Science Policy Programs:
a Paradigm-Based Analysis

Konnov V.I.,

Associate Professor, MGIMO University, v.konnov@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 178080 | ORCID: 0000-0001-7292-8850 | RESEARCHER_ID: R-2075-2016

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2020.01.02

Rubric: Theme of the Issue: Horizons of Political Science

For citation:

Konnov V.I. Science Policy Programs: a Paradigm-Based Analysis. – Polis. Political Studies. 2020. No. 1. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.01.02

The article was prepared with support from the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 16-18-10282.

Abstract

The article offers an analysis of the conceptual sources of science policy, and the modern dynamicsof its changes in program documents adopted by Russian executive authorities in the period from 1996to 2016. The theoretical basis for the analysis is Kuhn’s methodology, with particular emphasis placed oncomponents such as distinguishing paradigms based on their incommensurability, and identifying paradigmaticdocuments that serve to form a common vision of reality as shared by a particular community. In relation tothe formation period of modern science policy of the 1940-60s, two paradigms stand out – liberal and Marxist.The origin of the first is associated with support for research and development in the United States during andafter the Second World War; the second is instead associated with the policies of the Soviet Union in the1920s-1960s. The evolution of Soviet science policy starting from the 1960s followed the path of adopting thesystems theory; this is the reason why it is more accurate to characterize it as a systems paradigm. This line ofdevelopment was cut short in the early 1990s in connection with a sharp turn to the liberal paradigm,clearly manifested in documents of this period. However, in the 2000s, there was a return to systemsvision. Now, the documents of the current decade are shifting to a new neoliberal paradigm, which isbased on the notion of market organization as the main mechanism of governmental management, andwithin which autonomy for the scientific community is replaced by its organization according to marketprinciples. At the same time, the 2016 Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development onceagain addresses the elements of the systems paradigm, trying to combine both elements of contractualorganization of scientific research, which is one of the main components of the neoliberal vision, anddirect management, which naturally follows from the systems approach. Paradigm analysis thus points to an internal contradiction inherent in Russian science policy, which complicates its implementation.

Keywords

science policy, scientific community, strategy of science and technology development, political sociology of science.

Full Text

References

Bush V. 1960. Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington D.C.

Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.

Harvey D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kuhn T. 1977. Second Thoughts on Paradigms. – Kuhn T. The Essential Tension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. P. 293-319.

Lave R., Mirowski P., Randalls S. 2010. Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science. – Social Studies of Science. Vol. 40. No. 5. P. 659-675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710378549

Norval A. 2013. Poststructuralist Conceptions of Ideology. – The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies.

Ed. By M. Freeden, N. Sargent, M. Stears. Oxford: Oxford University Press. P. 155-174. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585977.013.028

Pocock J. 1989. Politics, Language, and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Polanyi M. 1988. Planned Science. – Polanyi M. Logic of Liberty. Indianopolis: Liberty Fund. P. 106-111.

Bastrakova M.S. 1973. Stanovlenie sovetskoi sistemy organizatsii nauki (1917-1922) [The Formation of the Soviet System of Science Organization (1917-1922)]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)

Blinov A.N., Konnov V.I. 2017. National Science Foundations and Basic Science Funding. – World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 61. No. 6. P. 5-13. (In Russ.) http://dx.doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2017-61-6-5-13

Gvishiani D. 1968. Sotsial’naya rol’ nauki i nauchnaya politika [Social Role of Science and Science Policy]. Moscow: Postoyannaya komissiya SEV po koordinacii nauchnykh I tekhnicheskikh issledovanii. (In Russ.)

Konnov V. 2010. Science Policy Paradigms: History and Current State. – MGIMO Review of International Relations. No. 5. P. 101-112. (In Russ.)

Kuhn T. 2003. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Russ. ed.: Kuhn T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii. Moscow: AST).

Kuhn T. 2014. The Road Since Structure. (Russ. ed.: Kuhn T. Posle “Struktury nauchnykh revolyutsii”. Moscow: AST).

Kuz’min V.P. 1976. Printsip sistemnosti v teorii i metodologii K. Marksa [Systemic Principle in the Theory and Methodology of K. Marx]. Moscow: Politizdat. (In Russ.)

Marx K. 1968. Kritika politicheskoi ekonomii [Critique of Political Economy]. – Marx K., Engel’s F. Sochineniya [Collected Works]. Vol. 46. Ch. 2. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury. (In Russ.)

Merton R. 2006. Social Theory and Social Structure. (Russ. ed.: Merton R. Sotsial’naya teoriya i sotsial’naya struktura. Moscow: AST).

Shestopal A.V., Konnov V.I. 2018. Culture, Science, Diplomacy: Prospects of Practice-Oriented Approach. – International Trends. Vol. 16. No. 3 (54). P. 214-224. (In Russ.) http://dx.doi.org/10.17994/IT.2018.16.3.54.13

Content No. 1, 2020