Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, member countries gained independence and sought to adopt educational practices from the West (Silova, 2010) in an attempt to break away from the Soviet model. Kazakhstan, one of those countries, has undergone significant reforms in the higher education system. It aims to transition from a centralised system controlled by the Ministry of Education and Science towards a market-driven structure that allows for greater institutional autonomy. Despite the government’s efforts since independence, the universities remained less competitive with a governance style similar to the Soviet system. The decision-making process lacked academic involvement and transparency and also displayed limited autonomy.  

In 2018, the government introduced the Law "On amendments and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the expansion of academic and managerial autonomy of higher education institutions" to 29 public universities. The objective of the Law was to grant academic and managerial autonomy to higher education institutions by creating independent governing bodies with decision-making powers similar to those in Western countries. The Law was expected to be the foundation for transforming HEIs by enabling institutional flexibility and establishing an accountability system through governing boards. Universities have received increased powers to create endowment funds, open start-up companies, and attract additional sources of financial and material resources to implement statutory activities. Academic autonomy has been extended to determine the content of education programmes. Before the 2018 Law, this was the Ministry's responsibility. This has enabled universities to become more independent from state control and focus more on their core mission of education and research.

Indeed, enacting the 2018 Law transformed the landscape of governance structure, changed decisions and extended academic autonomy. However, transitioning to a more autonomous system through introducing and establishing a new governance model was challenging across the sector.  

The study's main objective is to understand the factors of university implementation of the 2018 reform. We analyse how different types of public universities in Kazakhstan responded to, implemented and experienced a new governance model at institutions. Our analytical framework is based on the literature on higher education forms and the public sector. Accordingly, we hypothesise that 1) organisational age and size; 2) institutional type and mission; 3) distribution of resources; 4) geographical, economic and political centrality; 5) organisational identities affect the implementation of reforms. To achieve this, we conducted 46 semi-structured interviews with top management leaders of HEIs and analysed official governance documents such as the Law, by-laws, and institutional meeting minutes. Finally, we used national statistical data to compare universities' evolution over time. 

The findings of the empirical study reveal variations in the implementation of governance reform at the organisational level. Interestingly, successful implementation was not contingent upon university age and size, types and missions, research activities, funding, or geographical location. Instead, it was strongly correlated with the active engagement of university leaders in the policymaking process at the governmental level. Findings show that peripheral universities in Kazakhstan successfully implemented the policy reform due to the involvement of the top and middle-level management team in the decision-making process of the Ministry.  Based on our analyses, we have shown that the main factors affecting reform implementation are the following. 1) the greater involvement of institutional actors in policy-making activities leads to better implementation of reforms.  2) the key role played by the government in designing the consultations for the reform 3) the importance of the broader political national context 4) the significant role that peripheral universities can play in the reform process as well as in the development of the HE sector.

This study employed qualitative case study approach using semi-structured interviews to gather qualitative data from university leaders, decision-makers, and management team members who participated in the implementation of governance reform at higher education institutions.The study was conducted in five public universities in Kazakhstan. To gain a more comprehensive understanding, universities of different types were selected, and to understand regional aspects towards the implementation of and response to the governance reform, case universities were selected from different geographic regions, including North, East, West, and Central. These universities play essential roles in meeting the needs of regional markets and employers, as well as in economic and social development. Despite having similar goals, regional aspects could differ based on location, potentially impacting the implementation of the reforms. Additionally, document analysis were conducted at national and institutional levels: national level – laws, governmental policies, and regulations; institutional level – charters, regulations, corporate documents, minutes of the Board meetings, institutional reports.

The findings from our empirical study reveal variations in the implementation of governance reform at the organisational level. Interestingly, successful implementation was not contingent upon university age and size, types and missions, research activities, funding, or geographical location. Instead, it was strongly correlated with the active engagement of university leaders in the policymaking process at the governmental level. By successful implementation, we mean the positive impact on the development of institutions, the involvement of various stakeholders and their active engagement in decision-making processes, a strong management team with accountability among stakeholders, and continuous improvement. However, findings demonstrate that academics as main stakeholders are not part of decision-makers and are not involved in institutional policies. Findings show that peripheral universities in Kazakhstan successfully implemented the policy reform due to the involvement of the top and middle-level management team in the decision-making process of the Ministry. These institutions’ practices and learned lessons were being translated into leading national research universities and played an essential role in guiding institutions. Based on our analyses, we have shown that the main factors affecting reform implementation are the following. 1) the greater involvement of institutional actors in policy-making activities leads to better implementation of reforms. 2) the key role played by the government in designing the consultations for the reform 3) the importance of the broader political national context 4) the significant role that peripheral universities can play in the reform process as well as in the development of the HE sector.

Amaral, A., Jones, G. & Karseth, B. (Eds.). (2002). Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Austin, I., & Jones, G. (2016). Governance of higher education: Global perspectives, theories, and practices. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Balen, M. E. and Leyton, C. (2015). ‘Policy translation: An invitation to revisit the work of Latour, Star and Marres’. Global Discourse. 6 (1-2), pp. 101 - 115. Birnbaum, R. (1989) The cybernetic institution: Toward an integration of governance theories. Higher Education, 18, 239-253. Boer, H., & File, J. (2009). Higher education governance reforms accross Europe. Brussels. Boer, H. de, Enders, J., & Leišyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in Dutch higher education: The or-ganizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46. Clarke, J., Bainton, D., Lendvai, N. and Stubbs, P. (2015). Making policy move: towards a politics of translation and assemblage. Bristol: Policy Press. Clark, B. R. (1983). The Higher Education System. Academic Organisation in Cross- National Perspective, University of California Press, Berkeley. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. 6th ed. Oxford, England: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: Los Angeles: SAGE. Czarniawska, B., and Sevón, G. (1996). Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Degn, L. Translating Governance Ideas in Danish Higher Education. High Educ Policy 28, 295–313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2014.12 Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2014). Higher educa tion governance and policy change in Western Europe: International challenges to historical institutions . Palgrave http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137399854 Gornitzka, A., & Maassen, P. (2014). Dynamics of convergence and divergence. Exploring accounts of higher education policy change. In P. Mattei (Ed.), University adaptation in difficult economic times (pp. 13–29). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gornitzka, A., Maassen, P., & de Boer, H. (2017). Change in university governance structures in continental Europe. Higher Education Quarterly, 71, 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12127 Dobbins, M., & Knill, C. (2009). Higher education policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence toward a common model? Governance 22 ( 397 430.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468 0491.2009.01445. Fumasoli, T. and Stensaker B. (2013). Organisation studies in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 26, 479-496. Maassen, P., Gornitzka, A., Fumasoli, T. (2017) University reform and institutional autonomy: A framework for analysing the living autonomy, Higher Education Quarterly, 71(3).