Abstract

This panel explores how regional universities in Kazakhstan drive development and enact autonomy reforms, presenting a multi-level analysis through four interconnected studies.

The first paper examines faculty agency under autonomy reforms, addressing the tension between expanded formal autonomy and constrained institutional capacity. The study shows how academics interpret and navigate reform conditions through a range of strategic responses, including acquiescence, compromise, resistance, and manipulation. Grounded in a relational and temporally embedded understanding of agency, the findings reveal that while autonomy may expand opportunities for innovation in teaching and curriculum, it simultaneously constrains agency in governance and conflict resolution. This gives rise to an “agency paradox,” where autonomy is both enabling and limiting, depending on context and domain.

The second paper shifts the focus to organisational transformation, interrogating the relationship between formal strategic planning and everyday institutional practices. Through analysis of strategic documents and interviews with faculty and administrators, the study identifies a pattern of isomorphic convergence at the macro level, where universities align their goals with global discourses of excellence, rankings, and managerial efficiency. However, at the meso and micro levels, transformation unfolds in more fragmented and adaptive ways, shaped by leadership changes, local initiatives, bureaucratic pressures, and constrained agency. Change is negotiated through hybrid practices that combine compliance with improvisation, emotional labour, and professional resilience.

The third paper examines organisational identity under conditions of “living autonomy,” focusing on how regional universities reconstruct and project their institutional identities in a competitive and reform-driven environment. Despite formal shifts toward autonomy, universities remain embedded in systems characterised by centralised control and financial dependency. This results in a persistent “autonomy paradox,” where institutional independence is more symbolic than substantive. Universities engage in processes of “selective coupling,” adopting globalised narratives of modernisation and competitiveness while maintaining underlying hierarchical and bureaucratic practices.

The fourth paper extends the discussion by examining universities’ roles in regional development and the evaluation of these roles. Through a systematic review of the literature, the study highlights how universities are increasingly expected to contribute not only to economic growth but also to social and environmental development. However, existing evaluation frameworks tend to prioritise measurable economic outputs, while overlooking broader societal impacts. The findings point to significant methodological and conceptual challenges in assessing university–region interactions, including data limitations and the complexity of capturing long-term, context-specific outcomes.