printStatus Positions and Scientific Capital in Russian Science
Noskova A.V.
Dr. Sci. (Sociol.), Prof., Department of Sociology of MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia a.noskova@inno.mgimo.ru
Goloukhova D.V.
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Assoc. Prof., Department of Sociology, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. d.v.goloukhova@inno.mgimo.ru
Kuzmina E.I.
Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Assist. Prof., Department of Sociology, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia. e.kuzmina@inno.mgimo.ru
The article was prepared in the framework of a research grant funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (grant ID: 075-15-2022-327).
Noskova A.V., Goloukhova D.V., Kuzmina E.I. Status Positions and Scientific Capital in Russian Science. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2024. No 2. P. 88-99
The paper addresses scientific capital distribution and describes status positions of scientists in the field of modern Russian science. Inequalities in science are associated with a variety of factors including gender, wealth, symbolic and moral authority etc. However, technological development has emphasized the significance of new inequality forms based on digital and networking skills. An important question is how these new inequality factors change the field of science. The theoretical and methodological framework of the paper is based on the ideas of R. Merton on the differentiated allocation of rewards, as well as the provisions of P. Bourdieu on dominance in the field of science and on the types of scientific capital. The authors present the result of an online survey of Russian scientists (N=551), the aim of which was to identify the gaps and contradictions within the field of Russian science. To differentiate between the status positions of scientists the authors constructed an integral index of scientific status, according to which all the scientists were divided into three categories with low, medium and high status positions. Empirical data show that there is a contradiction between the scientific dominance based on formal status, and the one based on the production of advanced scientific knowledge. Formal characteristics of the scientific status do not fully reflect subjective perception of the return on the accumulated scientific capital. It is suggested that the elimination of contradictions by means of science policies may contribute to the development of Russian science.
Batygin G.S. (2001) «The Matthew effect»: the accumulated advantage and the distribution of statuses in science. Bulletin of Applied Ethics. No. 18: 161–172. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (2001) Clinical sociology of the scientific field. In: Socioanalysis of Pierre Bourdieu. Almanac of the Russian-French Center for Sociology and Philosophy of the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Ed. by Shmatko N.A. Moscow: Institute of Experimental Sociology; St. Petersburg: Aletheia: 49–95. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (2005) Field of science. In: Social space: fields and practices. Ed. by N.A. Shmatko. Moscow: IES; St. Petersburg: Aletheia: 473–517. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (2018) Homo academicus. Moscow: In-tGaidara. (In Russ.)
Bultitude K. (2011) The Why and How of Science Communication. In: Science Communication. Ed. by Rosulek P. Pilsen: European Commission: 1–18.
Crane D. (1976) Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the «invisible college» hypothesis. In: Communication in modern science. Ed. by E.M. Mirsky and V.N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Progress: 183–218. (In Russ.)
Grimov O.A. (2022) Scientists in scientific social networks: communicative practices, professional connections and collaborations. Science studies [Naukovercheskieissledovaniya]. No. 1: 164–182. (In Russ.)
Luthans F., Youssef-Morgan C. M. (2017) Psychological Capital: An Evidence-Based Positive Approach. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. No. 4: 339–366.
Merton R. (1968) The Matthew Effect in Science. Science. Vol. 5. No. 159: 56–63.
Merton R. (1993) The Matthew effect in science, II: cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. THESIS. No. 3: 256–276. (In Russ.)
Merton R. (2006) Social theory and social structure. Moscow: AST. (In Russ.)
Nedelevskaya I.G. (2023) The paradox of the Matthew effect in science and its sociological solution. ZhurnalBelorusskogogosuniversiteta [Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology]. No. 1: 33–39. (In Russ.)
NoskovaA.V., Goloukhova D.V., Kuzmina E.I., Galitskaya D.V. (2022) Digital Competences of Teachers in the Higher Education Academic Development System: Experience of the Empirical Research. Vyssheeobrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia]. Vol. 31. No. 1: 159–168. (In Russ.)
Price D.J., Beaver D. (1976) Collaboration in an invisible college. In: Communication in modern science. Ed. by E.M. Mirsky, V.N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Progress: 335–350. (In Russ.)
Price D.J. (1976) Trends in the development of scientific communication – past, present, future. In: Communication in modern science. Ed. by E.M. Mirsky, V.N. Sadovsky. Moscow: Progress: 93–109. (In Russ.)\
Rossiter M.W. (1993) The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 23. No. 2: 325–341.
Volodarskaya E., Kiseleva V. (2011) Inequality of Scientists – New Feature of the Russian Science.Sociologiyanaukiitehnologii [Sociology of science and technology]. Vol. 2. No. 4: 52–60. (In Russ.)