International Journal of Educational Development 106 (2024) 103014 Available online 16 February 2024 0738-0593/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. What comes after post-Soviet? Towards a new concept of de-Sovietization in higher education and research Liz Shchepetylnykova a, * , Anatoly V. Oleksiyenko b a Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Room 401, Runme Shaw Building, Pokfulam Rd, Hong Kong SAR b Center for Higher Education Leadership and Policy Studies, Department of International Education, The Education University of Hong Kong, D3/F2-02, 10 Lo Ping Road Tai Po Campus, Hong Kong SAR A R T I C L E INFO Keywords: De-Sovietization Higher education Research capacity Post-Soviet reforms ABSTRACT For almost three decades, scholars sought to understand the transformations of higher education systems pre- viously subjected to totalitarian Soviet control. Early attempts to investigate post-Soviet reforms provided limited explanations of the chaotic and challenging nature of these transformations, inducing a valid critique of the dominant interpretation of the post-Soviet changes as a unidirectional transition from the party/state-dominated model to a Western market-oriented system. The processes of deconstructing the Soviet legacy have remained under-studied, while post-Soviet research in education largely accepts the legitimization and even re-integration of the past. By drawing on existing theoretical and empirical scholarship, this article explains why a new conceptualization of de-Sovietization is needed in higher education research and why the processes of re- envisioning values, practices, and institutions in the post-Soviet education and research are necessary to pro- mote critical inquiry, academic freedom, and scholars’ agential responsibilities. 1. Introduction The concept of de-Sovietization is relatively new in the literature on global higher education. The initial studies of post-Soviet trans- formations, which were conducted in the first decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, had inconsequential continuation and wavering interest in the following twenty years. The growing influence of global neoliberalism spearheaded simplistic interpretations of transformations across a wide territory, which was variably called “post-Soviet space,” “Eurasia,” “former Soviet (or Russian) empire.” These interpretations often implied a unidirectional transition from the party/state-dominated model to a Western-style market-oriented system (Heyneman, 1998, 2010; Huisman et al., 2018). Moreover, the post-socialist studies of education paid little attention to the peculiarities of university trans- formations and its reproductive powers (Silova, 2011). Research on post-Soviet academia was often obstructed by self-preserving elites and traditions of self-censorship (Jonbekova, 2015). Research on the world-class university movement has generated interest in higher edu- cation reforms but barely looked into the challenges of the Soviet legacy (Hladchenko et al., 2016; Oleksiyenko et al., 2018). While some insights can be derived from disparate trajectories in institutional and system-level changes in various post-Soviet university systems (Chankseliani et al., 2022; Leisyte et al., 2019; Tomusk, 2004), the concept of de-Sovietization remains a work in progress, and a more nuanced understanding of motifs of and resistance to the deconstruction of the Soviet legacy is necessary (Chankseliani, 2022; Kuzhabekova and Ruby, 2018; Oleksiyenko et al., 2018). Currently, a conceptual dearth in this domain is paramount. Chankseliani (2022) argues that de-Sovietization studies need to consider the dialectical nature of changes in the former Soviet republics, leading some states (e.g., Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) to fully inte- grate with European higher education, and others (e.g., Belarus, Russia) to resume the Soviet practices of authoritarianism, indoctrination, and surveillance over dissidents. Moreover, the tiptoeing research on the Soviet legacy in higher education, where scholars in the authoritarian regimes obfuscate the problem statements and avoid direct criticism of their governing bodies, has undercut a proper conceptualization of post-soviet reforms (Forrat, 2016; Huisman et al., 2018). The research on de-Sovietization is still evanescent despite efforts to offer noteworthy findings on the abandonment of the Soviet model, followed by neolib- eral policies in the Chinese, Russian, Georgian, and Ukrainian higher education contexts (Oleksiyenko, 2023a, 2023b; Oleksiyenko et al., 2018; Shen et al., 2022). This impairs insights into the problems of resentment and resistance to reforms as well as limits mitigation * Corresponding author. E-mail address: Shchepet@connect.hku.hk (L. Shchepetylnykova). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Educational Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2024.103014 Received 14 November 2023; Received in revised form 8 February 2024; Accepted 12 February 2024