Countries versus Disciplines: Comparative Analysis of Post-Soviet Transformations in Academic Publications from Belarus, Russia and Ukraine
The objective of this paper is to outline and compare frameworks for studying post-Soviet transformations developed by social scientists from various disciplines in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The objective is realized by means of quantitative content analysis of scholarly articles’ abstracts in ninety-four journals in eight (inter)disciplinary fields that covers the period of 2001-2015. This paper seeks to answer the question whether differences in the studies of the post-Soviet transformations are defined by country discourse or by the field of study. The research results suggest that there is a two-level mechanism, by which the societal context affects academia, in this case, social sciences and humanities. While general directions of scholarly attention are determined by societal differences, representations of post-Soviet transformations are framed through specific disciplinary lenses that combine both international and post-Soviet features.
The article examines the status system of the local academic community of St. Petersburg sociologists. The list of most cited authors was obtained from citation analysis of selected Russian sociological journals. The results suggest that the status system is divided in isolated segments with few citation exchanges between different segments. Each part of the sociological community produces its own list of influentials. With a few exceptions there are no authors central for the whole community. Even the embeddedness of various segments in the same local space does not stimulate circulation of attention between different parts of the community.
The article discusses recent development of the theoretical research programs within sociology of science. We analyze the similarities and differences between sociology of science, science of sciences and scientometrics. Social studies of science (STS) during 1970–1980th are shown as an alternative to the interdisciplinary project of science of science.х годов представлены как альтернатива междисциплинарному проекту науковедения.
This paper explores factors responsible for strength of various forms of academic ties between countries. It begins with examining several theoretical models of international academic collaboration: “the republic of letters”, “academic (neo)colonialism”, “the classical world-system”, and “the world-society”. Propositions about factors affecting intensity of ties between countries and configuration of their overall network are then derived from each of the models. These propositions are then tested against empirical data on two kinds of academic ties: volumes of international student flows between pairs of countries (UNESCO statistics) and number of co-authored papers (Web of Science database). Negative binomial regression is used to estimate influence of various independent variables (funding of science, distance, historical experience of dependency) about the significance of which the models make different predictions. We discover that expectations associated with “the classical world-system” fit the data best, with “academic neo-colonialist” factors also important in the case of international student flows. To account for possible differences between disciplines and to capture the directions of evolution of the system, we then explore changes in international collaboration network in two fields: geoscience and economics during a 30-year interval (1980-2010).
This paper examines the history of the institutionalization of the new Sociology of Science (STS) both as a Research Program within Sociology of Science and as an intellectual Social Movement. The analysis of the interaction between Social and Rational contexts been made from Internalism vs Externalism points of view. By the intersection of the outer and inner stories in case of Sociology of Science 1970-80th we indicate the reconfiguration of young scholars everyday beliefs about Science and institution of Society in institutional contexts of their methodological developments what made contemporary STS a “Playful” Theory .
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.