Educational innovation ecosystems and how they work – a conference collaboration of Russian and Hungarian researchers

Diana Koroleva, a chair of the Laboratory for Educational Innovation Research, and Laco Horvath, an associate researcher of the Higher Education and Innovation grou p, presented the results of their research regarding motivations and values of educational innovation ecosystem actors. Cases from Hungary and Russia were studied. Such a comparative approach allows deeper understanding of the innovative processes; it also will be of help for managerial decision-making regarding establishment and development of innovative education ecosystems (RFBR Grant No. 20-513-23002).

 Let us share the most exciting research findings that were presented during the conference:

• Our analysis has shown that the flexibility of the innovative education system in Hungary allows for local-level grassroot innovations. The school teacher is a key actor for implementation of new approaches – and that is actually a part of their responsibilities (within the system).The Russian education ecosystem is more structured. Grassroot initiatives have no streamlined mechanism of moving up the levels. Consequently, the actors who are external to the formal system are the main innovation drivers: those are the entrepreneurs and  the startupers.
• When comparing values of the innovators from the two countries and having studied their motivations, we discovered similarities and differences that highlight a complex relationship between the ecosystems on the societal and entrepreneurial levels. The values of autonomy, benevolence and universalism were rated especially highly by the innovators from both countries. It is not surprising that the innovators strive for autonomous governance: in creating something new they act independently. In both cases, the drive for innovation levels were estimated to be relatively high while self-actualisation as a driver appears to be less prominent. For both groups of innovators, implementing cutting-edge technologies and ideas was more significant than improving their social status or receiving societal approval. 

• Despite the fact that all types of the key elements are present in the educational ecosystems of both countries (participants, types of occupation, artefacts ), the intensity of ties between them varies. Having combined ECOEIS and SOECOEIs perspectives, we managed to better understand the concurrently developing nature of the “top-down” and “bottom-up” processes, integration of individual-level factors in a broader socio-economical context and a role that any of the interested parties can play in collaboration towards educational transformations.