Reinhard Golz

The International Academy for the Humanization of Education (IAHE)ⁱ:

Memories of the Time Before, During and After its Establishment

1. Magdeburg (Germany) and Biysk (Russia): Birth Places of IAHE

It was an intense working day at the Pädagogische Hochschule (Teacher Training College) Magdeburg in September 1992. I had to finish my preparations for the upcoming winter semester, proofread a journal article, and deal with various items concerning the academic self-administration. Insofar there was nothing special in this day. And yet this situation at an East German higher education institution, three years after the collapse of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), was still very different from that at West German institutions. Uncertainties and fear mongering with regard to the continuation of the Pädagogische Hochschule Magdeburg and particularly the continued employment of the collaborators at the Institute of Educational Science had diminished. Meanwhile new structures in teaching, research, and academic self-administration had also been created. However, the daily work was still characterized by various problems with processes and personnel issues related to this societal transformation.ⁱⁱ

The special event on this particular day, however, was that an up-to-this-day-unknown-to-me educational researcher from the then about-to-be-dissolved Soviet Union was about to come for a conversation about cooperating on teaching and research. The colleague appeared accompanied by an officer of the Red Army (which was still stationed in East Germany until 1994). The officer had shown him the direction to the Pädagogische Hochschule and was supposed to be a translator too. The latter turned out to be superfluous; we had a several-hours-long conversation in Russian, which therefore also quickly became purposeful, direct, and outcome-orientedⁱⁱⁱ and would turn out to be the beginning of a now twenty-year-old reliable friendship. The guest was the then Prorector of the Public Pedagogical Institute (the future University) of Biysk (Siberia; Altai-Region), Dr. Michail N. Berulava, Professor of Education. His name will appear numerous times in the following pages, in connection with my area of work at the Pädagogische Hochschule Magdeburg and (since 1993) the University of Magdeburg.

2. A Conference in Biysk, Siberia and its Consequences

In September 1993 I had accepted an invitation by M. N. Berulava to a conference at the University of Biysk. For various reasons the trip to the Siberian town is particularly memorable. I had already made numerous trips to the Soviet Union between 1970 and 1992. I would not describe my experiences with local public transportation there as bad. At least I found that the conditions of Soviet air traffic were, if not excellent, at least good or tolerable. However, after the downfall of the Soviet Union the situation seemed to get considerably worse. In this partially chaotic transition period the lack of professional ethics of some collaborators in government institutions had become more apparent. For example, the impression arose that certain aspects of the airways sector were not put into reliable private hands and were neglected with regards to both technical and service matters. I could cite several examples from personal experience.

The mentioned 1993 conference in Biysk could be accessed via Moscow and Barnaul (Siberia). At the Vnukovo airport in Moscow I waited with other passengers to get on the flight to Barnaul. Apparently boarding was delayed because not all of the flight crew had arrived. Finally the pilot appeared and passed the row of waiting passengers on his way to his flight deck; although he managed to walk quite straight, he definitely was not completely sober. I won’t even mention little surprises during the flight such as dysfunctional seat backs. Of course, under such circumstances, one feels different about otherwise normal turbulences that occur during a flight.

I did eventually land at the Barnaul airport. Now I needed to find out how to get to Biysk, which was 200 km from there. There were no timely train or bus connections. After thinking about it for a bit, I decided to take a taxi for this stretch. At the airport, I had already been talking with three Russian conference participants; we had the same destination. I invited them to share a taxi to Biysk with me. We eventually arrived there, more or less in good shape, after several hours of travel all across the countryside. I didn’t bother to ask my co-travellers for their share of the taxi fare; immediately after our arrival, and without a word of goodbye or thank you, they went about getting their hotel accommodation. I never saw them again.

On the way to my hotel room, I inadvertently witnessed an interesting conversation. Two young Russians, collaborators of the Pedagogical Institute of Biysk and in charge of looking after foreign guests—as soon became apparent—were talking about their responsibilities during the conference. They must have taken me for a local and didn’t consider that I may be one of these foreigners. One told the other that he was in charge of looking after a certain Dr. Reinhard Golz from Magdeburg, Germany. He wasn’t sure that this person would show up at all and if so, by what means. He was wondering if he should drive to Barnaul to pick him up, even though his arrival was rather doubtful by now. I relieved him of his doubt by introducing myself in Russian. He turned out to be Oleg Zajakin, for whom I later became an academic mentor–together with Prof. Dr. Rudolf W. Keck (University of Hildesheim) and who did his doctorate with me in 2003 in Magdeburg.^iv Our almost twenty-year-long collaboration and friendship will continue to grow with future translation projects.

During the conference in Biysk I also had a first conversation with the future president of the Russian Academy of Education situated in Moscow, Professor Dr. Nikolay D. Nikandrov, about educational policy developments in the Russian and Eastern German transformation processes. My academic interest in historical and current educational developments in Russia became stronger not only through his work but also that of other representatives of this academy, for example, Professor Dr. Vladimir P. Borisenkov, longtime chief editor of the largest (Soviet, subsequently Russian) pedagogical journal “Pedagogika” (Педагогика) and current president of the “International Slavic Academy of Education”, which has its headquarters in Tiraspol (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic); and Volodar V. Krajevsky, one of the most significant Russian educational theorists of that time. In 1999 I was elected an international member of the Russian Academy of Education—together with my colleague R.W. Keck.

    3. Theoretical Discussions Immediately Prior to the Establishment of IAHE

After the conference in Biysk M.N. Berulava and I stayed in regular contact. During this time he apparently developed the idea that our collaboration could also further expand in a larger international context and eventually an institutional basis. We agreed to broach this idea with our existing cooperating partners from Russia and other post-Soviet Union states, as well as Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, and other post-socialist countries, and to develop it as quickly as possible.

It was necessary, for academic and organizational reasons but also predominantly because of the specific experiences with the transformation process in (East) Germany, to not only gain the support of the East German institutions and colleagues (as far as these were still available after the diverse evaluative processes and developments after the political turnover) but also that of the West German higher-education colleagues with respective experiences and interests in such an international collaboration. Among others, Professors R.W. Keck (University of Hildesheim), H. Retter and W. Eisermann (both at University of Braunschweig) and W. Wiater (University of Augsburg) were open to this idea. W. Wiater and R.W. Keck were already actively involved in the process of the democratic transformation of the East German higher education system. We knew H. Retter through the research projects on the reception of progressive pedagogy of Peter Petersen in Eastern Europe^v, and with W. Eisermann biographical connections also played a role in him joining us. His notable autobiography contains many memories of his experiences in Russia as a soldier during World War II as well as interesting details of his travels in the context of IAHE activities and his meetings with the Russian colleagues.^vi

Berulava wanted an international alliance of education scholars in the form of an independent research and education institution that would be partially publicly funded and also supported by private initiatives, with the main goal of contributing to a new orientation of education based on freedom and social responsibility in those countries undergoing transformation.

Towards the end period of the Soviet Union, still during Gorbačov's time and his politics of Perestroika and Glasnost, the demand for humanization and democratization of social life and especially education had already entered public discussions on reform. Connected with this was also a kind of renaissance of national (Russian) and international progressive education.^vii

Berulava’s suggestion to establish an „International Academy for the Humanization of Education” became now—after the collapse of the Soviet system and the connected contradictory developments and orientations in the education sector—more topical than ever, and it was one of the important items on the agenda of an international conference which took place under my leadership at the University of Magdeburg in November 1994 under the theme of “Pedagogy in times of social upheaval (...)” The participants came from Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, Japan and Germany. The essential starting point was a growing interest in historical and contemporary educational developments in the European countries situated east of Germany, namely the region with the most severe societal changes. Central were questions about what happens with education in times of social upheaval, how its relationship to tradition and innovation in a national and international context is playing out, which role the experiences of Progressive Education (Reformpädagogik) play in current discussions about reforming pedagogy.

We have over thirty presentations from this Magdeburg conference, which are assembled in an edited collection.^viii Among them is also the contribution by M.N. Berulava (in cooperation with Konstantin Koltakov and Oleg Zajakin). Here and in other places Berulava had explained one of his most significant goals, which is an integral part of his thinking and actions in pedagogy and educational policy: the humanization of education through integration of educational content.^ix Already during this conference it became apparent that the demand for “humanization of education” provoked controversial discussions and definition-focused questions, as it still does.

These discussions were later reflected in articles and, among other matters, the historical aspects of the humanization of education were also pointed out.^x In this historical context one also had to consider the international “Progressive Education”. It was quite obvious that the claims of several directions in progressive pedagogical thinking were aiming towards a humanization of education, especially against the background of a turn from a ‘teacher-centred’ pedagogy to a ‘child-centred’ one. Independent of the differing takes on, for example, the relationship of individuality and collectivity, action and personality development, etc., names such as Tolstoy, Key, Gurlitt, Montessori, Korczak, Decroly, Ferriere, Blonskiy, Kerschensteiner, Dewey, among others, are associated with this. These same names, as well as those of the advocates of the American humanistic psychology, now resurfaced in connection with the term humanization of education in Russia.

Already in 1993 the well known educationalist Gershunsky had criticized the still prevalent dogmatic interpretation of the principle of poly-technical education and labour training as well as the lack of individualization of learning in Russian schools; he had noted in this context that in Russia the “possibilities for humanization of education had still not been fully realized”.^xi The focus here was an orientation towards the individual on the basis of fundamental changes in the pedagogical-psychological and didactical-methodological work in educational institutions, as well as their more efficient connection with socio-economic factors.

Other Russian educationalists, also M.N. Berulava, based the humanization of education predominantly on humanistic psychology and, as mentioned, on the idea of integration of educational content, meaning an orientation of education towards a holistic conceptualization of human beings, of humans’ individual intellectual, physical, and spiritual needs. Occasionally the term “humanitarization” came up in this context.^xii German participants of the afore mentioned 1994 Magdeburg conference raised questions in this discussion about tautological aspects in the area of the terms education and humanization, and about a potentially dangerous imbalance between individual and social perspectives, namely a predominance of individualistic factors and an all too heavy dependence on a naturally existing harmony in education as well as a potential neglect of social factors which could be felt in some new pedagogical orientations. The “Antinomies of educational actions”, such as the “paradox of individualization” had just come into discussion focus in Germany.^xiii Also some initiatives in the context of a somewhat one-sided understanding of humanistic psychology and an Americanization associated with it, as well as the idea of an integration of educational content were controversially discussed. In German discussions on a content-based integrated approach to pedagogy already existed since the 1960s.^xiv

Some German educationalists also directly established a connection between an integration of educational content and a humanization of education. H. Ernst (1993), for example, recognized the basis of an educational policy and pedagogy that is humanities-oriented or aims to be humanizing in a theory of holistic learning against the background of a holistic conceptualization of humanity. This also first originated from humanistic psychology, namely from the work of Goldstein, Rogers, Bühlers, Maslow, et al., as well as Allport’s psychological anthropology. Pedagogy was to be concerned with the whole human being. One could say here quite succinctly along the lines of Pestalozzi and also Dewey: with head, hand, and heart. V. Buddrus and W. Pallasch wrote: „Learning doesn’t only occur and is implemented in the head!” (...) Similarly it is not enough to simply add emotion and body in order to effect change.” Here too the idea of holistic learning plays a central role: „Many approaches to humanistic pedagogy attempt to reconnect elements of this one-sided canon of general educational knowledge structures with the respective human beings. This is accomplished with the central focus on a personally meaningful teaching and learning as a balance to the dominant scientific-oriented focus. Such a reevaluation is similar to the efforts taken up by progressive education.“^xv This again brings the connection to the international 'Progressive Education' to full circle. Regarding Russia, the image of national and international progressive educational developments in a temporarily interrupted “Sleeping Beauty sleep” seemed appropriate not only with respect to pedagogy but also to aspects of humanistic psychology. The 'Progressive Education' implications became particularly apparent in the context of discussions about the “Humanization of Education”. R.W. Keck, successor of M.N. Berulava as president of IAHE, later contributed to a further clarification of definition. ^xvi

    4. The 1994 Magdeburg Conference as Preparation for the Actual Establishment of IAHE in Biysk 1995

During the Magdeburg conference M.N. Berulava had asked me to invite some of the participating educationalists from Estonia, Latvia, Poland, The Czech Republic, Japan, and Germany to a consultation session in which he would explain the possibility of participating in an “International Academy for the Humanization of Education”. I complied, although this spontaneous change in the conference proceedings resulted in major organizational problems, which made some of the participants question the so-called 'German punctuality', with good reason, because the consultation session of this group^xvii took at least two hours during which the other participants had to wait for the continuation of the conference in an uncomfortable spacial arrangement.

M.N. Berulava also informed the participants that shortly before he had already legally registered this academy with the government in Russia. It became clear that the term 'international' could be justified through the inclusion of the foreign scholars who were present. He could also point to the journal “Humanization of Education”, which he had also initiated shortly before. This journal, first published in 1994, was to accompany the work of the Academy with articles by international scholars of pedagogy, psychology, and other humanities and social science disciplines.

As already mentioned, based on this information a lively and partially controversial discussion arose about the most diverse theoretical and practical-organizational questions surrounding the Berulava proposition. It became apparent that, from the participants’ different (national, international, historical, current, discipline-specific) perspectives, the answers to these questions posed a longer-term task which could possibly not ever be completely finished but rather needed to be continuously redefined in response to societal developments. Some participants also wanted to know if the establishment of the Academy was a Russian institution with international participation or an international institution with headquarters in Russia (Biysk, Moscow, or elsewhere); what the main working format would be, the time frames for consultation, etc.; how the activities of the Academy would be financed; how the academic freedom of the Academy would be guaranteed long-term; what publishing and editorial responsibilities would be taken on in Biysk and which ones in Magdeburg; how the leadership of the Academy would be structured, etc.

It was agreed to inform as many conference participants as possible as well as other interested people—through the respective committees—about the results of the consultation. Finally it was suggested to continue the discussion and clarification of the mentioned and additional content-oriented and organizational questions at a conference to be led by M.N. Berulava in June 1995 in Biysk on the theme of “Problems in Humanization of Education in our times” with scholars from as many countries as possible. Through this event the final establishment of the Academy was to be implemented. In addition, it was agreed to apply for financial support for the Biysk conference from the appropriate institutions of the respective countries. This consultation during the Magdeburg conference was in any case an important milestone on the road to the establishment of the IAHE. The conference as a whole had also shown which new possibilities for international cooperation in the areas of the humanities, the social sciences and education were possible through the transformation processes. A Japanese conference participant summarized that he experienced the pedagogical discussion in a differentiated and stimulating way, along with Magdeburg as a “place of spiritual meditation between East and West”.^xviii

    5. The First IAHE Congress in Biysk in 1995

1995 eventually became the year of the actual establishment of IAHE in the Siberian city Biysk. M.N. Berulava and his colleagues—in collaboration with other Russian institutions—had called for an international conference, which could be described in many ways with superlatives. This first conference of the “International Academy for the Humanization of Education” from June 27 to 29, 1995 has undoubtedly remained a lasting memory for many foreign participants. The Russian colleagues proved themselves to be excellent organizers and hosts for the over 100 pedagogues, philosophers, sociologists, psychologists, historians, and other scholars interested in the basic idea of the Academy, from Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Great Britain, Germany, France, the USA, Canada, The Czech Republic, and Poland. Here in Biysk, just as later on in Sochi, the subsequent location of IAHE, the content-based power of imagination and professionalism of the Russian organizers were evident. Besides the dense but well organized conference program with many contributions by Russian and foreign participants, there was no lack of cultural and culinary savourings. The much-praised ‘Russian soul’ as it ‘lived and embodied’, the proverbial Russian hospitality, came alive in this area. The beautiful Lake Aya and the impressive landscape in the vicinity of the conference venue were unforgettable. I remembered with some discomfort our 1994 Magdeburg conference that compared rather poorly with regards to material facilities; however I’m sure that the other foreign conference participants felt the same. And then and now, it is not unusual but rather the norm for conferences in Russia (at least those organized by M.N. Berulava and his colleagues) to be configured in such luxurious ways; this was also apparent in later IAHE conferences in Sochi on the Black Sea, and it is still the case today.

The invitation^xix for the conference in Biysk highlighted the following areas, which among others dealt with the problems surrounding the “Humanization of Education”: philosophy and cultural studies; theory and history of education and career training; educational and developmental psychology; innovations in character development. Even prior to this conference, Berulava had already informed the Russian public and especially the regional and local media about his project and through this pointed to the potential of future cooperation with the University of Magdeburg and its 1994 international conference.^xx This also the prepared the ground for generous support for the local institutions in the regional societal environment of Biysk—which was one of M.N. Berulava’s secrets for success when organizing such projects. To this day, he has adhered to this principle in his diverse functions and working fields.^xxi Another principle was and remains the active and skilled inclusion of foreign cooperating partners into the practical implementation of conferences, i.e., through being responsible and collaborating in program committees, as members in plenaries or moderators of discussion rounds as well as of managing the editing of conference proceedings, etc. Preparation for the conference also included prolific information materials as well as the publication of presentation abstracts in a brochure ahead of the conference.^xxii

During this conference resolutions by the participants from 16 countries were discussed and received final approval. In order to characterize the partially very pessimistic mood and the volatile political positions and perspectives in the first half of the 1990s, which was shortly after the grave political and social upheaval, I am referring to some longer passages from the document issued in Russian, English and German.^xxiii Evident here is a departure from an overly narrow orientation towards individuality and from a disregard of the social aspects of personality. Obviously the positions of some German (e.g., R.W. Keck) and other Western discussants had already taken hold since, in my observation, in the first few years after the fall of the Soviet Union the discussion in Russia was not free of individualistic idealizations—supposedly as a departure from traditional collectivist education. One document, for example, states: A “crisis of humanism in all areas of culture and society currently imprisons all industrial nations. (…) Humanism’s great tradition is almost powerless in the face of the omnipotence of technological development right up to ecological catastrophes. Modern technology dehumanizes human relationships and debases them to mere technical functions (…). If nothing else, the state of a demoralized society is also foreseeable by looking at Russia’s current intellectual condition. Mass culture leans towards the most primitive instincts of humankind and spreads the disposition for violence and egotism. (…) This is a fact: A good education and learning that align themselves with the ideals of humanism is an important guarantee against society’s advancing dehumanization. If nothing else, it is the humanities of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy which can bring human values to the forefront in order to keep alive the ideal of a democratic society, because this is to a large degree dependent on the development of character, the blossoming of its intellectual autonomy. For the realm of education the word ‘humanization’ means an orientation of education not only towards social responsibility but also personal freedom. The unfolding and preservation of human dignity rests upon this dialectical unity. The pathos of such a humanizing education finds its justification in an outlook for the future characterized by a community spirit and communal action.”

This paper emphasizes that the conference participants concur with this and agree

• that the establishment of an international academy for the humanization of education, a humanistic education reform and the interdisciplinary collaboration of educators, philosophers, sociologists, and psychologists from the attending countries is an urgent need at this time;

• that the journal of the academy (Гуманизация Образования / Humanisierung der Bildung / Humanization of Education) would represent the respective scientific approaches to personality development;

• to make the political and economic powers aware of the problem of humanization of education;

• in order to realize these intentions and the connected dissemination of the idea of humanization of education a congress of the academy should take place every two years.^xxiv

With the 1995 conference a true international union of representatives from humanities, social science and education disciplines was created, which considers the humanization of education as a historically grounded, timely and future-oriented task.

This didn’t mean that subsequently there weren’t differing positions between (for example) Russian and German members of the Academy on certain aspects connected with the term “humanization of education”. The “dialectic unity” mentioned in the above declaration or the relative emphasis on individuality and the social nature of personality was still interpreted in different ways a few years later (and this is still the case today), and this is also apparent, for example, with some publications on the Russian side.^xxv

    6. Foreign-Language and Subject-Specific Terminological Challenges

An international association of this kind always also has foreign-language and terminological challenges.^xxvi Who hasn’t experienced conferences where the presentations could more or less only be noted acoustically due to lack of proficiencies in the respective conference languages (mostly English of course), or due to subject-specific terminological translation problems. Often there are historical, cultural and other developments, experiences and perceptions in the respective countries that lead to terminological communication problems. On the one hand, this can be a long-term problem of such associations, but on the other hand, it can also be a source of new content-based challenges, questions and explication attempts for all concerned. IAHE’s work has been and continues to be affected by these problems. Not only with the specific work on the Academy’s publication mediums but also generally when it comes to cooperation and communication, which for IAHE happens in at least three languages (Russian, English, German), it is important to do justice to the terminological requirements, characteristics and advantages of the respective languages. At the same time it is important to consider international standards and for the translations to remain comprehensible with respect to intention and content. However linguistic comprehension does not per se create cultural understanding. Successful linguistically and culturally adequate communication is the prerequisite for true cooperation in theory and practice, a cooperation that doesn’t just exist on paper. Multilingualism, or at least bilingualism, can be an important contribution to such communication. We know that multilingualism up to now is rather an asset of those smaller groups of people whose language is not a world language at the same time. On the other hand we know that, with some exceptions, peoples whose mother tongue is a world language, or rather the current world language (English), are understandably not particularly motivated to learn other (or at least one of the most important) languages.

Of course it would be helpful for better mutual understanding, but also for specific scientific terminological communication, if one could have authentic access to one’s dialogue partner’s socialization agencies, media and factors through the partner’s home language. The founder of Russian pedagogy, Konstantin D. Ushinsky (1824-1870), had pointed to the fact that “religion, nature, family life, traditions, poetry, laws, industry, literature—everything that constitutes the historical life of a people, is the true school”, and that in comparison to this power the power of educational institutions would be completely meaningless, especially since it was built on artificiality and superficiality.^xxvii For him, authentic foreign-language communication was not the “idle talk around the dinner table” but the understanding of the spirit, the soul of these peoples and the literature created by them.^xxviii However realistically one cannot expect any overall change in this situation, and therefore it will still be necessary to translate German, for example, but also other and especially Russian scholarly publications into the current No.1 world language. This is also necessary, for example, to be able to follow and more deeply understand the interesting scientific-theoretical and practical transformation of learning, education and socialization in Russia.

Even IAHE scholars in their dialogues with international cooperating partners often use scientific terms shaped by a specific national connotation. Of course there is also the rare case where terms have already become accepted in the international scientific language, meaning a common interpretation is possible in all participating countries. Oftentimes national idiosyncrasies also become apparent which - at first glance - make the discourse more difficult but at second glance can also enrich the respective term and its connected theoretical and practical insights. In this context there are also apparently unavoidable assimilative processes which are currently often adjustments to English. However, the unique, specific version, the inalienable value of the other languages should not be left behind. All this becomes relevant in a case when the concerned international cooperation is no longer just written on paper but when instead concrete joint projects in research and teaching are undertaken. The Academy seems to be permanently in this kind of cooperation phase. It helps to have dictionaries that in terms of juxtaposition place the content of important notions and elements of the cooperation side by side; this then makes it clear that these are both similar as well as different or even independent of each other. There are examples of such scholarly tools. I will just mention here the German-Russian book entitled “Schul- und Hochschulmanagement: 100 aktuelle Begriffe“ («Менеджмент средней и вышей школы: 100 новых понятий»), published by IAHE stakeholders.^xxix It would be ideal for our cooperation if we had something similar for our Russian-English-German discourse. In this context the “Handbook of Educational Terms & Applications” could also be a good example to consider.^xxx The substantial project that is going into the work on several volumes of the Russian-German Dictionary “Russisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch (RDW)” by Magdeburg and other linguists is also notable.^xxxi

These problems already became apparent during the 1995 conference but even more so through the editorial work with the two IAHE publications, the journal and the yearbook, the latter published since 1998 (both are released under the same main title of „Humanization of Education”, which occasionally is irritating).^xxxii All up-to-present published articles in both periodicals are included into a bibliography by my colleague Dr. Janusch Daum and will soon be available on the home page of the IAHE. In this way, one can at least discern from the titles the focus of further discussion within the IAHE and the wider scientific community. While the journal is still handled by an editorial collective surrounding M.N. Berulava and G.A. Berulava and published in Russia (Moscow and Sochi), the yearbooks 1998 to 2002/3 have been redirected and published by my colleagues Dr. W. Mayrhofer (Universität Magdeburg), Prof. Dr. R.W. Keck (Universität Hildesheim) and myself and published with Peter Lang Publishers. Since 2005/6 the yearbook has been published by H.-U. Grunder and R.W. Keck with Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.^xxxiii

As early as 1995 in Biysk, an attentive observer could get the impressions that the organizer of this large international conference, M.N. Berulava, was not really challenged enough as the Prorector of the pedagogical institute and that a larger and more independent sphere of activity were more in line with his capabilities. Also existing were some controversies around higher-education politics with regards to the university administration at the time. Berulava expressed all this eloquently in an article in the journal “Gumanizaciya Obrazovaniya”^xxxiv that was rather unusual for such a scientific journal, accusing the political environment of the leadership. However one can judge this, it was a reckoning with certain views and actions (which were no longer appropriate for the times in Berulava’s view), and it was the closing act of his work in Biysk.

Berulava moved to the sunny Sochi on the Black Sea. I will refrain here from pointing out the diverse differences—not just in climate—between these two Russian cities. Anyone who is familiar with Sochi knows that this place doesn’t need any tourist advertising. And the educational institutions in Sochi are also an attraction for national and international guests, especially those established by the Berulava group. An example of this was the conference on the theme of “Development of creative capacities on condition of the humanization of education”, organized by Galina^xxxv and Michail Berulava in November 1996 in cooperation with federal Russian educational institutions, and which I participated in together with R. W. Keck und Walter Eisermann.

Participation in this conference along with other travel by members of the Academy to the various conference sites became increasingly dependent on available financial funding. It is well known that all roads led (and continue to lead) to Russian cities, such as Sochi, via Moscow. Once arrived there, in the 1990 for example, one had to either wait for a connecting flight for unbearably long hours or plan for an additional stay in a hotel in Moscow. This time V.P. Borisenkov had made his apartment in Moscow available to us for an overnight stay prior to our next flight to Sochi.

    7. Establishment of a Patrons’ Association and Other Structural Changes

Invariably, the travel necessary for any international association is always encumbered by financial and material constraints, and so in the year of 1997 the work of the Academy was shaped by more intense discussions of financial questions. Besides the always-present issue of costs for conferences and other activities, there was the question of how to raise funds for the printing costs for the publication of an IAHE yearbook, which was in planning by now. Not only because of this matter but also in the interest of building more effective information structures within the respective national member groups and better international cooperation between them, patrons’ associations or branches of the Academy in the various countries would be established. The membership fees raised from these organizations as well as the acquisition of subsidies and donations by members and supporters would cover, at least partially, the financial costs for conferences, publications, etc.

I am not aware that anything similar has been accomplished in any one of the participating countries—except for Germany. R.W. Keck eventually accomplished the establishment of such a patrons’ organization through the decisive initiative. Supported by his respective experiences as well as in collaboration with colleagues from Hildesheim and Magdeburg he was able to cope with substantive legal, bureaucratic and technical demands of establishing such a council in an exemplary fashion. Even today similar initiatives in other countries could benefit from these experiences.

On January 24, 1997 the “Society for the Promotion of the International Academy for the Humanization of Education” (Förderkreis der Internationalen Akademie zur Humanisierung der Bildung) was established at the University of Hildesheim. An anticipated contribution by R.W. Keck, the elected chairperson of the executive of the Society, will highlight the dedicated work that occurred at that time on behalf of the IAHE. He was able to inform the members on November 12, 1997 that “we (can) finally breathe a bit easier. The obstacle of the permit of a non-profit organization and the registration in the register of associations is done. (…) In the meantime, an account has also been opened at the Regional Savings Bank Hildesheim.”^xxxvi With the establishment of this Society, which would also be open to foreign members, a necessary structural organization and reference point was created not only for the German members of the Academy but also for the Academy as a whole. I had been asked by the executive to take on the direction of the publication of the yearbook, therefore the establishment of this society was important structurally as well as because of the connected, at least partial, financial support of the publication medium of the Academy - in addition to the journal - published in Moscow and Sochi.

As mentioned, the executive had decided that the major editorial work with the yearbook „Humanization of Education” would be done in Magdeburg. Of course the contributions didn’t just come from members of the Academy. We planned a bibliographic overview of all significant contributions which will show the kind of effort that is required with respect to the scholarly review, editorial and organizational-technical work. Naturally we strived to keep the documentation of sources, conventions for citations, format of contributions, etc. as consistent as possible. Despite making printing and technical alignments, many submissions had to be sent back for revisions to the authors. Experienced colleagues know well what I am referring to with respect to dealing with scholarly contributions from sometimes very different countries. In this context, for example, there are significant differences in the usage of sources, citations, etc. between German and Russian papers. In addition, another challenge was our aspiration to publish the papers in authors’ preferred language (Russian, German or English) and to include a summary in the respective other languages. This and other problems had to be solved apart from the constant worries about the financing of the printing costs as well as on top of my main professional activity as a professor. No doubt the work on the yearbook was a very special burden but also an enriching experience. Through these editorial activities existing academic relationships were strengthened, new contacts were built up and discussions about further work of the Academy were stimulated. Quite a few of the papers published in the 1998 to 2002/3 yearbooks are relevant both in terms of topicality as well as perspective. Unfortunately we had not developed a necessary strategy for disseminating and promoting the yearbook.

I haven’t mentioned yet that during this time I was something akin to a “Factotum” for both the Society and the whole Academy. Although the euphemistic “managing director” appeared on the letterhead of the correspondence, the colloquial English term “gofer” was probably more appropriate. This role not only encompassed interesting content-based and foreign-language challenges but also the many small-steps, tiring bureaucratic activities, which made it more and more difficult to keep up with my other primary professorial responsibilities in teaching, research and academic self-government. The existing minutes of the members’ meetings of the Society from this time as well as the reports from conferences of the Academy do not reflect the extensive time commitment connected with this role.

Another important event was the international symposium on the theme of „Didactics in the Context of (Post-)modern Pedagogy and Conceptualization of the Humanization of Education. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of the Paradigm Change in East and West” in September 7-11, 1998 at Hildesheim University, and the subsequent general assembly of the Society for the Promotion of IAHE. This association was, in my recollection, almost entirely taken over by colleagues from Hildesheim. The proceedings of this symposium were published under the direction of R.W. Keck.^xxxvii

Prior to the call for the 2000 IAHE conference in Sochi M. Berulava had asked to be released from his role as president and suggested the election of a new president. Under the direction of R.W. Keck, the Society drafted a proposal for a new constitution of the Academy; this was discussed and put forward for voting in Sochi.^xxxviii R.W. Keck was elected the new president and M.N. Berulava the honorary president of IAHE during this conference.

    8. Communication Problems Within IAHE

I would like to mention some events surrounding and subsequent to the IAHE conference which took place in September 2002 at the Faculty of Education of the Free University of Bozen (venue: Brixen, Tyrolia). The conference was planned and implemented under the direction of Prof. Dr. Dr. Werner Wiater (University of Augsburg). The program dealt with the both then and now controversial theme “Schooling in foreign places—foreigners in schools. Heterogeneity, bilingualism—cultural identity and integration.”^xxxix In terms of the content, the Bozen conference, in my opinion, was one of the most stimulating conferences in the history of IAHE, and the excursions to the Dolomites that were organized alongside the conference were very pleasantly remembered by the participants.

Nevertheless, based on my observations, a certain ideological and institutional estrangement developed between the Russian and German main players in the Academy. The reasons for this tendency, which increased over the years, were the—from today’s vantage point—not only scientific-conceptual differences but also some organizational imbalances which, I think, resulted from the lack of consensus between the previous Magdeburg directorship of the Academy and the new one in Hildesheim. During the annual general assembly of the Academy, which took place as part of the conference, I had declared that I did not want to continue in the role of managing director because of the above-mentioned overload. Regrettably, I had also not become involved in preparations of the conference prior to it. The people in Hildesheim had to solve many organizational tasks within a short time. A small incident here may serve as an illustration of the special situation: new members were admitted. I remember, for example, the surprised faces of some seemingly 'new' Russian colleagues who were ceremoniously presented with the certificate—along with a small laudation. Among them was, for example, the rector of the University of Biysk, Prof. Dr. Konstantin Koltakov, who on the contrary had been admitted as one of the first members on the occasion of the Biysk conference, and therefore was a co-founder of the Academy and thus naturally already the proud owner of a certificate ('framed in gold' according to Russian tradition …). Some other circumstances outside the academic sphere were left undecided and contributed to dampening the willingness to come to agreement and finally to the actual separation between the German and Russian organizational structures of the IAHE in the course of the years up to approximately 2004. In addition, several representatives of other Russian institutions who had recently come on board did not develop adequate relationships with the Berulava group. From a certain point on there was only very sporadic mutual information about the respective academic activities.

In the years after 2002 there were constant scheduling overlaps between conferences planned by M.N. Berulava and those by the IAHE leadership otherwise. Foreign members and others interested in the Academy who wanted to attend both the Berulava meetings as well as the Academy events, were unable to do so because of these scheduling overlaps. So there was the annual international conference in Sochi in September as well as the conference of the IAHE which—albeit only every two years—happened at the exact same time as the Sochi conference. The organizational problem was rather minor and could be easily fixed, but it was neither recognized as such by the Academy nor in Sochi, and due to lack of sufficient conversation or rather no functional conversation at all the interest on either one side quickly disappeared.

The situation became worse when in the context of an IAHE conference that took place in Nowgorod, Russia, the suspicion arose that the Berulava-conference which was happening at the same time was planned and implemented by M.N. Berulava and me as a competing event to harm the IAHE.^xl Soon after that, however, a member of the executive apologized to me for this faux pas on behalf of the IAHE.^xli Incidentally, the contributions of this 2004 conference were published in a collected volume in 2006.^xlii

Admittedly, the mentioned and other organizational events within IAHE as well as the at this time growing disinterest of the colleagues in Sochi in the continuation of the correspondence with the IAHE executive finally led to a prolonged silence between the two sides. Then there were the extremely laborious complicated Russian visa requirements, which did not exactly enhance the joy of travel. In the meantime, the educational institutions^xliii that M.N. Berulava had founded in Sochi and Moscow had become established and developed in such a solid fashion that they required the full concentration of the local players; consequently collaboration with IAHE could no longer be considered.

Between 2004 and 2011 I also worked as a visiting professor at the University of Lethbridge in Canada as well as mentored various Canadian-German exchange projects.^xliv My special connections in Canada were established by Dr. Kas Mazurek, Professor of Comparative Education, and Dr. Margret Winzer, Professor of Rehabilitation Education. I had already met Kas Mazurek in Biysk in 1995 and Maggie Winzer in 1996 at a conference in Krakow, Poland. My work between 2004 and 2011 was filled with diverse international activities, e.g., as a member of the “Russian Academy of Education” in Moscow and its conferences, as a member of the “International Slavic Academy of Education” in Tiraspol (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic; Transnistria), etc.

Nevertheless, together with R.W. Keck and the subsequent president of the IAHE, Prof. Dr. Olga Jaumann-Graumann, I tried to not completely lose contact with the colleagues in Sochi. In 2009 the IAHE conference took place in Hildesheim; its proceedings were published in 2010,^xlv and in September of the same year the conference organized by M.N. Berulava took place in Sochi. On this occasion I met Prof. Dr. Arthur Ellis of the Seattle Pacific University (USA); he invited me to give presentations at his institution and he also came to Magdeburg University for working visits and presentations. Since then we meet regularly in Sochi for the annual conferences, and we work on joint projects in the area of historical-comparative education. He is also continuing the collaboration with my successor at Magdeburg University, Prof. Dr. Solvejg Jobst.^xlvi

    9. Future Prospects

Whenever the invitations to the IAHE conferences come up in discussions, invariably US-American and Canadian as well as other international colleagues complain in unison that the IAHE conferences and the ones in Sochi are held at the same time. We asked ourselves if this needs to remain an unsolvable problem for both sides (IAHE and Sochi). I spoke about it with the president of IAHE, O. Graumann, as well as with R.W. Keck. Like me, they were both of the opinion that these discrepancies could be overcome; a mere adjustment of the conference schedules could be effective in easing the tension of the situation. Since the annual conferences in Sochi had been scheduled for the second week of September for many years across Russia, we suggested that the IAHE conferences, which occur every two years, should take place during the third week of September, in any case after the Sochi-conference. Unfortunately this could not yet be accomplished for 2012 since the planning for IAHE was already underway.^xlvii However there is real hope that this will be possible for 2014.

The independence of both sides can undoubtedly no longer be questioned. However, the possibility of restoring reasonable relations should be taken advantage of, in a responsible manner and without prejudice, in the sense of the actual original goals and in the interest of the effective use of the existing scientific and material resources on both sides.

_______________________________________________________

    Endnotes: