Advocating for the devil, or the positive social effects of the forced transition to distance learning format in Ukrainian higher education
This article explores the potential and actual positive social effects of the forced transition to distance learning in Ukrainian higher education institutions, particularly those in frontline regions during 2022–2024. While the transition is often viewed negatively, this study aims to present the other side, focusing on the benefits at three levels: everyday life of participants, institutional, and societal. This study is part of the project “Social Effects and Challenges of Distance Learning in the Higher Education of Ukraine: from COVID-19 to the War”, which is implemented by the one of the authors within the framework of “Cambridge – NRFU 2022. Individual research (developments) grants for researchers in Ukraine (supported by the University of Cambridge, UK)”. Using data from comprehensive research, including desk research, expert interviews, focus groups with students and graduates, and a quantitative online survey of students, the article reveals both short-term and long-term benefits of transition to distance format of education. At the individual level, distance learning saves time, enhances flexibility for combining study and work, and fosters self-discipline. At the institutional level, it promotes the development of digital skills, inclusivity, and international collaboration, etc. At the societal level, it promotes decentralization, equal access to education, and the transformation of labor markets. Although limitations such as technical issues and potential biases are acknowledged, the study argues that distance education provides some opportunities for progressive change in Ukrainian higher education. However, even after a detailed analysis of the positive effects, the authors of the article remain skeptical about the distance format of higher education.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury.
Marcuse, H. (1967). One Dimensional Man. Boston: Beacon Press.
Fromm, E. (1968). The nature of man: Readings. New York: MacMillan.
Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Ball, S.J., Grimaldi, E. (2021). Neoliberal Education and the Neoliberal Digital Classroom. Learning, Media and Technology, 47, 288-302.
Darder, A. (2022). Reflexiones sobre la democracia cultural y la escolarización. Aula de Encuentro, volumen extraordinario (1), 39-89.
Sokuryanskaya, L.G., Golikov, A.S. (2021). Online education as a temptation: unobvious challenges. Youth in Central and Eastern Europe, 8 (12), 4-13.
Boiko, D.M., Muradyan, O.S., Ivanchykhina, K.O. (2024). Probing the Scientific-Sociological Discourse on Distance Education. Habitus, 63, 44-49.
Graeber, D. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Andersson, D.E. (Ed.). (2011). Handbook of Creative Cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Etzkowitz, H. (2014). Making a Humanities Town: Knowledge-Infused Clusters, Civic Entrepreneurship and Civil Society in Local Innovation Systems. Triple Helix, 2 (1).
Wilson, A. (2018). The Future of Urban Modelling. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 11 (1), 647-655.
Granovetter, M. (1974). Getting A Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard.
Nekhaienko, O., Yashkina, D., Lytovchenko, A., Boiko, D., Zaporozhchenko, R. (2023). Discursive (re)production of social cleavages in the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary elections. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1-27.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Psychology, 78 (6), 1360-1380.
Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Epidemiological Updates and Monthly Operational Updates. (2024). WHO. URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports