The Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences launched the first cultural management program in Russia in 1998 based on British educational standards. The program is validated by Manchester University and provides students an MA diploma from Manchester. The program aims to introduce international best practices in cultural project management and a social, cultural project-oriented methodology to Russia. Bringing together foreign theories and Russian practices can cause tensions, but ultimately provides Russian students with valuable international resources and perspectives to better adapt to changing circumstances in cultural management.

1. +
THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL
COLLABORATION AND
INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE
IN CIRRICULA OF ARTS AND
CULTURAL MANAGEMENT
SCHOOL OF MSSES
(Moscow Russian-British University)
MSSES Faculty of Cultural Management:
Olga Karpova, Dean;
Ekaterina Lapina-Kratasyuk, Associate Professor;
Margarita Shulgina, MA student.

2. +
The Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences
§ The MSSES is a rare case of non-
governmental university in Russia
§ Postgraduate program in Cultural
Management (launched in 1998) was the first
in Russia
§ The Program was based on British
educational standards and was validated by
Aberdeen University (till 2002) and now is
validated by Manchester University (since
2003).
Faculty of Cultural Management

3. +
Competitive advantage of
Cultural Management program (MSSES)
§ MA diploma of Manchester University
§ Social and cultural project-orientated methodology, diversity of
pathways and the informal network of graduates
§ Unique opportunities for professional communication and
employment.

4. +
Cultural management in Russia: international
context and up-country constrains
§ Political pressure led to transit of intellectuals from politics to the sphere of
Cultural Management.We experience a sort of flourishing of cultural and
social projects (e.g. museums)
§ The accent is on technology (e.g. digitalization of museum exhibitions,
multimedia shows etc.)
§ Disbalance between up-to-date technological decisions and old-fashioned
style of management, audience attitudes and administrating in cultural
projects
§ Strong geographical divide: huge difference between up-to-date cultural
projects in the center (mostly in Moscow and Sant-Petersburg) and poor
funding and project management in Russia’s regions

5. +
Questions
§ How are intercultural exchanges in cultural projects and cultural management
education taking place in Russia?
§ What are specificities of these exchanges in nowadays political and social
situation?
§ What are priority directions of our research and educational activities?
§ Traditionally our intercultural exchanges are based mostly on English-language
academic culture and literature.What are opportunities and challenges of this
situation? Are there other options and what their advantages could be?
§ What kind of academic and professional experience are relevant to Russian
situation?

6. +
MSSES Cultural Management Department
§ almost 20 years of teaching Cultural Management and Cultural
Policy in Russia
§ the possibility of tracking the careers of graduates, their project
activities and the impact of the latter on changing managerial
practices in the cultural sphere
§ recourses to analyze issues of educational process, syllabi and
methodology of teaching (based on annual evaluation of all the
stages of educational processes by Manchester university)
The background of research

7. +
The Structure of Cultural Management Program (20 years of
development)
Cultural
management
(1998)
Core program
Management of
museums and
galleries (1999)
Cultural
Management
DL program
(2002-2009)
Creative industries
(2008)
Urban and regional
development
(2009-2015)
since 2013 MA in
Urban Studies
Media production
and management
(2012)
Library
management
(2015)
Cultural
Entrepreneurship
in Local Context
(2016)
Fashion studies
(2017)

8. +
Faculty of Cultural Management programs
MA in Cultural
Management
MA in Urban
Studies
BA in
Management in
the Creative Arts

9. +
International partners and forms of
international collaboration
q Validation and academic
collaboration
q Study visits and cultural exchanges
q Summer schools
q Invited professors and speakers
q Oversea training for students

10. +
International collaboration within and beyond curricula
• Obligatory and Selective courses of Professors from partner universities
(2-3 courses for the MA, at least 2 courses per academic year for BA)
• Exchange visits of MSSES professors and staff in the UK (Manchester
University is a host institution)
• Lectures and master-classes of Host Lecturers beyond the curricula. (E.g. in
October 2016 Prof. Rob Kitchin (Maynooth University, Ireland) gave the short
course "Rethinking Smart Cities”)
• Library collection based mostly on English-language sources
• Exchange programs for Students and Professors (Erasmus Mundus, Parma
University, Summer School in Salford University etc.)

11. +
Faculty of the Cultural Management: fields of our research
• “Ethnocultural Entrepreneurship Profile Exchange Project” (2010-2011,
Council of Europe grant)
• “Ethnocultural Entrepreneurship in Arctic” (2012-2014, Nordregio)
• Civic engagement in Urban Projects: Comparative Analysis of City Space
in Canada, the UK and Russia (2013)
• Cultural Economics, Niche Cultural Market and Cultural Entrepreneurship
in Megapolis (the UK, Canada and Russia) (2014)
• Media and Technologies in Contemporary City" (2015)
• Digital City: new forms of space governance, urban activism and cultural
practices" (2016)

12. + Core approaches/ideas for dissemination in post-soviet
transition to new professional standards
• Public-oriented management vs state administration
• Project based management vs administration of cultural
institutions
• Strategic management and cultural policy vs state
administration
• Horizontal partnership vs vertical integrated management
• Public-private partnership vs state domination
• Focus on regional an local scale

13. + Faculty of Cultural Management: projects and
achievements in dissemination of professional standards
ü 2000 – “Changing museum in changing world” Potanin Foundation - start first Russian grant program
for supporting museums
ü 2003 – ACM Association of Cultural Managers (initiatives of the teachers and alumni of the Faculty)
ü Since 2001 our teachers was participated in expert work for all Russian grant programs in cultural
field:“Changing museum in changing world” Potanin Foundation,“Museums of the Russian North”
Severstal,“Cultural Mosaic”Timchenko Foundation,“New local history. Genius loci” Russian
Foundation for Culture etc.
ü Seminars and conferences in regions
ü 2015 Presidential program for retraining of the cultural authorities of the regions and municipalities
(RANEPA)
ü Alumni network
ü Consulting and applied research

14. +
Modernization of the Moscow city cultural policy
and infrastructure (2012-2015)
n A large-scale modernization of Moscow's culture sphere, which began 5 years ago,
has mobilized more than 60 our graduates for leading positions in cultural
institutions - museums, libraries, cultural centres, exhibition halls - as well as in
different offices within the Moscow Department of Culture.
n Elena Zelentsova, head of Creative Industries pathway (Vise-director of the
Moscow city Department of culture (2012-2015)
n Even when the process of modernization was reduced many of them save their
position and still try to hold new standards in their activities. For example: ZIL
cultural center, Museum “Tsaritsyno”, 3 libraries etc.

15. + Cultural Management Faculty: alumni employment in the field of
training
Finished MA programs
Percentage of employed in the field of
education (within the first year after
study)

16. +
Hybridization of knowledge
What happens exactly when you bring together rigid
and isolated Russian discourse and foreign theories,
practices and approaches?

17. +
Alienation: teacher
n Lost in translation
n Different realities, different methods
n How do you combine traditional theoretical
approach and the one that’s more practical?

18. +
Alienation: student
n Different approach towards research
and projects
n Alienation from the previous
generation of practitioners and
researchers
n Lack of Russian language sources
n Conflict of terminology
n Valuable insights about our own
discourse and theories
n Access to up-to-date foreign
resources and best practices
n International communication and
exchange
n Better adaptability to the changing
circumstances
Different perspective leads to:

19. +
Placing our perspective (as conclusion)
n In the world: how are our experiences and practices
fit into the bigger scheme?
n What place does it occupy in it?
n What is our responsibility towards those at the
periphery in our own country?