printScientists on the Challenges to the Regulatory Framework of the Russian Scientific Community
Zarubina N.N.
Dr. Sci. (Philos.), Prof., Department of Sociology, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia n-zarubina@yandex.ru
Zarubina N.N. Scientists on the Challenges to the Regulatory Framework of the Russian Scientific Community. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. 2025. No 2. P. 52-63
The article examines the problems of the regulatory framework for the professional activities of the scientific community as a component of its human potential, i. e. viability. Based on the analysis of transcripts of 20 in-depth interviews with scientists working in research institutes and universities, representatives of social and humanitarian sciences from different regions of Russia, a range of opinions on violations of research ethics was identified. It was established that informants are tolerant to the plurality of forms of knowledge in modern society, do not claim symbolic dominance of the scientific picture of the world, which today is not perceived as something integral. The emergence of ethical deviations in research activities – falsification and fabrication of results, plagiarism, pursuit of formal indicators, etc., are associated both with the attitudes of the scientists themselves and with ineffective management approaches. The informants consider the reputation of a scientist to be the most effective tool for maintaining the ethical foundations of research activities. They understand it as symbolic capital convertible into social capital: the importance of reputation is determined by the need for joint work, inclusion in teams, and collaboration of researchers. Reputation is the most important mechanism for self-regulation of the scientific community and is based on both formal indicators (publications, citation index, etc.) and informal professional and personal qualities of the researcher. The ability to respond to ethical challenges and independently overcome deviations that are destructive to research activities is the most important component of the human potential of the Russian scientific community.
Bazhanov V. A., Konopkin A. M. (2012) On the classification of approaches to the definition of pseudoscience: traditions and innovations. Jepistemologija i filosofija nauki [Epistemology and Philosophy of Science]. V. 31. No. 1: 174–191. (In Russ.)
Bourdieu P. (1993) Social space and the genesis of classes. In: Sociology of politics. Moscow: Socio- Logos: 53–86. (In Russ.)
Brotherton R. (2021) Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. Moscow: Alpina non-fiction. (In Russ.).
Collins R. (2002) Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Novosibirsk. (In Russ.)
Efremov Yu.N. (2013) False science, pseudoscience and hypothesis. In: Pseudoscience in the Modern World: the Media Sphere, Higher Education, School. Sankt Petersburg: Publishing house of the VVM: 30–41. (In Russ.)
Eidelman E. D. (2004) Scientists and pseudoscientists: criteria of demarcation. Zdravyj smysl [Common sense]. No. 4 (33): 15. (In Russ.)
Krugljakov Je. P. (2009) “Scientists” from the High Road – 3 / Commission on Combating Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
Merton R. (1972) Institutional Imperatives of Science. Ed. By B. Barnes. L. Philosophy of Science. – Issue 11: Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Century. (2005). Moscow: Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.).
Pluckrose H., Linsday J. Cynical Theories. How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Genders, and Identity – and Why This Harms Everybody. Individuum print, 2020. (In Russ.).
Sergeev A. G. (2015) The problem of practical demarcation of science and pseudoscience in the Russian scientific field. V zashhitu nauki [In defense of science]. No. 16: 49–68. (In Russ.)
Sokolov M. M. (2012) Studying local academic communities. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological Studies]. No. 6: 76–82. (In Russ.)
Stepin V. S. (2000) Science and pseudoscience. Naukovedenie [Science Studies]. No. 1: 72–81. (In Russ.)
Trust in Knowledge in Conditions of Social Turbulence: Risks, Vulnerabilities, Security Challenges. (2018) Moscow: MGIMO-University. (In Russ.)
Zarubina N. N. (2018) Trust to Science in Modern Russia in the Contexts of the Plurality of Forms of Knowledge. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Sociological studies]. No. 5: 110–120. DOI 10.7868/S0132162518050100. (In Russ.)
Zaslavskaya T. I. (2005). Human Potential in the Modern Transformation Process. Оbshhestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Modernity]. No. 3: 5–16. (In Russ.)