Институт истории естествознания и техники им. С.И. Вавилова РАН, Москва, РоссияКЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА:
МОТИВАЦИЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТИ УЧЕНОГО, ПРЕДМЕТНО-ДИСЦИПЛИНАРНАЯ МОБИЛЬНОСТЬ УЧЕНОГО,ПРОФЕССИОНАЛЬНАЯ МОБИЛЬНОСТЬ, ИСТОРИЯ НАУКИ, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, SCIENTIST’S MOTIVATION, SUBJECT AND DISCIPLINARY MOBILITY OF THE SCIENTIST, PROFESSIONAL MOBILITY,HISTORY OF SCIENCE, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCEАННОТАЦИЯ
В статье ставится проблема изучения мотивации ученых, работающих в области естествознания, к историко-научной деятельности. Предложен новый методологический подход к рассмотрению материала биографий ученых, связывающий мотивацию с их профессиональной мобильностью. Для этой цели выделена референтная группа, включающая в себя выдающихся ученых XIX-XX вв.: химиков (Г. Коппа, М. Бертло, Н.А. Меншуткина, В. Оствальда, П. Вальдена) и биологов (Ж. Кювье, А. Декандоля, М. Фостера, Н.А. Холодковского, И.И. Пузанова), которые были известны и как историки науки. Особый интерес представляют следующие фрагменты их биографий: возраст появления у ученого увлечения историей науки и продолжительность этого увлечения, мобильность в основной профессиональной области исследования, склонность к литературно-издательской деятельности и спектр направлений историко-научных исследований. Рассматриваются примеры расширения исследовательского поля ученых в направлении истории науки и исследуются процессы карьерных траекторий в естественных и гуманитарных науках. Упор делается на изучении и анализе когнитивно-институциональных и социально-психологических факторов, которые способствовали появлению историко-научного интереса у естествоиспытателей.
S. I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences
The paper raises the problem of studying the naturalists’ motivation for pursuing the history of science and proposes a novel methodological approach to the analysis of the materials from the scientists’ biographies that link their motivation to their professional mobility. To this end, a reference group was selected to include the outstanding scientists of the 19th and 20th century: chemists (Hermann Franz Moritz Kopp, Marcellin Berthelot, N.A. Menshutkin, Wilhelm Ostwald, and Paul Walden) and biologists (Georges Cuvier, Alphonse de Candolle, Michael Foster, N.A. Kholodkovskii, and I.I. Puzanov) who had been also known as historians of science. The following fragments of their biographies were of particular interest: the age when a scientist developed an interest in the history of science and how long he pursued this interest; the mobility in the scientist’s core professional area; the scientist’s propensity for literary and publishing work, and the range of relevant research areas in the history of science. The paper provides examples of broadening of the scientists’ research areas to encompass the history of science and analyses career trajectory processes in the humanities and natural sciences.The emphasis is placed on the analysis of the cognitive institutialization and sociopsychological fac- tors that promoted the emergence of interest in the history of science in the naturalists.3-Родный
Санкт-Петербургский филиал Национального исследовательского университета — Высшей школы экономики
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУЧНОГО ЗНАНИЯ, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ СОЦИАЛЬНЫХ СЕТЕЙ, НАУКА В РОССИИ, ДИССЕРТАЦИИ, BIG DATA В СОЦИОЛОГИИ, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, SOCIAL NETWORKS ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC NETWORKS, SCIENCE IN RUSSIA, DISSERTATION GENEALOGIES, BIG DATA IN SOCIOLOGY
В статье структура и динамика междисциплинарных связей анализируются на основании данных о 20093 докторских диссертациях, защищенных в России с 2006 по 2016 годы. Мы рассматриваем отношения профилей степеней руководителей/оппонентов и кандидатов как характеризующие относительный статус дисциплин в качестве носителя экспертного знания. Случаи кросс-дисциплинарного руководства (экспертное знание дисциплины А импортируется дисциплиной Б) рассматривается как свидетельство признания пересечения их юрисдикций над некоей развивающейся областью исследований. При этом асимметричность этих отношений (А выступают экспертами в дисциплине Б, но Б не бывают экспертами в А) является свидетельством иерархии. Эмпирические данные демонстрируют дивергенцию между организацией междисциплинарных связей в естественных и социальных науках. В естественных науках мы наблюдаем сравнительно плотные и симметричные связи. В социальных науках есть ядро «старых» дисциплин (в первую очередь, философия), которые обладают более значимым статусом по сравнению с «младшими», причем сами «старшие» дисциплины практически изолированы друг от друга. Показывается, что существующие различия углубляются — естественные науки становятся более открытыми, в то время как социальные (и «старшие», и «младшие») движутся к большей автаркии. В заключительной части статьи рассматриваются причины этой динамики: демографические (смена поколений и замещение поколений со степенями «старших» дисциплин), экологические (предполагаемая экспансия высшего образования в социальных науках) и институциональные (большая потребность нестрогих наук в легитимности).
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
This paper looks into relations between disciplines in Russian science using information on advisors and official opponents of 20 093 higher level doctoral (doktor nauk) dissertations defended in Russia between 2006 and 2016 (estimated 71,3 % of the total). We interpret the data on profiles of degrees of a candidate and advisors/opponents as signals on boundaries of jurisdictions (Abbott) of respective disciplines. Two disciplines importing each other’s expertise are thus signaling of recognition of each other’s jurisdiction over an area of work; if import of expertise is asymmetric (A imports expertise from B, but В does not import from A) this can be regarded as a signal of hierarchical relations between them with В playing role of the “elder” discipline. The data demonstrate divergence between natural and social sciences in their patterns of inter-disciplinary relations. Natural sciences are a relatively tightly-knit group with most disciplines open to external expertise; there are no visible hierarchy between them. On the opposite, social sciences consist of two layers — elder disciplines, such as philosophy, law, history and psychology — and minor disciplines officially recognized only in postsoviet times (sociology, political science, cultural studies). The latter import expertise from some of the former, particularly philosophy, mostly because the leading figures in these fields still has degrees from the elder disciplines. The elder sciences themselves are a set of isolates not exchanging expertise between each other. Cross-temporal data demonstrate that further divergence occurs with natural sciences becoming more open to wider intellectual environment while social sciences, both elder and minor, becoming increasingly isolated. We discuss possible causes of that: demographic (generation changes), ecological (expansion of social-scientific education in post-soviet time and greater demand for teachers in respective disciplines leading to recruitment of less research-oriented personnel) and institutional (greater dependence of social sciences on legitimacy of their sources of expertise).
Институт истории естествознания и техники им. С.И. Вавилова РАН
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: СОВЕТСКАЯ НАУКА, ГОСУДАРСТВЕННАЯ НАУЧНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА, НАУКОВЕДЕНИЕ, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, НАУЧНЫЕ КАДРЫ, ФИЗИКО-МАТЕМАТИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ, SOVIET SCIENCE, GOVERNMENT SCIENCE POLICY, SCIENCE OF SCIENCE, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL, PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES
В послевоенный период 1950-1960-х годов ввиду целенаправленной государственной научной политики комплекс естественных наук, прежде всего физика и математика, получил небывалое в истории СССР развитие. Однако начавшееся ослабление государственной политики на рубеже 1960-1970-х годов привело к существенному ухудшению кадровой ситуации в науке двух последующих десятилетий (1970-1980-е). Она характеризовалось резким спадом в темпах прироста численности и подготовки научных кадров физико-математического профиля, что негативно сказалось на развитии советской физики в последние два десятилетия существования СССР. Этот вывод основан преимущественно на результатах науковедческих исследований в 1970-1980-х годах, проведенных сотрудниками Ленинградской школы социологии науки под руководством профессора С.А. Кугеля.
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
In the postwar period 1950-1960’s. because of deliberate government science policy, a complex of natural sciences, especially physics and mathematics, received unprecedented in the history of Soviet development. However, the weakening of the state policy the turn of 1960/1970’s resulted in a significant deterioration of the staffing situation in the science of two decades (1970-1980 nd). It was characterized by a sharp drop in the rate of growth of the scientific training and physical and mathematical structure, which has a negative impact on the development of Soviet science in the last two decades of the Soviet Union. This conclusion is based mainly on the results of research in scientific 1970-1980’s conducted by the staff of the Leningrad school of sociology of science, led by Professor S.A. Kugel.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, НАУЧНЫЕ ЖУРНАЛЫ, КОММЕРЦИАЛИЗАЦИЯ, ОТКРЫТЫЙ ДОСТУП, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, ACADEMIC PUBLISHING, COMMERCIALIZATION, OPEN ACCESS
Статья представляет собой обзор основных структурных изменений, происходящих в сфере научных коммуникаций. Описаны тенденции, которые заставляют предполагать наличие кризиса в существующей журнальной системе (особое внимание уделено проблеме ее коммерциализации). Рассматриваются способы, при помощи которых современное научное сообщество пытается справиться с недостатками сложившейся системы. В основе этих способов лежит использование новых цифровых технологий и сотрудничество различных институциональных форм.
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
Higher School of Economics, Moscow
Lhis article is devoted to study of key structural changes taking place in scholarly communication. The author describes some tendencies which could be regarded as evidences of the crisis in the existing system of academic publishing. The special attention is paid to the problem of commercialization of this system. Scientific community tries to overcome the emerging abuses using such remedies as new digital technologies and cooperation of libraries and different research organizations. Brief analysis of these initiatives is included.
НИУ Высшая школа экономики, Москва, Россия
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: НАУКА, ПОВЕДЕНИЕ УЧЕНЫХ, ЭТОС НАУКИ, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, СОЦИАЛЬНАЯ ЭПИСТЕМОЛОГИЯ, ИНТЕРПРЕТАЦИЯ
Социологическая концепция «этоса науки» Р. Мертона рассматривается с точки зрения ее социально- эпистемологического содержания. Как «социальная эпистемология», эта концепция служит одним из источников мифа о «большой науке», сыгравшего заметную роль в философии науки ХХ века. Критика этой концепции может рассматриваться как спор различных эпистемологических интерпретаций социологических данных о науке и действиях ученых в исследовательских ситуациях.
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
National Research University — Higher School of Economics, Moscow
In the last century, the relationship between sociology of knowledge and philosophy could have become the plot thread for a narrative about mutual concord and discord. This love story persists in the current century, and the child grown up by that love is social epistemology, which gives rise to a relevant question: how is the latter possible? Or rather, how is this philosophical discipline possible? Sometimes the response to this question is “negative”: they say that it is a “sub-discipline in the sociology of knowledge that presumes that traditional epistemological problems should be solved by sociological methods and means”. What can be opposed to this “negation”? A difficult path would be chosen by those who regard social epistemology as a “post-non-classical theory of cognition”. What is social epistemology needed for? Perhaps its mission is to solve in practice the contradictions that defy a theoretical solution: what is required is not to rack one’s brain over universal epistemological problems, but rather to work on particular case studies and to recount the findings in more precise and clear terms. Social epistemology serves as sort of a bridge between philosophy and specific scientific studies of inquiry; its goal is to attach philosophical meaning to the latter, and to land philosophical reasoning from the heaven of abstraction onto the soil of facts and empirical studies. Difficult questions arise. Firstly, is it clear who might need this bridge? Will there be volunteers among scholars to cross it in the direction of philosophy? Secondly, the bridge is swaying, and both its supports are unstable. One of them is insecure because philosophy is fundamentally pluralistic, the other because particular epistemological disciplines cannot off er any “pure facts” and “empirical generalizations” that are exempt from epistemological interpretations. If the bridge is really needed I would call it the Bridge of Interpretations. It looks like no paper written by philosophers since the 1950s, as far as the ethos of science is concerned, has managed to do without references to R. Merton’s works. They involved basic guidelines for scientists to follow in their activities, as well as the idea that these guidelines make up a set of conditions under which science functions and advances in the “right” way. It is believed that the conclusion about the universal character of the ethos of science and values in science that make its existence possible was made by Merton on the basis of historical and sociological analyses of scientific institutions. If this is true, it is a conclusion made by an epistemological sociologist, and its philosophical meaning can be found through the appropriate interpretations. Some philosophers have liked this concept, others have criticized it, but all of them have tried to find in Merton’s observations and conclusions things that corroborate with their own ideas on science and scientists’ ethics. This interpretation is possible in relation to all norms in Merton’s scientific ethos. But do these norms allow another interpretation? Is it possible that Merton’s theory of the ethos of science could emerge in the form of a different socio-epistemological theory? The Bridge of Interpretations sees a complicated interaction between interpreting and interpreted statements. The philosophical perspective on evidence from sociologists is changeable; if not the data then their selection. A question follows: are the disciplinary norms inferred from sociological studies or are they the outcomes of a certain philosophical interpretation of the latter? The normative ethos of science as presented by Merton was a result of a certain concept of “ideal science.” This served as a “sieve” to identify facts with sociological meaning and then to take into consideration other facts that correspond basically to the chosen concept. Then it should be acknowledged that this concept serves as a scheme to interpret sociological facts, and subsequently the theory of an ethos in science must be assigned to social epistemology. So it follows that criticism from the side of alternative interpretations of scientific development (T. Kuhn, S. Toulmin, J. Agassi, P. Feyerabend and so on) is an argument between philosophical theories rather than attempts to find empirical proofs or refutations. All this is a competition between philosophical interpretations of the development of science. When pursuing a comparison, the argument takes place on an oscillating Bridge which is swinging more intensively due to efforts of the contentious participants. Merton himself, in order to support his interpretive scheme, declared the facts to be proofs of a beahavioral “pathology”, revealing that the real conduct of scientists differs greatly from the “normative” ideal. Later on, Merton’s interpretive scheme came under reproofs: its descriptions and explanations of scientific reality were allegedly wrong. This criticism is sometimes presented as “further development in Mertonian sociology of science” and sometimes as a split with it. These criticisms are obviously directed against Merton’s method of sociological studies, and not against their philosophical interpretation. This criticism of Mertonian theory can be considered typical. Nevertheless, behind this criticism one can discern a confrontation of various epistemologies. When the tension of disagreements dropped, the time of ironical criticism of any normative perceptions of science came. What is the worth of this normative approach if it is so easy to substitute anti-norms for norms that show a frustrating symmetry between positive and negative modalities of scientists’ behavior? During the general functional crisis in science the behavioral norms of scientists in this country persist in a more or less stable condition of survival. They even support the hopes that Russian science will overcome its comatose state. It is quite possible that in this crisis scientists’ disinterestedness will become a principle of the scientific ethos that passes us collectively through a decisive test. After that it would not be so easy to make ironic remarks on the state of science. I will say in conclusion the following and would like to not be misunderstood. Considering the Mertonian sociology of knowledge as one approach in social epistemology, I do not detract from the scientific value of these studies, and I do not disparage the kind of science to which they belong. Quite the contrary: it is because these studies assimilate scientific methodology and data along with philosophical interpretation that they have produced a certain cultural awareness which accompanies the entire history of Mertonian sociology of science. It makes R. Merton’s contribution to science and philosophy, and further on to the present-day culture, so distinguished.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: РОБЕРТ К. МЕРТОН, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, ЭТОС НАУКИ, АКТУАЛИЗМ
Рассматривается развитие американской социологии науки, связанной, прежде всего, с именем Р. К. Мертона. Анализируется эволюция его теоретических взглядов: в работах конца 1930-х годов Мертон остается еще способным учеником Сорокина и Парсонса, ограничивая меру своей теоретической самостоятельности «внешней социологией» науки. В работах 1960-х и начала 1970-х годов Мертон эзотеричен, занят научной деятельностью как таковой, придерживаясь рамок сформулированного им в 1961 году для собственного употребления поведенческого постулата, восходящего к Бэкону.
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
During his forty years of active participation in shaping sociology of science as a separate scientific discipline, Merton walked a long and not always straight road. In his late 1930s works he still remained an able follower of Sorokin and Parsons. In the 1960s to 1970s, Merton studied scientific activity as such. His general shift of interest from the historical problem of science as an institution to the problem of functioning forms of scientific activity was accompanied by what are called ‘actualist’ tendencies. Actualism is understood as – common for all experimental sciences — a proceduralcognitive-postulate complex based on the united principles of observation and verification. An explanation of a phenomena observed, if it is to be considered scientific, must be limited to or by the observation of causes. Within actualism, it is impossible to express knowledge of phenomena or objects the essential feature of which are marks of singularity, uniqueness, or space and time. The growing actualist trends point to constant efforts to reconstruct the subject matter of sociology of science in order to find in it invariant universal units and structures that belong to the disciplines so-called “eternity”. The book “Sociology of Science,” with Merton’s 22 papers, enables us to thoroughly follow Merton’s transformation. The mid-1950s saw growing disagreements with Sorokin and later with Parsons. Merton more and more often tried to find in F. Bacon basic analogies, subject-methodological postulates, and ideas of what sociology of science should be as a scientific discipline. The Bacon of 1961 in Merton hardly resembled his 1938 Bacon. If earlier on he was a scholar dreaming of the almighty scientific method, later on he became a distinguished sociologist who managed to say everything about sociology of science. The 1961 Bacon formulated four basic requirements for scientific disciplines and for the disciplinary form of cognition in general: a) incremental accumulation of knowledge; b) continuous social interaction between scientists; c) methodological use of research procedures; d) all social and scientific innovations are “conditioned by time”. It is clear that it is not about the theory formulated by Bacon himself, but about Merton’s “guesswork”. Bacon is readily taken out of the 1615 context by Merton, which is why he is such an amenable staff in Merton’s hands. Merton got the idea that scientific disciplines progress unevenly, and that disciplines, with physics at their head as the “most developed”, built a hierarchical structure in a certain distinctive scientific time. Scientific work according to the rules of natural sciences (observability, experimental verification, incremental accumulation, puzzle solving, prohibition of repeating the results) suggests a quite certain “natural” structure of a discipline, as well as a certain cognitive position of a scientist. Merton’s shuttle movements, his constant journeys from modernity to the XVII century and from the XVII century to modernity are not so innocuous. In the 1960s Merton paid much attention to the issues of pathological science (multiple discoveries, priority quarrels, the paradoxes of recognition and reward system) and the attendant problem of the ambivalence of scientists’ motivation. These subsequently replaced the historical component that was seen in Merton’s early works. Sociology of science — as shaped by Merton — saw substitution of the historical with the extra-historical, static or “eternal”. Confined to ambivalence — motivation, contributions, judgments, recognition, scientific careers — the subject matter of sociology of science acquires a typical “dissociated” structure with its highest unit — a scientist’s career. Other components of the subject matter in sociology of science subsequently lose their substance, for example, scientists’ training (reproduction of scientific agents) and institutions for utilizing scientific knowledge (transfer of knowledge to places and dates of application). In seeking disciplinary perfection, the Mertonian “1960s paradigm” ignores the practical use of scientific findings. The “1960s paradigm” brings the biggest distortions into the structure of scientific activity, its research and academic aspects. Merton assigns four roles to scientists: researcher, teacher, administrator, gatekeeper. The roles are presented as relatively independent forms of activity. The role of a teacher — treated as an “honorary retreat” for scientists who have left research – sustains the biggest damage. The reason for this dissociation of the scientist’s role may be again found in the “1960s paradigm” that concentrates researchers’ attention on the scientific career and its main defining factor, which means accumulating personal contributions (though it ignores the fact that contributions are of different types). Merton’s “1960s paradigm”, though a very significant effort, does not constitute the entire sociology of science (be it even only American), but rather a specific and in a certain sense (actualism) dead-end research approach in the sociology of science. The “1960s paradigm” finds its clearest conceptual contradiction in the notions of citation-rewarding that were suggested for the first time by Price, as well as in Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions. Merton considered Kuhn’s scientific revolutions to be on the periphery of the subject matter of sociology of science. The “1960s paradigm” cannot be deemed complete or in any sense final for all sociologists of science. It left outside of its analysis quite essential ties and indicators of disciplinary efforts. Neglecting them can hardly allow a scholar to off er a causal description of the phenomena that are materialized in Merton’s paradigm. The general actualist sense of the “1960s paradigm” and its orientation to extra-temporal universals does not allow researchers who use this paradigm to go beyond description of the facts from scientific work. Instead, it calls into question the possibility of applying such knowledge to solving practical problems.
Учреждение Российской академии наук Института философии РАН, Москва, Россия
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: РОБЕРТ МЕРТОН, НАУКА, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, НАУЧНАЯ ДЕЯТЕЛЬНОСТЬ, ЭТОС НАУКИ, НОРМЫ, АНТИНОРМЫ
АННОТАЦИЯ: Статья является предпубликацией из новой книги. Презентируются идеи классической социологии науки, которые неразрывно связаны с творчеством выдающегося социолога XX столетия Роберта Мертона (1910-2003). Оценивается вклад Р. Мертона и его ближайших коллег в теоретическую культуру прошлого столетия, в научное и практическое понимание социального смысла науки.
ОПИСАНИЕ НА АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ:
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
This text is an advance publication related to the book “Russian philosophy in the 1950s–1980s and Western thought”. One of its parts concerns the fact that western sociology of science was assimilated in Russia by philosophers, some of whom later on began to work professionally in the sociology of science. The other scholars were those who remained in philosophy, writing papers on the philosophy of science, science studies, theory of knowledge and history of philosophy at the same time. These authors tried also to understand the practical side of sociology of science and knowledge. I belong to the second group of scholars. As early as the 1970s, I was familiar with some of R. Merton’s works that were available in our country. It was a big event for me to meet Robert Merton and Harriet Zuckerman at the 1972 congress of sociology in Bulgaria1 . Soon, Merton, on learning about my scientific pursuits, sent me his main publications on sociology of science with his good words written on them for me. I keep them as a treasure. I used them in my book “Science and scientists in conditions of modern capitalism” (1976) («Наука и ученые в условиях современного капитализма» (М. : Наука, 1976), which includes references for more than 300 sources. It has a section on Merton’s sociology of science. In the XXI century, again I have returned to summing up my experience in sociology of science and the results of the discipline’s development that has lasted for many years. I was also motivated to do this by the attempts of some scholars at the end of the XX century to get rid of the main concepts of sociology of science. The latter, of course, were associated with R. Merton and his followers. This is why the question stands high on the agenda of where Merton and his disciples were a success and where they failed. In the light of these research tasks I think it necessary to look carefully, given the XXI century perspectives and requirements, at the results of the scientific path paved by Merton and his followers. The present paper is devoted to this general goal.
Sociology of science as a distinctive sociological discipline came to model a classically developed, paradigmatic, comprehensive, well founded, self-critical, and constantly growing discipline, rather conceptual at the beginning, and later on involving the entire masses of concrete research. 1. Analyses have suggested the historical causes of Merton’s early works on the sociology of science and knowledge. Of particular importance were the responses given by democratic sociologists in protest against the National Socialism coming to power in Germany, the rise of fascism in other European countries, the racist ideology and suppression of science, and the persecution of scientists. 2. The social and historical conditions were used to explain why and how R. Merton started to explore scientific norms. A detailed analysis of scientific norms was conducted that did not agree with the opinions that Merton had worked out with regard to them being “too ideal,” and subsequently disconnected from real science. Actually, the situation, both historical and theoretical, was largely different. First, as early as the 1930–1940s, sociology of science made its first and quite successful steps. The concept of scientific norms was roughly formulated in the first works of the 1940s. Second, difficulties, contradictions and deficiencies in Merton’s original theory were best seen by the author himself and his close followers. So the most successful corrections to the concept of scientific norms were contributed by Merton and his group. Third, it would be wrong to say that the early Merton suggested only ideal, pure, bright scientific norms, and only later, under the influence of criticism from outside, did he pay attention to real scientific norms. As a matter of fact, his statements include: a) an ideal aspect that is normative and imperative; a1 ) an objective-orientated, argumentative aspect: what should be done and what a scientist does by all means because he or she achieves objective knowledge; b) warning statements that suggest what should not be done in science and why, and also what happens in real scientific environments and how scientists’ behave can be seldom observed in the ideal form. 3. What is important: when Merton identified, in a “pure form”, prescriptions, i.e. aspects of research activity “as they should be”, he presumed that the institution of science interiorizes norms in scientists due to their inherent need to fulfill the main function of science — acquiring verifiable, corroborative, that is, “genuine” knowledge. He was absolutely right in this and did it in a Kantian manner. Like Kant, Merton shaped scientific norms as a sum of requirements for what is necessary, as things should be (both for science and society). He demonstrated that an implementation of norms in real, everyday scientific practice must involve specific, pluralistic and contradictory features. And this was the second move, after the normative one, toward a system of research steps that related to general studies of scientific norms. These steps were also made by Merton and his school in the 1950s–1970s. 4. I consider the high theoretical level that is also a feature of Merton’s concrete and empirical research to be a proof and illustration of the “classical”, paradigmatic nature. 5. The following was demonstrated in the course of analysing terminological and other corrections and additions to the theory of norms that were done within Merton’s school: additions were not useless; though terminological corrections and system additions (CUDOS+) did not actually settle down in the end. 6. I suppose that claims to substitute Mertonian theory of scientific norms with the concept of anti-norms (R. Boguslav, I. Mitroff , S. Fuller) failed. The arguments are the following: a) complete dependence on a negative anti-concept of Mertonian theory (each anti-norm is just an antipode to a Meronian norm); b) the negative side of the real behavior of scientists had never been unknown to Mertonian teaching; Merton and his followers studied it thoroughly; c) should Mertonian norms be substituted with anti-norms it would be hardly possible to understand how, using them, scholars and their communities could produce objective scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, anti-norm theory has its important meaning — as a warning. 7. Assuming that research conducted by R. Merton and his school helped to work out “classical paradigms” in sociology of science, two questions arise. First, is it worth working on non-classical or post-classical paradigms in such a discipline? Has anybody observed such systematic studies as Merton’s recently? The answer to the first question in the Conclusion to the paper is positive, the second answer is negative. The author suggests some ideas about what theoretical approaches would be reasonable to choose in order to search for non-classical paradigms of sociology of science.
Центр социолого-науковедческих исследований СПб ИИЕТ им. С.И. Вавилова РАН
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: НАУКОВЕДЕНИЕ, SCIENCE STUDIES, СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ, SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, ИСТОРИЯ СОЦИОЛОГИИ НАУКИ, HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, НАУКОВЕД-ЧЕСКОЕ СООБЩЕСТВО, COMMUNITY OF SCIENCE STUDIES, RUSSIAN SOCIOLOGY
Статья является первой попыткой историко-научной реконструкции становления и развития социологии науки в Ленинграде — Санкт-Петербурге. Ретроспектива истории социологии науки в нашем городе позволяет рассмотреть основные вопросы социолого-науковедческого знания, тем самым, пополняя одно из направлений отечественной социологии. В статье представлены результаты исследований, накопленные санкт-петербургским — ленинградским социолого-науковедческим сообществом за более чем пятидесятилетнюю историю, дается анализ научной, педагогической и организационной деятельности ведущих отечественных социологов науки.
St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology named after Sergey I. Vavilov, Russian Academy of Sciences
The article offers the first attempt of a historical-scientific reconstruction of the origins and development of sociology of science in Leningrad-St. Petersburg. This retrospective shows that the history of sociology of science in the city allows consideration of basic questions in sociology of science and science studies that represent one of the major dimensions of Russian sociology. In the article the findings which have been collected in Leningrad-St. Petersburg sociology of science and science studies communities for more than fifty years are presented, and an analysis of the scientific, educational and organizational activities of the leading Russian sociologists of science are given.