The ideas of academics, students, university leaders, and policymakers are essential when it comes to analyzing and driving changes in universities. Their perspectives, especially in areas like education, diversity, and innovation, are critical in shaping university practices and policies.

Jasanpreet Singh Even a year (better, ten or even 20 years) before, i would absolutely appreciate your ideas of inclusion, diversity etc. as a unique base for innovations. but, in fact, what all of us see now, is different restrictions and "focusing" towards very narrow band of purposes and real things. So, where and what for should we take this "diversity" for today?

Dear Dr. Alexandre Bermous,

I am very grateful to you for providing Mikhail Petrov's works. At present, I can only read with the help of AI. My understanding of his thoughts is still very superficial because I don't understand Russian at present. I can only talk about some ideas below.

1. The Core Value of Mikhail Petrov’s Ideas and Their Relevance to University Reform

Based on the conference presentation on Petrov, his thoughts likely offer practical value for analyzing and transforming universities in the following areas:

▶ Interdisciplinary Integration and Practice-Oriented Knowledge Production If Petrov’s research emphasized "applied fields," he probably advocated breaking disciplinary silos and promoting the translation of knowledge from theory to practice. Implications for university reform include: Curriculum Innovation: Designing interdisciplinary programs (e.g., "Technology Innovation and Social Policy" joint courses) to address complex real-world problems (e.g., climate change, digital inequality). Industry-Academia Collaboration: Strengthening partnerships between universities, industries, and governments (e.g., establishing applied research centers) to ensure academic outputs directly serve societal needs (e.g., engineering departments co-building sustainable technology labs with enterprises).

▶ The Social Function of Education and Ethical Responsibility If Petrov focused on the societal impact of knowledge, his ideas may support shifting universities from "knowledge disseminators" to "social value co-creators": Mission Reconstruction: Integrating social responsibility into university strategic goals (e.g., aligning with UN Sustainable Development Goals, SDGs), such as cultivating civic awareness through community service courses or social innovation incubators. Evaluation System Reform: Establishing multi-dimensional metrics that measure not only research output (e.g., publications) but also the societal impact of academia (e.g., patent conversion efficiency, local economic benefits from educational programs).

▶ Organizational Flexibility and Adaptability If Petrov’s theories addressed institutional change, they might emphasize breaking hierarchical rigidity to build more open academic ecosystems: Management Model Innovation: Granting grassroots academic teams more autonomy (e.g., distributed governance, project-based funding) to encourage bottom-up innovation (e.g., allowing faculty to form cross-college research groups without excessive approval). Responding to Technological Disruption: Reimagining academic communication in the digital age (e.g., open-access journals, online collaboration platforms) to reflect Petrov’s pursuit of "knowledge application efficiency."

2. Applicable Scenarios and Potential Challenges

Applicable Scenarios

Transformation of research universities into "entrepreneurial universities"；

Design for integrating vocational and academic education;

Localized reform of higher education in developing countries.

Potential Challenges

Risk of weakening basic research; need to balance application orientation with academic freedom ；

Traditional disciplinary barriers (e.g., between liberal arts and engineering) may hinder cross-field collaboration；

Need to adapt to local needs and avoid blindly adopting Soviet-era elements of Petrov’s ideas.

3. Unique Advantages Compared to Other Intellectual Traditions

Contrasting with neoliberal market-oriented reforms (overemphasizing efficiency) or purely academic autonomy traditions (ignoring social needs), Petrov’s "application-oriented + social responsibility" framework may offer a third path:

Balancing Technical and Value Rationality: Prioritizing both the practical utility of knowledge and ethical constraints (e.g., incorporating tech ethics modules into AI programs, echoing Petrov’s implicit advocacy for "responsible innovation").

Contemporary Adaptation of Historical Context: His ideas emerged during the mid-20th century technological revolution, resonating with today’s global challenges like sustainable development and tech ethics. They can be reinterpreted through modern cases (e.g., transforming "planned knowledge allocation under socialism" into "data-driven university strategic planning").

Conclusion

If Petrov’s ideas focus on the social application of knowledge, interdisciplinary collaboration, and institutional adaptability, their core value for university reform lies in providing a "problem-oriented reform logic"—reconstructing academic systems from real-world needs rather than following purely endogenous academic evolution. Universities can draw on the methodology of his "applied fields" research to design more inclusive and actionable reform pathways, but must iterate his theories for contemporary contexts (e.g., academic capitalism, digital transformation) to avoid dogmatic application.

Thank you, Manyu Dou for your in-depth analysis of the applicability of Petrov's ideas to today's problems. The bulk of them is basing on a very special "field" metaphor, giving rise to different forces and trying to align and harmonize them. It's quite near to the democracy approach in politics, but today we primarily observe "the identity policy", requiring a definite choice and "taking right way". Frankly speaking, i do not have an idea, how to deal this with...

Jasanpreet Singh

Your observation is well-founded. The multifaceted insights of academics, students, administrators, and policymakers indeed form the bedrock of institutional evolution. Their collaborative input in educational reform, diversity initiatives, and innovation ecosystems is instrumental in aligning university strategies with societal needs. By integrating these diverse voices, universities can foster more inclusive, evidence-based decision-making processes that enhance both academic excellence and social impact.

Alexandre Bermous

Your observation highlights a profound paradox: Petrov’s vision of negotiated harmony clashes with the polarized logic of contemporary identity politics. His “field” metaphor, rooted in physics-inspired relationality, implies that seemingly opposing forces can coexist through reciprocal adjustment. In contrast, identity policies frequently frame issues as zero-sum choices. To reconcile this, we might reframe Petrov’s model as a tool for mapping intersections between identity-based demands and broader social goods—for instance, demonstrating how cultural specificity can enrich universal values. This could require reimagining “right ways” not as fixed paths but as iterative processes of mutual accommodation.