Designing Research Programs in the Field of Teacher Education in the Global Context

The urgency of the problems of designing and implementing research programs in modern education is determined by global transformations of the sociocultural and educational spheres around the world, caused by many reasons, but made visible as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. In this situation, education cannot mechanically reproduce existing models and practices of both full-time and distance learning, but should be rethought regarding changing conditions and contexts. The aim of the article is to formulate a categorical and methodological apparatus for analyzing the entire set of humanitarian practices, in statics and dynamics, with the aim of reflectively creating and developing educational systems. The leading method of analysis and reconstruction is the “field approach”, based on the ideas and concepts of psychology (K. Levin), sociology (P. Bourdieu) and psychoanalysis (J. Lacan) and providing a comprehensive description and problematization of the main aspects of educational reality: the value, the instrumental, the resource, and the human ones. It is noted that the approach allows one to overcome the one-sidedness and radicalism of various divisions and principles: a systemic or personal priority; the preference of quantitative or qualitative methods, subjectivity or objectivity concepts. The empirical basis of the study was made up of resources and tools for analyzing publication activity on the Dimensions (www.dimensions.ai ) and SciVal (https://www.scival.com/) platforms. The results presented in the article allow solving two interrelated problems: to modernize the scientific activity management system by level of individual universities focused on global competitiveness, and identify key areas of research in the field of education, relevant both from the point of view of the Russian educational situation and from the point of view of global trends.


Introduction
Problematization in the field of designing scientific research in the field of education has a well-defined political context. So, speaking at a meeting of the Presidium of the State Council and the Council on Science and Education dedicated to higher education, Russian President Vladimir Putin drew attention to the fact that only 12% of graduate students defend their dissertation. Accordingly, it is necessary that "an applicant for a scientific degree conducts research in the interests of a particular university and a scientific and educational center in the region ... we must definitely achieve such a connection between science, education and real life, real production" (Latukhina, 2020).
At the same time, the still existing priorities of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education are related to internationalization of Russian science; increased indicators of publication activity in international knowledge bases (Scopus, Web of Science), as a result of which publication in a journal from the Scopus list is estimated 38 times higher than a similar publication in a journal from the list of Higher Attestation Committee or publication of a monograph in Russian (Kuzmin, 2020).
In this case, the most common attributes of pedagogical traditionalism are: the relationship of pedagogical tradition with the inheritance of national, religious, cultural and state values; the unity and integrity of all the pedagogical process and its subordination to the ideal of man; the predominant role of the teacher in education and the need for his special training, involving the development of spiritual qualities and properties.
Meanwhile, in recent years, a number of problems have been actualized that cannot be solved by a unilateral ideological choice of one of the value systems, but require a significant change in the very way of interpreting value differences. They are: 1) promoting existing scientific schools and traditions, while incorporating them into global processes and increasing their ability to respond to today's challenges; Alexandre G.Bermous/ Proceedings IFTE-2020 221 2) the conceptualization of multiple gaps in relation to declared priorities and everyday practices; the formation of resources for practical, research and management activities in these conditions; 3) determination of strategic priorities and effective mechanisms for their implementation in innovation.
We must also take into account a number of circumstances characteristic of the methodological foundations of humanitarian knowledge, among which: 1. Anthropological turn in the humanities (Poselyagin, 2012;Konev, 2014): we are talking about the return of the Socratic ideal of questioning knowledge, commensurate with man and his way of being.
2. Understanding digitalization as an ambivalent context, containing opportunities for solving pressing social, economic and educational problems, and the no less risks of dehumanizing human life (Yudina, 2017;Ustyuzhanina & Evsyukov, 2018).
3. The heterogeneity of the time measures of educational processes as an essential attribute that defines the field of substantial inconsistencies (Pavlova, 2017;Ostapenko, 2016). 4. Non-linearity of educational processes and systems, suggesting synergistic self-organization; irreversibility of time; variability and crisis nature of development (Zborovskij et al., 2016;Akulova, 2005).
The most appropriate framework for solving these problems seems to us to be a field approach, against which we have already considered problems and strategies for standardizing teacher education (Bermous, 2019). In the previous study, the following arguments were in favor of the field approach: the need to combine traditional "knowledge" (so-called, ZUN-paradigm) and competency-based interpretations; an increase in the number and complication of standardization (including the emergence of educational and professional standards; the need to combine the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standard for secondary and higher education); the transformation of educational institutions into educational clusters, etc.

Purpose of the study
The main purpose of our study is to develop a methodology for designing research activities in education in a global context, based on three mutually complementary approaches: paradigmatic, field and structuralanalytical ones. 222 Alexandre G. Bermous/ Proceedings IFTE-2020 Methodology As it has been already noted, the methodology of the research is determined by three interrelated and complementary intellectual strategies: the program-field approach in the tradition of Kuhn (1977) and Lakatos (1995), field representations of Bourdieu (2005;2001), as well as the structural psychoanalysis of Lacan (1988).
In particular, we are talking about the following concepts and interpretative schemes.
The concept of a "scientific paradigm" (Kuhn, 1977) and a "research program" (Lakatos, 1995) allows to classify the forms and strategies of scientific activity, identifying the following elements and relationships: • Understanding the paradigm as a dialectical unity of a certain community of scientists, researchers and practitioners, the basic concepts used, generally accepted research methods and methods for interpreting the results; • The heterogeneity of any system of scientific representations, including a relatively stable core (basic concepts, generally accepted methods and interpretations) and a more dynamic periphery, represented by many studies, including those that cast doubt on the fundamental foundations; • The competitiveness and politicization of any knowledge system that is derived from the prevailing methods of reasoning and communication in the scientific community.
The concepts of the space and field of education (Bourdieu, 2005;Bourdieu, 2001;Vakan, 2007;Ivanova, 2012) allow us to interpret the relationship of mutual dependence and opposition of elements as a producing "ensembles", "devices", ensuring the reproduction of the necessary types of symbolic capital. The field approach allows us to overcome the dichotomy of objectivism and subjectivity, which considers social reality either independently of individual qualities and properties of a person, or, on the contrary, absolutizing and mystifying his free will. The field approach makes it possible to distinguish "habitus" (stable models, habits, to some extent, having an objective character) and contingencyindividual features and strategies built in an attempt to overcome "automatisms".
The analysis of internal contradictions, limitations and barriers associated with research activities, as well as the assessment of the influence of the cultural context on the morphology and meanings of research procedures, can be effectively carried out using structural-analytical interpretations originating from Jacques Lacan (cited in Naumova, 2015). Using this set of interpretations allows you to evaluate: Alexandre G.Bermous/ Proceedings IFTE-2020 223 • The relationship between the Real (research or practical), the Imaginative (a set of interpretations) and the Symbolic (language used, system of power and procedures for legitimizing knowledge).
These three instances are dynamically related to each other, which sets a very non-trivial landscape of any human (including research) activity; • The combination of scientific research, practice and management as a result of the inconsistency of symbolic structures and differences of the imaginary; • A typology of interactions, realized in a certain plot. The analysis of scientific practice should include systematic analytics of discourses and texts representing both emotional and intellectual experiences of the subject.
The experimental base of the study includes resources of international knowledge bases and search engines in the field of social sciences and education sciences, including: Scopus, SciVal and Dimensions.

Results
Our results are represented by three interconnected components.
First, we turned to Dimensions.ai analytics in section 13. Education.
We used the statistics of Citations (that is, publications of the last decades were ranked by the aggregate rating -the number of citations) and publications whose aggregate rating (number of citations) exceeded 1000 were selected. Then, according to the keywords of publications, clustering of publications was carried out with the aim of forming semantic clusters of popular publications.
As a result, we formed clusters of significant topics and keywords, as well as the most cited articles in each of the areas: 1. Qualitative research methods and methodologies (research on the history and methodology of the humanities; human biographies and experience; monographic texts, communications, cases in cognition, research and training, discursive analysis; forecasting methodology, etc.). The most popular publications in this cluster are: Long et al. (1993), Brown et al. (1989), Welch & Patton (1992), Kuhn & Sternfeld (1970).

2.
Methodologies for quantitative data analysis (metrics, assessing the reliability and predictive power of measurements, evaluating the effectiveness of education, the significance of factors and conditions, the use of various types of questions and their relevance; scientometric research). In this cluster, the most popular publications (Black & Wiliam, 1998;Norman, 2010).

3.
Studies of trends and reforms in the field of education (including the relationship between cognition and training, education, learning, teaching, translation; the use of the scientific method in teaching; the impact of managerial theories and concepts on practice, active and interactive teaching methods, PBL -project and problem-oriented training). Most popular article is that one: Shulman (1987).

4.
Informatics and IT in education (including new data models, their processing and use in education, visualization and virtual reality). Most popular article is by Miller et al. (1990).

5.
Cognitive psychology, the psychology of education and individualization problems (including the psychology of reading, writing; types of behavior and thinking; barriers of perception and thinking, bilingualism; racial, national and cultural differences in education; personality in education: motivation, attitudes, emotional response, self-efficacy and self-regulation). The most popular articles are: Stanovich (1986), Kollmuss & Agyeman (2002), Bandura (1993).

6.
Professional training of a teacher (including standards, models and practice of training teachers; correlation of psychological, pedagogical and subject components; examination and assessment of the quality of training, criteria and signs of pedagogical professionalism, means and methods of increasing productivity and effectiveness). The most popular articles are by Ramsden (2002), Michael et al. (2001).
To obtain the following result, we used the SciVal search engine, which allows extracting a set of parameters: to form clusters of the most frequently used keywords in publications; evaluate both the absolute values of publications with these words and the dynamics of publication activity; identify promising international collaborations.
To obtain the final results, we clustered the data of the primary search of keywords in several areas of research, then we identified the most significant positions of consumers and partners in the process, for whom knowledge in this field may be relevant; and compared the results to typical problems and possible solutions (results). Thus, we managed to form a matrix of studies in the national educational sciences:  of Lacan (1998) as well as Pechenina (2007), Petrov (2009), Naumova (2015. We are talking about the presence in the space of any study of four intertwined, but structurally different discourses.
1. The discourse of the Real. The researcher turns to the world in an attempt to determine the "real state of affairs", to isolate the "actual problems" necessary for their resolution of "methodological foundations." The task is to determine the reality within which you can work; language to speak; scientific traditions that you can rely on. This discourse fills the world with "others" -predecessors, founders, representatives of competing scientific schools, students and colleagues, objects of study and interaction.

2.
The Discourse of the Imaginary. From the vast sphere of the real, the realm is cut out, that is, directly related to the possibilities and attitudes of the "I", which defines not only the field of my activity, but also indirectly defines me. The purpose, objectives, hypothesis of the study are designed to objectify the image of the desired reality, including both external (objective) and internal (emotional-value) aspects.
Moreover, the goal of any research is the product of a compromise between desire and opportunity, personal and social.

3.
The research process. The global reality of research is the practice of transforming figures, texts, and relationships. It is in it that some hidden content (trends, patterns, new models, promising areas) can come to the surface; on the contrary, some "obvious" realities may appear in unexpected light and turn out to be problems. Thus, research practices, in and of themselves, are a grandiose machine for converting meanings in various semantic contexts.

4.
The discourse of the Symbolic. The result of any study needs to be consolidated through a set of final interpretations: the reliability and validity of the measurements taken; the validity of the provisions to be defended, scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance, etc. There is a projection of the internal content of the process outside and its formalization as a "contribution" to scientific knowledge.

Discussion
Already in the process of writing the article, a message came about the decree adopted by the Government of the Russian Federation No. 907-r dated April 6, 2020, on the transfer of 33 federal pedagogical universities from the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education to the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
We will not discuss the numerous administrative, financial, managerial and other aspects of this step, but we will pay attention only to the fact that precisely the indicators of the quality of research activity were among the main motives for classifying pedagogical universities as the "third category", and, ultimately, became trigger decision. It is also obvious that the way out of the crisis will be associated with: • the development of modern design mechanisms and examination of the quality of research in the field of education; • testing of new models of organization of scientific and educational activities at the regional and federal levels; • design of information systems that provide for the collection and processing of data on educational systems and processes; • the development of an advanced model of research activity (primarily post-graduate), which ensures high productivity of research practices.

Conclusion
Based on the totality of these conditions, it can be concluded that it is the solution of the problems of scientific and educational policy that will be the key to the development of the teacher education in Russia.
The pandemic made visible the fundamental shifts in education: changes in the relationship between traditional and innovative components of educational activity; globalization of the educational environment; transformation of subjective positions. In these conditions, research in the field of education ceases to be an elite addition to educational policy and practice, but becomes a tool and condition for selfdetermination, the most important method of training, and also -the basis for many activities.
In the framework of the declared "field" approach to the analysis of the emerging educational situation and its development trends, priority areas and research infrastructures were identified. In addition, it should be noted that at a qualitative level, it becomes clear the need to develop a research development strategy focused on three qualitatively different scientific product markets: regional, federal (national) and global.
The priorities of the first level will be the development of tools for interaction with regional employers, scientific and methodological support of the system of additional education, modernization of management systems at the regional level. At the federal level, the priority will be the creation of infrastructure, the maintenance of the value unity of the educational system, the creation of a resource for pursuing an active educational policy. Finally, at the global level, analytics of global processes and self-determination in them, increasing the attractiveness and effectiveness of education, creating tools for long-term planning and international communication and cooperation in education is a priority.