The Study of the Perception by Kazakhstani Universities of Tools for Supporting Research Activities

Globally, universities play a key role in developing and commercializing new technologies through research and development (R&D) support. However, Kazakhstan faces several challenges, including financial constraints, outdated scientific infrastructure, and weak links between universities and industry. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the key factors affecting R&D support in Kazakhstan and to identify the main financial, infrastructural, and institutional challenges that hinder the efficient use of R&D resources. The study used bibliometric data analysis using VOSviewer and qualitative interview analysis using Atlas.ti software. Primary data were collected through interviews with experts from various higher education institutions in Kazakhstan. The analysis focused on aspects such as R&D financing, the state of scientific infrastructure, interaction with business, and barriers for young scientists. The results of the study show that financial constraints have a significant impact on infrastructure upgrades and project deadlines. Business integration correlates positively with R&D commercialization (r = 0.848) but remains weak due to structural barriers. Budgetary inflexibility hinders efforts to modernize infrastructure and digitize processes, while insufficient support for young scientists increases the problem of staff retention. Expert assessments demonstrate a negative perception of infrastructure accessibility (-0.421) and predictability of funding among most academic positions. Future research should focus on developing adaptive financing models and studying the international interaction experience between universities and industry to strengthen the innovation ecosystem of Kazakhstan.

1. Ali, N., Shoaib, M., & Abdullah, F. (2023). Information literacy and research support services in academic libraries: A bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. Journal of Information Science, 49(6), 1593–1606. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211068169

2. Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. SAGE Publications Cabrer-Borras, B., & Serrano-Domingo, G. (2007). Innovation and R&D spillover effects in Spanish regions: A spatial approach. Research Policy, 36(9), 1357-1371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.04.012

3. Cai, Y., & Liu, C. (2015). The roles of universities in fostering knowledge-intensive clusters in Chinese regional innovation systems. Science and Public Policy, 42(1), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu018

4. Di Carlo, F., Modugno, G., Agasisti, T., & Catalano, G. (2019). Changing the accounting system to foster universities’ financial sustainability: First evidence from Italy. Sustainability (Switzerland, 11(21), Article 6121. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216151

5. Dnishev, F.M., Alzhanova, F.G., & Satpayeva, Z.T. (2022). Territorial Distribution of Kazakhstan’s Knowledge-Intensive Sectors of the Economy: Opportunities and Prospects. Economy: strategy and practice, 17(2),52-65. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2022-2-52-65

6. Doshmanova, S., Bolatova, B., Kunurkulzhayeva, G., Sultanmuratova, N., & Ospanova, A. (2024). Impact of Scientific Activity and Innovation on Economic Competitiveness: An Analysis of Kazakhstan. Eurasian Journal of Economic and Business Studies, 68(1), 44-57. https://doi.org/10.47703/ejebs.v68i1.355

7. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

8. Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11024-009-9118-2

9. Hreben, S., Mihus, I., Parashchenko, L., Laptiev, S., & Alkema, V. (2019). The mechanism of financial control over the allocation of budgetary funds depending on the results of scientific activity of a higher education institution. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(31), 466–476.

10. Knowles, R., Mateen, B. A., & Yehudi, Y. (2021). We need to talk about the lack of investment in digital research infrastructure. Nature Computational Science, 1(3), 169–171. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-021-00048-5

11. Laird, F. N. (2020). Sticky policies, dysfunctional systems: Path dependency and the problems of government funding for science in the United States. Minerva, 58(4), 513–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-02009409-2

12. Lewis, J. (2000). Funding social science research in academia. Social Policy & Administration, 34(4), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9515.00197

13. Lewins, A.M., & Silver, C. (2007). Using Software in Qualitative Research: A Step-by-Step Guide. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857025012

14. Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46, 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977

15. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities? Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities. Scientometrics, 102, 1057–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1458-5

16. Muscio, A. (2013). University‐industry linkages: What are the determinants of distance in collaborations? Papers in Regional Science, 92(4), 715–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1435-5957.2012.00442.X

17. Orynbassarova, Y., Legostayeva, А., Omarova, А., Ospanov, G., & Grelo, M. F. (2017). Development of financial support of innovative activity in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Bulletin of the Karaganda university Economy series, 88(4), 224-230.

18. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International journal of management reviews, 9(4), 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x

19. Perkmann, A., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, I., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University-Industry Relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

20. Quapp, U., & Holschemacher, K. (2016). Burden or motivation: How new management at universities influences structural engineering education. In A. Zingoni (Ed.), Insights and innovations in structural engineering, mechanics, and computation (1st ed., p. 5).

21. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications.

22. Segooa, M. A., & Kalema, B. M. (2019). The big potential of big data towards universities’ outcome-based funding. In S. Chakrabarti & H. N. Saha (Eds.), 2019 IEEE 9th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) (pp. 574–578). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCWC.2019.8666542

23. Stukalova, A.A., & Guskov, A.E. (2016). Publications on the use of cloud technologies at libraries. Scientific and Technical Information Processing, 43, 47-57. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688216010093

24. Szarowská, I. (2018). Importance of R&D expenditure for economic growth in selected CEE countries. E & M Ekonomie a Management, 21(4), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2018-4-008

25. Tammi, T. (2009). The competitive funding of university research: The case of Finnish science universities. Higher Education, 57(6), 657–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9169-6

26. Teixeira, P., & Koryakina, T. (2013). Funding reforms and revenue diversification—Patterns, challenges, and rhetoric. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.573844

27. Wagner, C., Park, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816

28. Wang, J., Lee, Y.-N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy, 47(6), 1070–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.014

29. Weinryb, N., Blomgren, M., & Wedlin, L. (2018). Rationalizing science: A comparative study of public, industry, and nonprofit research funders. Minerva, 56(4), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9352-6

30. Whitley, R., & Gläser, J. (2014). The impact of institutional reforms on the nature of universities as organisations. Organizational Transformation and Scientific Change: The Impact of Institutional Restructuring on Universities and Intellectual Innovation (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 42), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, 19-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20140000042000

31. Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2018). The impact of changing funding and authority relationships on scientific innovations. Minerva, 56, 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-018-9343-7

32. Yu, Y., & Liu, X. J. (2017). Strengthening the management of scientific research funds and improving the efficiency of scientific research funds. In Y. Hou & W. Zheng (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 3rd International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering (ESSAEME 2017) (Vol. 119, pp. 2084–2087). Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research.