Institutional mechanisms for implementing digitalization policy in Russian higher education with a focus on aligning federal requirements and university autonomy in a rapidly changing technological agenda

Abstract

The study analyzes the institutional mechanisms for implementing the digitalization policy in Russian higher education, focusing on aligning federal requirements and university autonomy amid a rapidly changing technological agenda. The relevance is driven by the tension between the unification of electronic educational environments (EEEs), accreditation indicators of “digital maturity,” and the universities’ need for flexibility to experiment, against the backdrop of growing investment and increasing reporting burdens. The goal is to identify how regulatory design and levels of autonomy modify the effects of digitalization on educational, research, and managerial outcomes. Materials and methods include a mixed methodology: analysis of over 50 federal acts (2018–2024), official statistics and monitoring data over a six-year period, internal documentation from 35 universities of various statuses, and 25 semi-structured interviews with heads of digital transformation. Quantitative tools include correlation and regression analysis, two-factor ANOVA to assess the influence of LMS type and level of autonomy on student satisfaction; qualitative data were processed through thematic coding. Results show an increase in the average share of IT expenditures in university budgets from 4.62% to 10.03%, accompanied by a decline in the institutional autonomy index from 0.78 to 0.59, and a strong negative correlation between the number of regulatory acts and autonomy (r = −0.97, p < 0.01). In leading universities, digital competencies of academic staff correlate with research productivity (0.48–0.53), whereas in regional institutions this correlation is weak (0.19–0.22), indicating that autonomy and resources moderate the effects. ANOVA confirms the significance of LMS type (p = 0.008), level of autonomy (p = 0.003), and their interaction (p = 0.041): commercial platforms are more effective under high autonomy, proprietary solutions under moderately high autonomy, while forced unification worsens user experience. The discussion highlights risks of technological standardization, a shift toward formalism, and a growing gap between KPIs and academic outcomes, as well as up to 30% of working time being reallocated to reporting. The study proposes a transition to framework-based regulation, support for pilot projects and co-financing of proven initiatives, implementation of independent digital maturity assessments considering university missions, and reduction of administrative burden. Conclusion: digitalization will become a driver of development only if the balance between federal goals and university autonomy is restored.