In recent years, the role of universities has undergone a profound transformation. Traditionally conceived as institutions primarily dedicated to imparting knowledge and professional training, universities are increasingly recognized as vital social environments where emotional and psychological support play a pivotal role. This shift mirrors what scholars term the “therapeutic turn” in higher education, whereby the mental well-being of students becomes a central concern alongside academic achievement. While this reconceptualization has gained widespread attention in many countries, certain contexts reveal a more complex and nuanced picture, particularly within smaller, non-selective universities in Russia’s periphery.
A groundbreaking sociological study by researchers from the Higher School of Economics (HSE) Institute of Education sheds new light on this phenomenon by delving deeply into the world of four small, non-major Russian universities. These universities, characterized by below-average Unified State Exam (USE) admission scores ranging roughly between 60 and 67 out of 100, predominantly serve first-generation students in regions far removed from Russia’s metropolitan academic centers. Due to their roots as former teacher-training institutes and their ongoing importance in regional education, these institutions embody a unique educational culture largely unexplored in extant research.
Between 2022 and 2024, the researchers conducted 135 semi-structured interviews with a diverse cohort of students, faculty members, and administrative staff—including department heads, deans, and vice-rectors—across institutions situated in the Altai Republic, Altai Krai, Kamchatka Krai, and Ivanovo Oblast. This rich qualitative data was complemented by sustained ethnographic observation of campus life, enabling a comprehensive examination of the informal and formal modes of student care prevalent in these environments. Interestingly, queries about care and support were never posed directly; such themes emerged organically through participants’ descriptions of their everyday experiences and relational dynamics, often evoked through endearing terms like “children,” “second family,” and “like at home.”
At the core of the study’s findings lies a pronounced duality in the culture of care observed. Faculty members engage in what can be described as an affective labor of support, cultivating warm, personal connections with students. This includes knowing students by name, showing genuine interest in their academic and personal challenges, and providing assistance that transcends pedagogical boundaries. Concurrently, however, care is inextricably entangled with continuous oversight. The absence of dedicated student support services results in faculty assuming multifaceted roles resembling parental figures, wherein they do not merely nurture but also discipline and monitor.
This dual framework blurs traditional hierarchical boundaries between educators and learners. Students’ routines are subject to rigorous surveillance; attendance is monitored closely, dormitory behaviors scrutinized, and parental contacts routinely initiated through “parent–teacher conferences.” Even students legally recognized as adults often find themselves treated as dependent minors, trapped in a liminal state of extended adolescence. Such practices reinforce a deeply embedded model of student care that simultaneously supports and constrains, reminiscent of an overseer’s gaze rather than a liberatory embrace.
Moreover, this culturally ingrained continuity of supervision draws on gendered expectations prevalent within the Russian educational workforce. The majority of faculty members at these institutions are women, many of whom invest their emotional labor without any supplementary remuneration, underscoring complex intersections between gender roles and professional identities. The conflation of nurturing with monitoring evokes a maternal archetype that both comforts and controls, creating emotional bonds that complicate students’ developmental trajectories toward independence.
The implications of this dual care model are multifaceted. On one hand, the emotionally warm and trusting relationships foster a sense of belonging and community cohesion vital for student retention and success in geographically and economically marginalized regions. Such an environment counters alienation and detachment often reported in larger, more impersonal universities. On the other hand, these intensive supervisory practices risk perpetuating dependency, impeding students’ full emancipation into autonomous adulthood and higher education as a site of self-directed growth.
This system challenges predominant Western narratives of university student development, which emphasize a linear progression toward independence. The Russian small university context reveals how sociodemographic realities, institutional histories, and cultural traditions converge to produce a hybrid care model. This model sustains the university community but simultaneously extends a “school-like” atmosphere, blurring the boundary between secondary and tertiary education both institutionally and experientially.
Tatiana Akuneeva, Research Assistant at the HSE Institute of Education’s Laboratory for University Development, succinctly summarizes the study’s nuanced perspective: “In small, non-selective universities, caring for students involves both support and control. These forms are not contradictory but together create a stable system of relationships that largely holds the university community together.” This dynamic partnership between emotional warmth and regulatory oversight is fundamental to understanding the social fabric of these institutions.
Ksenia Romanenko, Expert at the same laboratory, further highlights the duality inherent in this care culture, emphasizing the juxtaposition of trust-building and supervision: “These universities combine trusting, emotionally warm relationships between students and faculty with elements of strict supervision, including behaviour monitoring and parental involvement. While this model can promote cohesion and stability within the university community, it also reinforces student dependence and extends a school-like experience.” Their observations invite a reevaluation of student care paradigms beyond Western-centric models, accounting for regional specificity and institutional particularities.
As higher education systems worldwide continue to evolve under pressures of accessibility, equality, and student well-being, the insights from this study offer critical reflections for policymakers, educators, and researchers. They underscore the need to balance affective support with fostering autonomy, and to recognize that cultural and systemic legacies shape enduring institutional practices. Particularly in non-selective universities serving vulnerable populations, understanding the dual nature of care is crucial to improving student experiences and outcomes while avoiding paternalistic or overly restrictive approaches.
This research, published in the British Journal of Sociology of Education, thus opens new avenues for comparative international scholarship and practical innovation in university student support systems. By foregrounding the complex interplay of empathy, control, and cultural expectation, it challenges simplistic dichotomies and deepens our understanding of educational care as simultaneously relational, regulatory, and deeply context-dependent.
Subject of Research: The dual nature of student care—combining genuine support with continuous supervision—in small, non-selective Russian universities.
Article Title: Switching between oversight and support mode: the duality of care culture in Russian non-selective universities
News Publication Date: 22-Jul-2025
Web References:
References:
- Akuneeva, T., Romanenko, K. (2025). Switching between oversight and support mode: the duality of care culture in Russian non-selective universities. British Journal of Sociology of Education. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2025.2534591
Keywords: Education, Students, Education Policy, Education Administration
