Social construction of knowledge in political science: evidence from the school of political science in the NRU «Higher School of Economics»

The paper attempts to analyse a research university as a mechanism for the production of scientific knowledge in the form of student term papers and final qualification theses. To achieve this goal, the author turns to the traditional concepts of the sociology of science, the concept of power and the idea of an epistemic community. In empirical terms, the work is based on twenty interviews with students and lecturers of the Department of Political Science of the Higher School of Economics, as well as on the data of an online survey among students. The model of student interaction with scientific supervisor is considered as the main mechanism for the production of knowledge. It includes the consideration of the motivations and the selection criteria of the students and the advisors, the responsibilities and the mechanisms of influence, the opportunities for the early completion of the interaction and for the appellation to the external arbitration. Three interaction models with different levels of contact intensity are identified («symbiosis», «moderate assistance», «autonomy»); at the same time, the student’s choice of a communication model does not have a statistically significant relationship with the advisor’s mark, the final mark for the paper, as well as with the indicators of the academic degree, position and age group of the advisor. A network of students and lecturers is seen as an accessory mechanism for the production of knowledge, which operates on the basis of an informal consensus about the desirability of mutual assistance, even in the absence of formal incentives. At the stage of papers’ defense, there are no conflicts, which could be connected with the different methodological preferences of the participants; however, substantial differences are found that reflect the complex subdisciplinary structure of the contemporary political science. Finally, the author shows, that among three different forms of power, which are analysed in the research, the most important form is an expert power of supervisors or reviewers.

1. Алмонд Г. Отдельные столики: школы и секты в политической науке // Политическая наука. 2000. № 4. С. 63-77.

2. Борисова Е., Полищук Л., Суворов А. Академическая этика и мотивация студентов: история двух вузов. Препринт WP10/2013/03. М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2013. 44 с.

3. Бурдье П. Дух государства: генезис и структура бюрократического поля // Sociologos 98. Поэтика и политика. М.; СПб.: Институт экспериментальной социологии: Алетейя, 1999. С. 125-166. EDN: PGKXJB

4. Вахштайн В.С. "Неудобная" классика социологии ХХ века: творческое наследие Ирвинга Гофмана. Препринт WP6/2006/05. М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2006. 52 с. EDN: QOFUGX

5. Кун Т. Структура научных революций. М.: Прогресс, 1975. 288 с. EDN: TJNGXT

6. Куренной В. Уединение университетского философа // Логос. 2007. № 6 (63). С. 63-74. EDN: VMMXID

7. Лакатос И. Фальсификация и методология научно-исследовательских программ. М.: Медиум, 1995. 235 с.

8. Малошонок Н.Г., Терентьев Е.А. На пути к новой модели аспирантуры: опыт совершенствования аспирантских программ в российских вузах // Вопросы образования. 2019. № 3. С. 8-42. 10.17323/1814-95452019-3-8-42. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-3-8-42 EDN: EMYXEW

9. Полани М. Личностное знание. На пути к посткритической философии. М.: Прогресс, 1985. 344 с. EDN: SXRQRX

10. Фуко М. Надзирать и наказывать. Рождение тюрьмы. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс, 2016. 416 с.

11. Шапиро И. Бегство от реальности в гуманитарных науках. М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2011. 368 с. EDN: QONCVD

12. Штраус Л. Введение в политическую философию. М.: Логос: Праксис, 2000. 364 с.

13. Dahl R. The concept of power // Behavioral science. 1957. Vol. 2, N 3. P. 201215. DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830020303

14. Easton D. The new revolution in political science // The American political science review. 1969. Vol. 63, N 4. P. 1051-1061. 10.2307/ 1955071. DOI: 10.2307/1955071

15. Feyerabend P. Explanation, reduction, and empiricism // Scientific explanation, space and time. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science / H. Feigl, G. Maxwell (eds). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1962. Vol. 3. P. 28-97.

16. French J., Raven B. The bases of social power // Studies in social power / D. Cartwright (ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1959. P. 150-167.

17. Friedrich С. Constitutional government and politics. N.Y.: Harper and Brothers, 1937. 591 p.

18. Gel'man V. Political science in Russia: scholarship without research? // European political science. 2015. Vol. 14. P. 28-36. DOI: 10.1057/eps.2014.33 EDN: UEOHXV

19. Gerring J. The case study: what it is and what it does // The Oxford handbook of comparative politics / C. Boix, S. Stokes (eds). Oxford: Oxford university press, 2009. P. 90-122.

20. Graziano L. The development and institutionalization of political science in Italy // International political science review. 1987. Vol. 8, N 1. P. 41-57. DOI: 10.1177/019251218700800104 EDN: JMQBUB

21. Haas P. Epistemic communities // The Oxford handbook of international environmental law / D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, E. Hey (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. P. 791-806.

22. Ilyin M., Malinova O. Political science in Russia: Institutionalization of the discipline and development of the professional community // Newsletter Social Science in Eastern Europe. 2008. June, Special Issue. P. 4-11.

23. Jerez Mir M. The institutionalization of political science: the case of Spain // Spain in America: the first decade of the prince of Asturias chair in Spanish studies at Georgetown university / G. Castro, J.M. De Miguel (eds). Madrid: Fundación Endesa: GU: Spanish Ministry of Education, 2010. P. 281-329.

24. Knorr-Cetina K. The manufacture of knowledge: an essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. 197 p.