The work is devoted to the reconstruction of the history and dynamics of the problem field of domestic scientology. A deep interview with representatives of this discipline acts as the method of research. This genre is different from historical and scientific reconstruction, focused on the impersonal “objectivistic” presentation of facts, in that it gives a subjective vision of events. Respondents belong to different age groups, but most are pioneers of scientology, the institutionalization of which occurred in the 1960s. In the West, various aspects of science were studied within the framework of separate disciplines, in the USSR scientology was seen as a complex discipline. However, its development faced with difficulties: the problem field expanded, but there was no single methodological and methodic base, ideological and informational constraints existed. Nevertheless, works of world level emerged. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were no ideological and information barriers, and opportunities for various empirical studies and deep theoretical generalizations appeared. However, there is a clear deficit in the latter. The problems of the science policy in the conditions of the crisis and market economy, its reorganization, the issues of science financing, staff reduction etc. come to the forefront of research in the post-Soviet period. At the present time, a new scientific revolution has led to a change in the nature of scientific knowledge, under the conditions of globalization the role of scientific forecasting is growing not in the framework of individual countries, but in civilization as a whole with the use of foresight tools. We can talk not only about the expansion of the problem field of scientology in recent years, but also about the shift in emphasis in scientology studies, as well as in changing in its structure. Until now, there has been no unity with regard to what disciplines are included and which are not included in the scientology, or which constitute its center, and which form its periphery. Moreover, there have never been and still no educational institutions that would prepare professional science theorists. Those become science theorists who not only obtained higher education in some field, but also have a certain work experience, one way or another connected with various problems of science.

science, science of science, interview

  1. Nagibin Yu. M. Dnevnik [A diary]. Moscow, Knizhnyy sad, 1995 (in Russ.).

 2. Nauchnoye soobshchestvo fizikov SSSR. 1950–1960-e gody: Dokumenty, vospominaniya, issledovaniya [Scientific community of physicists of the USSR. 1950–1960s: Documents, memoirs, studies]. Release 1. Compilers and editors V. P. Vizgin, A. V. Kessenikh. Saint Petersburg, RKHGA, 2005 (in Russ.).

 3. Nauchnoye soobshchestvo fizikov SSSR. 1950–1960-e i drugiye gody: dokumenty, vospominaniya, issledovaniya [Scientific community of physicists of the USSR. 1950–1960s and other years: documents, memoirs, studies]. Release 2 Compilers and editors V. P. Vizgin i A. V. Kessenikh. Saint Peresburg, RKHGA, 2007 (in Russ.).

 4. Rossiyskaya sotsiologiya shestidesyatykh godov v vospomi naniyakh i dokumentakh [Russian sociology of the sixties in memoirs and documents]. Responsible ed. G. S. Batygin. Saint Petersburg, Russkiy khristianskiy gumanitarnyy institut, 1999 (in Russ.).

 5. Nugayev M. A. Iz zhizni sotsiologa. Vospominaniya i razmyshleniya [From the life of a sociologist. Memories and Reflections]. Kazan’, KGU, 2009 (in Russ.).

 6. Alekseyev A. N. Lichnostnoye naukovedeniye (na primere sovremennoy rossiyskoy sotsiologii) [Personal science (based on the example of modern Russian sociology)]. URL: http://www.feedbackgroup.narod.ru/findman/lichnost.html [date of visit: 11.02.2011] (in Russ.).

 7. Prays D. Malaya nauka, bol’shaya nauka [Small science, a great science]. Nauka o nauke. Ed. by V. N. Stoletov. Moscow, 1966 (in Russ.).

 8. Mikulinskiy S. R., Rodnyy N. I. Nauka kak predmet spetsial’nogo issledovaniya (k formirovaniyu nauki o nauke) [Science as a subject of special research (to the formation of the science of science)]. Voprosy filosofii, 1966, no 5 (in Russ.).

 9. Rachkov P. A. Naukovedeniye. Problemy, struktura, elementy [Science. Problems, structure, elements]. Moscow, MGU, 1974 (in Russ.).

 10. Mikulinskiy S. R. Eshche raz o predmete i strukture naukovedeniya [Once again on the subject and structure of the science of science]. Voprosy filosofii, 1982, no 7 (in Russ.).

 11. Vleduts G. E, Nalimov V. V, Styazhkin N. I. Nauchnaya i tekhnicheskaya informatsiya kak odna iz zadach kibernetiki [Scientific and technical information as one of the tasks of cybernetics]. Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk. 1959, vol. 69, Release 1 (in Russ.).

 12. Kozlov B. I. Nauka i naukovedeniye v postindustrial’noy Rossii [Science and science knowledge in post-industrial Russia]. Naukovedeniye, 2004, no 4 (in Russ.).

 13. Bauman Z. Filosofskiye svyazi i vlecheniya postmodernistskoy sotsiologii [Philosophical connections and inclinations of postmodern sociology]. Voprosy sotsiologii, 1992, vol. 1, no 2 (in Russ.).