Library
|
Your profile |
Politics and Society
Reference:
Kharkevich M.V.
To the question about the national specificity of scientific ethos
// Politics and Society.
2016. № 10.
P. 1413-1420.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=54635
Kharkevich M.V. To the question about the national specificity of scientific ethosAbstract: The subject of this research is the national specificity of scientific ethos in the conditions of transformation of the universal imperatives of scientific activity, which are affected by the shifts in socio-economic and cultural context of production of the scientific knowledge in the late XX – early XXI centuries. The specificity of scientific ethos is being examined on the example of the analysis of value foundation of professional activity of the experts of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research regarding the selection of grant application for the Fund. The experts of the Fund demonstrate the most representative selection of Russian scientific community in both aspects, geography and disciplines. The main method of this research consists in semi-structured interviews of the experts of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. The author carried out a series of 20 focused interviews with the experts of the Fund. They were offered to answer the questions pertaining to the four imperatives determined by R. Merton: universalism, collectivism, disinterestedness, and organizes skepticism. The goal of this work lies in determination of deviation of the institutional imperatives of activity of the experts of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in assessment of applications from the classic scientific ethos described by Merton. The author concludes that the specificity of the Russian scientific ethos is influenced by the structure of relations between the government and science, as well as struggle for the status among the scholars. It is noted that the national specificities of the scientific ethos in Russia impart institutional grounds, rather than cultural. Keywords: production of knowledge, Bourdieu, Merton, scientific policy, Russian Foundation for Basic Research, state, Russian science, scientific ethos, exchange of resourses, scientific capital
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. Balyshev A.V., Konnov V.I., Kharkevich M.V. Tsennostnye orientiry ekspertov RFFI: opyt kognitivnogo kartirovaniya // Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2014. №3. S. 94-106.
2. Mirskaya E.Z. R.K. Merton i etos klassicheskoy nauki // Filosofiya nauki. Vyp. 11: Etos nauki na rubezhe vekov. M.: IF RAN, 2005. S.11-27. URL: http://iph.ras.ru/page48033174.htm 3. Traweek S. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. 206 p. 4. Gordin M. Running in Circles. The Heidelberg Kruzhok and the Nationalization of Russian Chemistry // Global Science and National Sovereignty Studies in Historical Sociology of Science / ed. by G. Mallard, C. Paradeise, A. Peerbaye. Routledge, 2009. P. 40-62. 5. Pruzhinin B.I. Prikladnoe i fundamental'noe v etose sovremennoy nauki // Filosofiya nauki. Vyp. 11: Etos nauki na rubezhe vekov. M.: IF RAN, 2005. S.109-120. URL: http://iph.ras.ru/page53195782.htm 6. Merton R. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1973. 605 p. 7. Kiyashchinko L.P. Etos postneklassicheskoy nauki (k postanovke problemy) // Filosofiya nauki. Vyp. 11: Etos nauki na rubezhe vekov. M.: IF RAN, 2005. S. 29-53. URL: http://iph.ras.ru/page51702652.htm 8. Burd'e P. Pole nauki // Sociologie et Sociétés. 1975. 7(1). P. 91-118 URL: http://bourdieu.name/content/burde-pole-nauki 9. Pyatigorskiy A.M. i dr. Razmyshlyaya o politike / A.M. Pyatigorskiy, O.B. Alekseev. – M.: Novoe izdatel'stvo, 2008. 192 c. 10. Steinberger P. The Idea of the State / P. Steinberger. – Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004. 344 p. |