The Role of the Family in Shaping Self-Concept and Cognitive Styles in Hungary

The project studied the perception of parenting styles and their relation to self-development, cognitive styles, and individualisation in adolescence. Typical parenting styles of mothers and fathers were studied in five different maternal and paternal parenting backgrounds: warm authoritarian, warm democratic, cold neglectful, cold authoritarian, and neutral. Perception of different styles of parenting (for fathers: authority, 'maintaining distance' behaviour, reciprocity, enhancing self-reliance; for mothers: authority, unpredictable behaviour, mutual trust, achievement orientation, and enhancing self-reliance) were analysed in each group using the newly developed Hungarian Parenting Questionnaire (Sallay & Munnich, 1999). This questionnaire has a theoretical basis in the ideas of Harvey (1966, 1967), where the socialisation process is combined with self-development. This categorisation of paternal and maternal parenting backgrounds enabled Sallay to explore and describe in detail how diverse parenting styles contribute to self-development, the development of cognitive complexity, and individualisation. The results show that diverse parenting by mothers and fathers produces differing impacts in nuclear and divorced families and for males and females, taking into consideration such self-components as physical, active, psychological (capabilities, personality, emotions, roles, preferences), social and reflective selves. Cognitive self-complexity varied according to parenting styles and genders: maternal and paternal parenting proved to have the most significant impact on self-complexity in a warm, democratic family. With respect to individualistic tendencies, adolescent boys were most individualistic in a cold, neglectful paternal background in nuclear families as compared to other paternal and maternal family backgrounds and to females.

Modes of Diversification in Bulgarian Higher Education: Case Studies in four Disciplines

This project was stimulated by the unprecedented speed and scope of changes in Bulgarian higher education since 1989. The rapid growth of the student population and the emergence of a new private sector in higher education led to tightening governmental control and a growing criticism of autonomy and academic freedom. This raised questions about the need for diversification in the field, about the importance of recent innovations in terms of strategic choices for future development and so of how higher education governance could maintain diversity without the system deteriorating. The group first traced the extent of spontaneous processes of innovation at the level of content, of institutions, and the organisation of teaching and learning processes. They then identified the different parties in the struggle for institutionalisation and against diversification, and promising mechanisms for maintaining diversity in higher education. On this basis they outlined a basis for a wide-ranging public discussion of the issue which may serve as a corrective to the mechanisms of state control. Their work included analysis of the legislative framework laid down in the Higher Education Act, which effectively dispenses with the autonomy of universities. They then surveyed the views of both high-level executives in the field and the academics actually involved in the process, as well as of the "consumers" of the educational product, i.e. the students. In considering diversification, they focused on four different types of programmes, including those where diversification is largely limited to content level (e.g. Law), those where it operates mainly on structural levels (e.g. Industrial Management), those where it is often feigned (e.g. Social Work), and those where it is at best formal and sporadic (e.g. Mechanical Engineering). They conclude that the educational system in Bulgaria has considerable internal resources for development. The greatest need is for adequate statutory regulation of academic life which will provide incentives for responsible academic development of higher education institutions and create conditions for the institutionalisation of academic self-organisation and self-control, which will in turn limit the pathological trends in the diversification processes.