Science at Kharkiv University and in Ukraine — thoughts of the day
On December 25, Kharkiv University held the annual reporting conference of the staff collective. I was asked to share my view on the state of research work. I did, and I am posting the prepared text here.
On December 25, the staff reporting conference was held at Kharkiv University. I was invited to say what I think about the state of scientific work. I spoke; I spoke not from a written text, but as it took shape during the talk (I always speak that way). However, while preparing for the talk, I wrote a certain coherent text. I am posting it here.
On December 25, Kharkiv University held the reporting conference of the staff collective. I was asked to say what I think about the state of scientific work. I spoke impromptu, as I always do. However, while preparing I wrote a coherent text. I publish it here. Debates about the role of science have intensified in Ukraine. Parliament adopted a progressive law on science, but the President did not sign it. The government planned reorganization of the Academy of Sciences in the budget. Coalition leaders explain that the state spends unacceptably much on science. Critics point to low efficiency of science. Unfortunately, the spirit of living science is far from present in all formally scientific institutions. The more valuable are the islands where it survived. By many parameters, our university is an archipelago of such islands. How to heal the system? It seems easy — dismiss bad workers and keep good ones (split the magnet and keep only the desired pole). But that would destroy remnants of scientific community, and good workers would either leave or join a new cargo cult: producing formal indicators demanded by management. How to change the situation? Recall the police reform idea. The state did not cut spending on bad police; it increased it. Next to the old structure, a new one was built that met new requirements and received sufficient financing. Workers of the old structure who could work in new ways moved into the new one. When the new structure began delivering socially important functions, the old one could be dismantled. Why is police reform done rationally, while science funding is cut and likely only... ... Remember that dynamics is often more important than level. Is the gap shrinking or growing? From summer last year to summer this year, Kyiv University published in Scopus 2.1 times (110%) more than we did. The rich get richer, and the gap grows. If we do nothing, we will stop being serious competitors. Our history is special. What Kyiv is as a city and cultural center is not a consequence of Kyiv University’s existence; what Lviv is, not of Lviv University. But the role of Kharkiv itself — its development, growth, and significance — is to a large extent a consequence of creating Kharkiv University. Once it made a developmental leap and transformed its environment. Our task is to repeat that. So: a serious challenge stands before us. We have done much, but should have done more. I propose to consider the university’s and its management’s work satisfactory... and triple our efforts.