О профессиональной культуре российского социолога
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».
The article is devoted to the analysis of the notions “social institute” and “creativity” in relations to the journalism activities. The authors make a conclusion that the mechanism of development of the social institute “journalism” is connected with the individual creative works of professionals.
The part is about professional culture.
The authors examine the training of masters in accordance with the standards of the third generation as one of the possible directions of development of innovative capacity of Russian universities. To meet the expectations associated with the creation and implementation of new courses , the need for interdisciplinary integration within the project teams , bringing together carriers specialized competencies. Focus articles - experience and results of a project team involved in the development of educational and methodological support of the course " Research Methods in Management" .
This article discusses perspectives for the formation of a truly ‘global sociology’, implying active, open, mutually beneficial and equal interaction between sociologists from different locations, countries and cultures, in their joint efforts to comprehend, explain and improve the social world. The study is based on the conceptual scheme proposed by Burawoy, highlighting four different disciplinary practices: ‘professional sociology’, ‘policy sociology’, ‘critical sociology’ and ‘public sociology’. The formation of a ‘global sociology’ demands harmonious development and mutual enrichment between all the four ‘sociologies’, however, each of them has its own path in the global arena. The literature analysis demonstrates serious limitations in the global progression of ‘professional sociology’, while ‘policy sociology’ and ‘critical sociology’ also experience major difficulties. ‘Public sociology’, largely inspired by Burawoy, seems to be especially promising globally due to its key advantages: orientation towards non-academic audiences and a focus on the most acute social problems. However, currently this disciplinary practice has several fundamental constraints: marginality, radicalism, ideological bias and inherent conflict-orientation towards other ‘sociologies’. Drawing on John Meyer’s theory of ‘Scientized Environment Supporting Actorhood’, the article proposes the project of the new ‘Global Solidarity Sociology’, which utilizes the advantages of Michael Burawoy’s project while overcoming its principal limitations.
The paper analyses the negative tendencies in the development of the Russian sociology. Authors show that the significant problem is the weak relation between theory and empirical studies in the current research. They also demonstrate the turn away from the rationalistic explanation of social phenomena. The bibliometric analysis of the 1829 articles in the leading Russian and foreign journals is presented. The comparison demonstrated the differences between Russian and foreign papers in such aspects as the structure of the scientific publications, the description of the methodology of empirical research, the level of statistical analysis.
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.