closely with their counterparts in the Russian Federation to develop conferences based on competitive submission of paper and panel proposals. Such professional associations can also offer assistance with computer-aided instructional materials (such as SETUPS in political science) and with programs for networking among social scientists in different institutions and locations.

There were several items on the original agenda that generated more controversy or less support. There were doubts about the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of developing full-time instructional programs in the Russian Federation. The sense of the group was that such programs should be developed indigenously, with outside assistance and advice when appropriate. The group also had doubts about the feasibility of sponsoring the writing of social science texts. Support for translations of existing texts, however, might be a more practical step. Similarly, support for Russian-language refereed journals appeared to be problematic.

The working group concluded that social scientists with rigorous training in substance and method will play a crucial role in the transition from communism in the Russian Federation. They will be uniquely poised to evaluate and guide the sweeping effort to transform the country. In fact, as Western countries develop massive programs of assistance, their success will depend critically on how well analysts in the Russian Federation assess the most pressing problems and the costs and benefits of alternate solutions.

The group also concluded that programs to improve social science in the Russian Federation should both offer concrete support for particular activities and help to establish new modes for scholarship and teaching there. The group particularly emphasized the importance of training and support for individual social scientists who have shown exceptional promise or achievement: they can provide the expertise and leadership to train new generations in the social sciences. This focus on individuals would aid significantly in establishing the norm of rewards based on achievement, allocated on a competitive basis, evaluated by peer review. It would provide an important alternative to the past Soviet “institutional” model—with support was channeled to, and research and training was organized by, various institutes and universities. Focusing on individuals will make support and

training contingent on individual ability and achievement rather than institutional affiliation or academic connections. The group recommended that Western efforts along these lines put special emphasis on training in analytical techniques and in methods. There is a critical need to encourage critical thinking so that scholars, teachers, and students all follow recognized standards for evaluating the assumptions they make and the evidence they use.

At the same time, development of programs that can reach a wider audience in a cost-effective way should be encouraged. For this reason, the group was especially concerned with means for expanding communication and information systems. Western efforts should concentrate on creating ongoing contacts and programs. Although a single training program or research grant can be enormously valuable for an individual social scientist in the Russian Federation, both teaching and research require ongoing contact and communication to provide feedback on new ideas, keep up with new developments in research and teaching, and the like.

Finally, the group noted that although the immediate focus in its recommendations is on the Russian Federation, programs to support the development of the social sciences should also be encouraged in all of the other former Soviet republics.

Universities in the Russian Federation do not have enough highly qualified faculty with Candidate of Science or Doctor of Science degrees in core social science disciplines to train the next generation of teachers and researchers or to conduct strong, internationally recognized research programs. Teachers with Ph.D.-level training are also needed to develop and improve programs in the applied social sciences. Thus, an important question for the future of social science in the Russian Federation is “who will teach the teachers and researchers?”

Efforts begun under Mikhail Gorbachev in 1988 to address this problem by permitting Soviet students of sociology, economics, and political science to go abroad to earn graduate degrees were limited in scope. Screening on the Soviet side was provided by professional societies, and there were accusations of favoritism. Some help was also provided by professional societies in the United States. However, students depended on fellowships and assistantships from American universities. Experience with and access to standardized tests (including the exams required by U.S. universities) was very limited. Currently, it is estimated that fewer than 100 students from the Russian Federation are enrolled in Ph.D. programs in the social sciences in U.S. universities. Since the dissolution of the Soviet state, the overall effort to send graduate students to the United States has become very individualized and privatized.

A welcome new initiative in the United States to support training of students from the former Soviet Union for certain masters-level degrees (for example, business and public administration), the Benjamin Franklin Program, does not address the need for Ph.D.-level training in the social sciences. There is still no general fellowship program for Ph.D.-level study or broad access to tests. Students from the Russian Federation are now applying to U.S. graduate institutions in many disciplines. Although an Educational Advising Center at the Library of Foreign Literature exists in Moscow and similar information centers exist in some other large cities, most potential applicants have poor knowledge of how American institutions work and how to select a program that fits their interests and abilities.

The hard-currency costs of the Graduate Record Exams (GREs) and the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL), as well as application fees for U.S. universities, are very high for students from the former Soviet Union. The Soros Foundation has supported test fees on a limited basis. (The Benjamin Franklin Program also finances testing for its potential applicants.) Overly restricted access to testing is undesirable because it denies opportunities to talented individuals in all fields, especially for students from outside major urban centers or from non-Russian populations (about 20 percent of the population of the Russian Federation).

Many social scientists in the Russian Federation who have already completed a candidate or doctoral degree are capable of good research and teaching, but, as a result of isolation from foreign scientists and lack of access to the international literature, their work is not up to the standards of world science in their disciplines. With opportunities to upgrade their skills, to learn new methodologies, and to read the international literature in their fields of specialization, these scientists could play a substantial role in sustaining and developing social science in their country.

The group discussed the need for an overarching centralized structure to coordinate cooperative efforts between the United States and the Russian Federation to improve social science research and education. The group noted that several prominent organizations on the U.S. side are already active in areas related to new efforts that might be undertaken, including:

The group concluded that the initiatives, identities, and special roles and expertise of these organizations should not be submerged by a new bureaucratic structure. Moreover, new efforts to aid social science in the Russian Federation will probably involve the use of public, private, and foundation funds; consequently, no overall coordinating structure is likely to be feasible or desirable. Nonetheless, some centralized and coordinated efforts are desirable: electronic mail networks; networks for disseminating information about programs of study in the United States, arrangements for GRE/TOEFL exams, and so on. Although it is recognized that some overarching coordination or funding could occur on the Russian side, the group did not endorse the creation of a single U.S.-Russian Federation coordinating body to administer programs of assistance and cooperation in social science.

The group identified a range of possible programs and mechanisms for bringing students and scholars from the Russian Federation to the United States for study or training. The group did not attempt to estimate the dollar costs of the programs, but instead emphasized the identification of advantages and disadvantages to each program. Because of the limited time available, some options received more detailed attention than others.

One goal in the enumeration of advantages and disadvantages was to search for ways to disperse

costs and to identify mechanisms for implementing the programs. Underlying many of the group’s recommendations was a desire to reduce barriers to information and to promote free and competitive access to programs based on merit. The programs were classified into four categories:

• Mainstreaming: placing students from the Russian Federation into Ph.D., M.A., and B.A. programs in U.S. universities. Primary emphasis was given to Ph.D. programs because these are the main way to teach the teachers and scholars.

• Short-term programs: (1) study abroad—for academic year or shorter period; (2) institutes and training programs—instructional programs lasting for a summer or a few months; (3) workshops; (4) visiting professorships; (5) faculty exchanges.

• Visiting research programs: (1) apprenticeships and mentorships (junior or senior scholars working with a U.S. sponsor on a research project); (2) postdoctoral research appointments; (3) visiting research professorships and fellowships.

• Nonacademic internships: work or work-study in U.S. governmental or business organizations (such as, Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, news media).

Advantages

• Provides extended training and needed credentials to younger scholars.

• In contrast to the creation of new programs in the Russian Federation, this approach provides a straightforward solution to the quality-control problem: the performance of students is judged by the same criteria as those applied to American students.

• Needed facilities (laboratories, computers, libraries) already exist at American universities.

• There are many potential suppliers of services and portions of the funding.

• Particularly if first-year fellowships were provided by another source, many universities would support students with teaching assistantships and research assistantships that would make study virtually self-financing after the first year.

• The selection process is performed in the United States by the universities in which the students would be enrolled.

Disadvantages

• Costs of air transportation from the Russian Federation to the United States, as well as within the United States, are high.

• Tuition, housing, other living costs in the United States are high (although students could pay for themselves if they were employed as teaching or research assistants; “topping up” of assistantships with smaller fellowships could also be provided from other sources).

• Long-term programs of study carry a higher brain-drain risk than short-term programs, especially if students see limited prospects for employment upon return to the Russian Federation or if political or economic turmoil makes such a return unattractive or risky.

• Selection costs must be borne for GRE, TOEFL, and other admissions exams; application fees; and information distribution in the Russian Federation (funding of information and advising centers).

• Only students with good command of the English language would have the opportunity for such study (although this is not necessarily a disadvantage if one considers the importance of being able to read the social science literature in the English language).

Advantages

• Quality control—students mainstreamed with American students and evaluated according to same criteria.

• Low application costs (done for groups rather than for individuals).

• Low brain-drain potential in comparison with programs of to more extended periods of study.

• Can be done as an exchange between universities in the two countries, perhaps on a consortium basis with groups of universities, using existing consortium arrangements such as Midwest University Consortium for International Activity (MUCIA) or other joint study abroad partnerships and agreements.

• Low housing costs (dormitories).

Disadvantages

• Adjustment period is a significant fraction of total time on the program.

• High transportation costs.

• If done as an exchange, the costs of sending American students abroad can be high.

• Language—good command of English is a prerequisite.

Advantages

• Especially suitable to scholars who already have an advanced degree in their field and do not need or want another diploma.

• Can be targeted to those with need or desire to upgrade skills or to retrain in a specific area.

• Students can be accommodated in existing well-established programs in the social sciences, such as the summer programs of the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and the Survey Research Center (SRC) at the University of Michigan.

• Promotes networking among students from the Russian Federation and other locations.

• Can be linked to short-term visits for collaborative research with American scholars.

• Low brain-drain potential in comparison with long-term study programs.

• Less administrative overhead and hassle and much greater variety of specialized programs of study than establishing summer programs and workshops in the Russia Federation.

Disadvantages

• High travel, per diem, housing, and tuition costs.

• The creation of new institutes may be needed to meet special needs of students or scholars from the Russian Federation (but can call on a wide range of potential teachers willing to teach in U.S. but not willing or able to teach in Russia).

• Only students or scholars with good command of English can gain substantial benefit.

Advantages

• Junior and senior researchers from the Russian Federation can work on advanced research with American scholars and “learn by doing”—while also contributing their own expertise and experience to the research.

• Facilities—laboratories, computers, and libraries—are already available.

Disadvantages

• Difficulty matching individuals from the Russian Federation with the most appropriate mentors in the United States.

• Selection costs: a method is needed for selecting qualified apprentices in the Russian Federation.

• High transportation, housing, per diem costs.

• It would be desirable to organize orientation periods and programs for students coming from the Russian Federation to the United States: intensive language training, dissemination of information about U.S. money and banking procedures, health insurance, legal system, immigration rules, etc.

• Consideration should be given to clustering of students at American universities. Although it may have some advantages in easing adjustment of students, there is also some concern that it could counteract the advantages of mainstreaming students. Also, this argument should not be used as a justification for preselecting “qualified” American universities.

• Broad participation and access by American universities should be encouraged to disperse costs and to avoid unwarranted assumptions that only a few universities can provide high-quality training and research opportunities in each field.

• The College Entrance Examination Board (CEEB) and Educational Testing Service (ETS) should be encouraged to reduce the fees and costs of administering tests in the Russian Federation. ETS should consider developing standardized tests in the Russian language, which could be used, in combination with TOEFL exams, for applications to American graduate schools.

• Electronic mail should be widely available to help students from the Russian Federation to maintain networks in the United States as well as abroad.

• A common application form for graduate schools in each discipline would be desirable.

• Consideration should be given to providing group health insurance to students in the United States from the Russian Federation.

• Further thought should be given to the need for applied programs in the social sciences both

in the Russian Federation and as a focus of training of students from Russia in the United States. There is a growing need for and interest in such specializations in the Russian Federation, in fields such as social work, clinical psychology, business, local demography, urban planning, criminology, social statistics, and labor relations.

1. Information about American universities, tests, and application and admissions procedures should be more widely distributed to assure coverage outside major cities and ethnic Russian areas. Effort is needed to provide individualized counseling to help students choose programs in the United States that are most suited to their particular interests and needs.

2. Subsidies for test fees and application fees should be expanded considerably. It would also be desirable to encourage adoption of a standard application form to reduce costs, confusion, and error in the preparation of multiple applications.

3. The National Study Abroad Association should be encouraged to expand programs with the Russian Federation. This is especially relevant to undergraduate study.

4. Existing summer institutes in the social sciences in the United States should be used for training, retraining, and upgrading of skills. Prime examples are the ICPSR and SRC programs in social science research methods. Additional courses serving specific needs could also be developed and administered at a reasonable cost under the ICPSR umbrella.

5. American professional associations, especially those with substantial funds, should be encouraged to subsidize travel to and participation in national professional meetings by scholars from the Russian Federation.

6. A program of apprenticeships and mentorships should be sponsored to support junior and senior researchers in the Russian Federation to work on projects with American researchers. American foundations could be encouraged to offer subsidies, supplements, or incentives for American social scientists to include junior researchers (including graduate students) or senior researchers from the Russian Federation as collaborators or assistants on qualified research projects. “Qualified” projects could be those that have already won approval through peer review by a foundation or agency in the United States, so that it would not be necessary to review the project anew in order to decide whether the additional scholar should be supported. For example, scholars with an existing grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Council for Soviet and East European Research (NCSEER), or a major private foundation could apply for funds to support a specific scholar from the Russian Federation to work on the project. Those funds would be for the costs of transportation, housing, per diem, and research of the scholar from the Russian Federation.

7. A program of first-year fellowships should be developed for students from the Russian Federation to enroll in Ph.D. programs in the social sciences in U.S. universities. A procedure for administering such fellowships could be modeled on how many departments in the social sciences currently nominate new students for university fellowships or graduate fellowships within their own universities. A department would first have to admit the student to its regular Ph.D. program. The department could then nominate the student for a first-year fellowship to be granted in a national competition, which would be managed in the United States. This avoids the difficulties and risks of preselection or nomination of fellows in the Russian Federation. In making nominations, the U.S.

departments could offer to match funds or give tuition reductions and remissions, as well a promise of assistantships in subsequent years (assuming normal progress in the program). The fellowship competition could be administered by a single committee or association in the United States; some representatives from the Russian Federation could also be on the selection committee. It would be preferable for the selection to be made by a nongovernmental agency in the United States. On the basis of its extensive experience in managing competitive national fellowship programs, the Social Science Research Council is a possible administrative body for such a new program. Awards would be made to the applicant institutions to support the particular student nominated. Reviews would have to be made on a timely basis. Fellowships could provide either the major source of funding for the student or else “top up” assistantships awarded by the universities. The Russian Federation government should be expected to subsidize the cost of transportation of students to the United States.

There was a problem loading page 23.