Российская социологическая традиция в международном научном дискурсе: особенности, проблемы и перспективы
Is there anything in the professional heritage of Russian sociology, what may be considered a certain “competitive advantage”, important resource for the Russian sociological community in its dialogue with foreign colleagues? Addressing this problem, we elaborate a comprehension of Russian sociology as a continuing and integrative tradition of social thought development, unified by a set of underlying common features: (1) publicism; (2) moral and ethical concern; (3) issue orientation. Contemporary Russian sociologists often tend to see these characteristics as obstacles to integration process in international arenas with their more rigorous methodological standards and more independent academic sphere. However, analysis of sources demonstrates that attempts to make sociology an as “hard” science as possible, become increasingly questionable. The outlined three features are particularly important, in author’s view, for seeing opportunities for Russian scholars to make valuable constructive contribution to global sociology in its response to the issues discussed.
The paper introduces an analysis of the academic publications as a key indicator of the sociologist’s professional culture. The results of the empirical study that includes a comparative survey of 1829 research articles from top Russian and international sociological journals are presented. Based on quantitative indicators, the empirical evidence of the Russian sociological culture’s considerable lagging behind compared to international standards, was demonstrated. The most obvious gaps are observed in such areas as the structure of research articles; their theoretical and methodological background; diversity and transparency of research methods; sampling; and using of advanced methods of statistical data analysis. It is emphasized that Russian sociologists drop out from modern international trends for non-survey methods of data collection, and the language of Russian sociology is highly «normative» and ideologically-biased. The author concludes that the crisis in Russian sociology is mainly an endogenous process that can be described in terms of a «vicious circle of lack of professionalism».
In the articles, reviews and abstracts submitted to your attantion under analysis are issues of social theory, empirical sociological studies, history of sociology. The contributions discuss the actual tendencies and perspectives of sociological science in Russia and abroad.
The revelation that the U.S. Department of Defense had hired anthropologists for its Human Terrain System project—assisting its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—caused an uproar that has obscured the participation of sociologists in similar Pentagon-funded projects. As the contributors to Sociology and Empire show, such affiliations are not new. Sociologists have been active as advisers, theorists, and analysts of Western imperialism for more than a century.
The collection has a threefold agenda: to trace an intellectual history of sociology as it pertains to empire; to offer empirical studies based around colonies and empires, both past and present; and to provide a theoretical basis for future sociological analyses that may take empire more fully into account. In the 1940s, the British Colonial Office began employing sociologists in its African colonies. In Nazi Germany, sociologists played a leading role in organizing the occupation of Eastern Europe. In the United States, sociology contributed to modernization theory, which served as an informal blueprint for the postwar American empire. This comprehensive anthology critiques sociology's disciplinary engagement with colonialism in varied settings while also highlighting the lasting contributions that sociologists have made to the theory and history of imperialism.
The chapter traces the history of evolution of Russian liberal thought in the span of the 19th century and explores how Russian liberals conceptualized the phenomenon of imperial diversity and related to the context of empire in thinking about potentialities of progressive Russian politics. The author explores the history of importation of blueprints of liberal universalism in Russian liberal thought and the development of the paradigm of national liberalism in reposnse to the challenges of the modern empire. The author argues that the idiom of national liberalism was not the only one. A different paradigm was in existence that may be called imperial liberalism. The chapter finds out how this alternative paradigm helped Russian liberals assume a significant place in public politics in the late imperial period, when the odds of mass politics were against classical liberalism. The chapter introduces the author’s finding of the transnational genealogy of Petr Struve’s program of “Greater Russia.”
In 2015-2016 the Department of Communication, Media and Design of the National Research University “Higher School of Economics” in collaboration with non-profit organization ROCIT conducted research aimed to construct the Index of Digital Literacy in Russian Regions. This research was the priority and remain unmatched for the momentIn 2015-2016 the Department of Communication, Media and Design of the National Research University “Higher School of Economics” in collaboration with non-profit organization ROCIT conducted research aimed to construct the Index of Digital Literacy in Russian Regions. This research was the priority and remain unmatched for the moment
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.
This article is talking about state management and cultural policy, their nature and content in term of the new tendency - development of postindustrial society. It mentioned here, that at the moment cultural policy is the base of regional political activity and that regions can get strong competitive advantage if they are able to implement cultural policy successfully. All these trends can produce elements of new economic development.