Science Studies in the USSR (History, Problems, Prospects)

8/6/2019 Science Studies in the USSR (History, Problems, Prospects)

1/15

Science Studies in the USSR (History, Problems, Prospects)Author(s): E. M. MirskySource: Science Studies, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1972), pp. 281-294Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/284519 .

Accessed: 20/05/2011 14:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/284519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltdhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/284519?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd


2/15

Science Studies, 2 (1972), 281-294.

Notes and LettersSCIENCE STUDIES1 IN THE USSR(HISTORY, PROBLEMS, PROSPECTS)

E. M. MirskyInstitute for the History of Science and Technology,USSR Academy of Sciences, MoscowThis article is reproduced from Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznaniya i Tekhniki (Problemsof the History of Science and Technology, Moscow), 3-4, I971, 86-97, by kind per-

mission of the author, and of the Chief Editor. The translation was prepared byNicholas Lampert, of the Centre for Russian and East European Studies, Universityof Birmingham.Many outstanding Russian scientists at the end of the nineteenth and thebeginning of the twentieth century took an interest in the social aspects ofscience. D. I. Mendeleev, for example, was concerned with problems ofscientific development: with the relationship between science and practice,the expansion of the number of researchworkers, and so on. K. A. Timiriazev,in a series of works, set out some fruitful thougihtson the subject of scienceas a servant of the people, its rational utilization as a means of increasingthe natural wealth of the land and exploiting it intensively through agri-culture. V. I. Vernadsky was one of the first natural scientists to point outthe need to define the whole complex of problems relating to the rapid growthof scientific information, its evaluation and application. The Russian academi-cian P. I. Val'den was a pioneer in the application of statistical methods forthe quantitative description of various aspects of scientific-technical progress.Attempts to understand and to formulate conceptually some new approachesto the study of science can be found not only among natural scientists butalso among represenltatives f Russian social thought. A. I. Herzen, long beforemodern students of science, noticed the cumulative character of scientificgrowth and the crystallization of information in scientific theory.The first systemic interpretation of scientific activity as one variety oforganized human activity is to be found in A. A. Bogdanov's work, 'A generalscience of organization', published in 1912.The building of the early Soviet State would, from the very beginning, havebeen unthinkable without a developed scientific economic base. Starting withthe preparation and realization of the GOELRO plan, the development and

1The central term, naukovedenie, has no satisfactory equivalent in English. Thetranslator has chosen to render it throughout as 'science studies', although it is oftentranslated as 'science of science'. The Russian term can be inflected into an abstractor concrete noun, or an adjective, leading, in translation, to somewhat awkwardlocutions, such as 'science studies research'. Where translation of other terms presentedsimilar difficulties, the original Russian word is given, in parentheses, after its mostappropriate English rendering.


3/15

282 E. M. Mirskyoptimal organization of science were always in the forefront of political,economic and cultural construction, both in theory and in practice. Now,when the question of science policy has become crucial for all industriallyadvanced countries, the following words of the noted student of scienceS. Dedijer, writing about the above trend in the USSR, seem revealing: 'Animpressive exception,' writes S. Dedijer, 'was the energetic scientific policypursued in the Soviet Union immediately after 1917. This can to a significantextent be explained by the influence of the views of two eminent sociologistsof science-K. Marx and F. Engels'.2During the first decades of the USSR's existence, the research that developedmost rapidly was concerned with the organization of scientific work, with itssocial and economic application. B. M. Gessen's writings, in which a Marxistmethodology is used in a historical-scientific analysis, became well knownin these years, as well as S. G. Strumilin's original research on the economicefficiency of the work of scientists. Many questions which were later sub-sumed under the problem area of science studies (voshedshie v naukovedches-kuyu problematiku) were in this period discussed in the pages of the journalsSorena (Socialist Reconstruction and Science) and Nauchny Rabotnik (TheScientific Worker). The role played by these factors in developing an interestin science on the part of foreign scholars is made very clear by D. J. de S.Price. 'A few critical studies of science date from early times, but the firstsignificant stimulus to a general inquiry in this sphere came at the end of the1920s and the beginning of the I930s. This stimulus was generated 'to animportant extent by the growth of political self-awareness among scientistsin connection with the emergence and development of the Soviet Union'.3In the post-war years a heightened interest in the problem area of sciencestudies was inspired by the attempt to formulate the bases for a scientificapproach to the control of science, and at the end of the 1950S and the begin-ning of the I96os this acquired the character of a general political task. Thesocial importance of science, its role in the building of communist society,and the search for means of developing and applying it in a purposeful waywere the subjects of discussion at an all-Union conference of scientific workersin the Kremlin in I96I. The organizational problems discussed at this meetingwere reflected in the resolutions of the Central Committee of the CommunistParty of the Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, in thesame year, on 'measures towards the improved coordination of scientific re-search work in the country and the work of the Academy of Sciences of theUSSR (AS USSR)'. Practical needs demanded a hastening of the developmentof a 'self-awareness' of science-the formation and consolidation of a sphereof knowledge in which science itself would become the main object of acomprehensive inquiry.During this period in the development of science studies in the USSR, onefinds closer attention being paid to the phenomenon of contemporary scienceby historians of science, philosophers, sociologists and economists, and a re-

2 S. Dedijer, 'Why did Daedalus Leave?' Science, CXXXIII, No. 3470, (196I).3D. J. Solla Price, 'Science of Science', Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, XXI, No. 8,(i965).


4/15

Notes and Letterscognition on their part of the exceptional complexity of the issues and of theneed to unite forces in order to study them. A number of original articles andmonographs devoted to the study of science came out in these years. Togetherwith J. D. Bernal's fundamental work, Science in History, they formed thebasis on which science studies later developed.In our view, one should single out the following from these writings: B. M.Kedrov's work on classification and the inter-relationships of the sciences, andhis book The Day of a Great Discovery (Moscow, 1958), which had an im-portant influence on the investigation of scientific creativity; M. M. Karpov'smonograph The Basic Laws of the Development of Natural Science (Rostov-on-Don, 1963), where an attempt was made to systematize and explaintheoretically the extensive historical-scientific material; A. A. Zvorykin's workon the economic role of science in the modern scientific-technical revolution,and a number of others. These works paved the way towards the establish-ment of new methods of studying science-methods that were appropriate tothe complexity of the object studied.In the i96os some interdisciplinary seminars on science studies took placein various higher educational institutions in Moscow, Kiev, Rostov, Tomskand Novosibirsk, and research groups evolved, generally as yet without eitherofficial status or a clear organizational form. Nevertheless, research has beengoing on fairly intensively and has brought some very interesting results. Someof these results, concerning the level of world science, were announced in1965 by Soviet participants in the IIth Congress of historians of science inWarsaw.4 The reports of participants from various countries and the sub-sequent discussion gave a fairly clear picture of the problem area of sciencestudies, and of its independent character.A Soviet-Polish symposium in Lvov in June 1966, in which more than ahundred took part, looked at questions relating to the structure of the newbranch of study, its self-awareness as an independent science, and its initialorganizational form. The organizers of the symposium wished to exchangeinformation with their Polish colleagues, who had by that time accumulated acertain amount of research and organizational experience in this sphere. Itwas also assumed that the widely represented organizations, groups and in-dividual researchers involved in the study, planning, application and manage-ment of science, would get an opportunity to discuss the subject of unitingforces in order to establish future directions in the development of sciencestudies.A paper published just before the opening of the symposium served as theplatform for discussion: C. P. Mikulinsky and N. I. Rodnyi, 'Science as asubject of specialized study',5 the main thesis of which appeared at the centreof discussion. The chief result of this debate on the definition of sciencestudies and on research perspectives, seems to have been a recognition of

4 B. M. Kedrov, 'The Laws of scientific development', Organon, No. 2, (1965); S. R.Mikulinsky, 'The history of science and some problems of modern science', Organon,No. 3, (1966); G. M. Dobrov, 'Trends in the development of scientific organization',Organon, No. 2, (1965).5 Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy), No. 5 (Moscow, 1966).6--SS * *

283


5/15

science studies as an independent field. While it is directly related to disciplinestraditionally concentrating on separate aspects of science (such as philosophy,logic, sociology, economics, and psychology), science studies has at the sametime an integral approach to its subject; it is characterized by a set of distincttheoretical conceptions and practical applications. It was at the Lvov sym-posium that the young science received its name: from the many suggestedterms,that of 'science studies' (naukovedenie)was chosen.The further growth of research in science studies confirmed the fruitfulnessof this standpoint, despite a number of very evident difficulties in practice-difficulties which attend the formative period of most scientific disciplines.The subsequent period has seen the wide dissemination among the scientificcommunity of ideas derived from science studies. This process was assistedto an important extent by the publication in the same year of two books,both entitled The Science of Science: a monograph by G. M. Dobrov (Kiev,1966), expounding the principles of the information approach to the studyof science; and a collection of articles by the most prominent foreign scholars,celebrating the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of J. D. Bernal'sThe Social Function of Science (London, Routledge, I939).The article by Bernal on 'The Strategy of Research''and D. J. de S. Price'sLittle Science-Big Science, published as a supplement to the collection, attrac-ted special attention. Issues which had up to then been discussed principallyby a narrow circle of participants in seminars, were carried over on to thebroad platform of conferences and symposia. One can see how intensively theywere being discussed by enumerating the most important forums devotedto science studies. Science studies were discussed at a special section of anAll-Union conference on 'Quantitative methods in sociology' (Sukhumi,1967); at a symposium on problems of the structure of science (Novosibirsk,1967); at an All-Union symposium on 'The problems of scientific-technicalcreativity' (Moscow, 1967); at the second Polish-Soviet symposium on theinterdisciplinary study of science (Katowice, I967); and at conferences inKiev and Leningrad.Special sub-departments of science studies were set up in these years in anumber of institutions: in the Institute for the History of Science and Tech-nology of the Academy of Science of the USSR (,IHS&T AS USSR), theInstitute of World Economy and International Relations, economic institutesofthe AS USSR in Moscow and Novosibirsk, the Institute of Mines in theSiberian section of the AS USSR, and in the philosophy department of RostovUniversity. In 1967, a Laboratory for researchinto scientific and experimentalwork was set up in the All-Union scientific-technical information centre inLeningrad; the Laboratory has now been moved to Kiev and reorganized asthe Department of InterdisciplinaryProblems of Science Studies and Informa-tion Science within the Mathematics Institute of the AS Ukrainian SSR.General theoretical and specific science studies problems are being intensivelyexamined at various departments in many of the country's higher educationalestablishments.Before moving on to an account of the different schools and trends in Sovietscience studies, it seems necessary to isolate a few general features of the

284 E. M. Mirsky


6/15

Notes and Lettersproblem area of science studies, and to consider the conditions making forthis generality.The chief of these features, which in many ways influenced the formationand developmenit of the young branch of study in the USSR, was that itreceived from the very beginning the keen attention of Marxist philosophers.We are speaking here not only of general methodological questions, but alsoof the constant attempts by Soviet philosophers to define the status and signifi-cance of this new form of scholarly reflection by relating it to other disciplinesstudying differentaspects of science.The philosophical debate continues, and this, together with the constructivenature of most philosophical criticism, has done much to make possible theformation and elaboration of a problem that is crucial at the present stage ofdevelopment-the definition of a special methodological basis for sciencestudies.We should mention in particular in this connection the organizational aspectsof the support that science studies have received from Soviet philosophers;i.e., the inclusion of science studies problems in the plans for philosophicalforums, and the allocation of space for these matters in philosophical publica-tions. The light thrown on the problem area of science studies in the journalVoprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy) has played a big part in establish-ing the new discipline (articles by C. P. Mikulinsky and N. I. Rodnyi, G. M.Dobrov, M. M. Karpov, V. V. Nalimov, I. Maletsky, J. D. Bernal andA. Mackay, T. Kotarbinsky and other Soviet and foreign scholars in sciencestudies, as well as reviews). This support was the more opportune since sciencestudies had not only no publication of its own, but not even a separate biblio-graphical rubric in which interested scholars could obtain information onnewly published science studies literature.The journal's interest in philosophical problems did not decline even afterscience studies obtained its own publication. We are referring here to thecontinuing series of thematic collections, published by the IHS&T AS USSRunder the general title Science Studies: Problems and Research, the firstvolume of which appeared in I968.6 Together with work by specialists inscience studies, the collections include material by prominent natural scien-tists, philosophers and historians of science, and have helped in the forma-tion of 'invisible colleges' in Soviet science studies. Since this branch of know-ledge depends not only on the depth of study but also on the broad diffusionof ideas, the creation of such an organ made it possible for Soviet sciencestudies to develop a set of distinctive scientific-theoreticalproblems.One of the main principles of science studies is its interdisciplinaryapproachto the very complex object of study. It was thought at the beginning that tocombine the forces of philosophers, sociologists, economists, psychologists, his-torians of science, etc., would necessarily (and even to a certain extent auto-matically) provide both a unitary definition of the subject of interdisciplinarystudy, and ensure that the study itself would have a systematic character. It

6 See the books in this series, The Organization of Science Activity (Moscow, 1968;Essays on the History and Theory of Scientific Growth (Moscow, 1969); ScientificCreativity (Moscow, 1969); Scientific Discovery and its Interpretation (Moscow, 197I).

285


7/15

was naturally assumed that there would be a need for a definite modificationin the methods used by this scientific complex, in accordance with the peculiarfeatures of its subject, and that in some cases interdisciplinarymethods wouldbe worked out that had not yet been employed in the study of science. In-tuitively it seemed clear (and 'the successes of the first research in sciencestudies only strengthened this optimism) that the interdisciplinary approachitself guaranteed the unity and universality of the methodological basis ofscience studies, and thus also the utilization of this conceptual and proceduralpotential.In reality, as often occurs, the process of growth proved considerablymorecomplex. The interdisciplinaryapproach, as compared with the earlier single-discipline approaches, undoubtedly afforded science studies rapid progress indescribing the object of research. This progress also provided an answer tothe question about the scientific independence of the new discipline. At thesame time, 'the interdisciplinarycharacter of the research itself gave rise to awhole series of methodological problems. There was above all the problemof the interrelationsbetween, and the hierarchy of methods of, different dis-ciplines within the framework of some general methodological conception, andthe problem of bringing them together when developing an initial hypothesisand research programme; accordingly there was the problem of choosing orcreating a language for the formulation of research tasks that would be uni-form and comprehensibleto all, and for the description of the provisional andfinal results of research.The appearance of these problems is the more naturalsince the young branch of study does not command specially trained cadres ofprofessionals-science studies sub-divisions consist of, and are headed by,specialists from one of the disciplines included in it. The education andprevious experience of these specialists as a rule determines both the generalapproach of this or that school to the problems of science studies, and thedisciplinary hierarchy within science studies. Although in tihe USSR, for anumber of reasons already mentioned, the relation between academic schoolsand [intellectual] trends has proved a good deal closer than, for example, inEngland or the USA, nevertheless the present condition of Soviet sciencestudies is still characterized by a fairly wide set of conceptions of the subjectof study and by a deep concern with the methodological tools of research,without referenceto concrete research tasks.It is essential to bear this in mind when we examine further the trends andschools in science studies, which are distinguished, as we 'have said, by theirvarying conceptions of the object of research, and of the methods of study.In this connection, furthermore, given the bearing that a number of areasof scholarship have on science studies, we had in this survey to take intoaccount, among other factors, whether or not the research workers themselvesconsidered that they were engaged in 'science studies' (naukovedenie).One of the trends in science studies which has the closest connection withthe history of science-the logic of scientific development-sees its task as thetheoretical understanding of the historical-scientific material, in the searchfor laws of historical-scientific development. By this is meant both internal

286 E. M. Mirsky


8/15

Notes and Letterslaws peculiar to science itself, and lawful relationships between the develop-ment of science and the development of other social institutions.7In the framework of the logic of scientific development, science itself isdefined as a system of knowledge, including both the fund of knowledge(the scientific archive) and the methods of acquiring it. The principal changesstudied by research workers in this field concern !the totality of science (thebranches of study in their dynamic and in their inter-relationship) and thelogical structure of science (the methods of generating results peculiar todifferent stages in the history of science, and the verification and justificationof these methods).The above distinction, according to the exponents of this approach, pre-supposes a description of the mechanics of scientific development as adichotomy between its 'kinematics' (i.e., a phenomenological description of themovement of knowledge, coming close to a historical-scientific reconstruction),and its 'dynamics' (i.e., an elucidation of the moving forces and impulses inthe evolution of a system of knowledge). It is evident that the 'logic ofscientific development (and this is the chief implication of the word 'logic')studies not the genesis of specific scientific theories, but the general isomorphicfeatures of scientific development, the invariant components of the process.Correspondingly, the level from which generalizations about the logic ofscientific developments are made, is as a rule not the separate historicalscientific results, but a 'logical summation' of the logic of development ofdifferent disciplines, observed historically.In this way, what we ihave is a logical 'abstraction' of the history of thenatural sciences, carried out basically by inductive means. The main methodsof research are principally a historical and logical analysis of historical-scientific results, and also to a certain extent, historical-statistical research todiscover general tendencies in the growth of knowledge. In some cases, toexplicate these tendencies, a logical analysis of a concrete historico-scientificreconstruction is applied, where this concerns a typical phenomenon.Apart from the relations already mentioned between the logic of scientific

7 B. M. Kedrov, The Subject and Interrelationship of the Natural Sciences (Moscow,I962; 2nd ed. I967); B. M. Kedrov, 'On the dialectic of scientific discoveries',Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy, Moscow), No. 12, (I966); B. M. Kedrov, TheClassification of Science, 2, (Moscow, I965); M. M. Karpov, The FundamentalLaws of Scientific Development (Rostov-on-Don, I963); N. I. Rodnyi, 'On the questionof the role of contradictions in scientific development', Organon, No. 3, (I966); N. I.Rodnyi, 'Historical-scientific aspects of creativity', Materials for the Soviet-PolishSymposium on the Interdisciplinary Study of Scientific Development (Moscow, 1967);N. I. Rodnyi, 'Logic and the history of science', Organon, No. 5, (1968); N. I. Rodnyi,The Logic of Scientific Development and the Problem of Choice of Research (Moscow,1968); M. K. Petrov, 'Some constants in textuality (tekstual'nost) and articulateness inthe process of accumulation of knowledge', The All-Union Conference on QuantitativeMethods in Sociology: materials for the section on quantitative methods for the studyof scientific development (Moscow, I967); A. A. Lyapunov, 'The system of evolutionand systematization of the sciences,' Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy, Moscow,1968, No. 3); Essays on the History and Theory of Scientific Development (in theseries Science Studies: Problems and Research) (Moscow, I969); M. G. Yaroshevsky,'The logic of scientific development and the activity of the scientist', VoprosyFilosofii (Problems of Philosophy, Moscow), No. 3, (I968).

287


9/15

development and historico-scientific studies, one should also point out itsrelations with other trends in science studies. These are, most importantly,the logic of scientific research (i.e., the logical analysis of processes in themovement of knowledge) and that part of the sociology of science which isconcerned with historical changes in the social function of science.In contrast to the logic of scientific development, which studies chieflythe diachronic aspect of scientific development, a number of other approachesin science studies, arising from a conception of science as a type of informationsystem, devote their attention mainly to the synchronic aspect. The mostthorough and detailed elaboration of this approach is being carried out byKiev research workers and by specialists in information science. Theirapproach is characterized by a cybernetic (information) conception of thescientific process, which is described as a process of collecting (receiving) andanalysing (processing) information in order to acquire new knowledge and todiscover new practical applications.Science studies are correspondingly defined as the investigation of thefunctioning of scientific systems, contributing towards an increase inthe potential of science and with the help of organizational action, in theefficiency of the scientific process. Such a severe restriction of model andconception is explained by the aim of students in this field to discover quanti-tative expressions for all the main variables, which leads naturally, withsuch a complex system as science, to a necessary simplification of the objectof study. As a result of this simplification, the researcher is able widely toapply statistical methods and models for the study of information processesinthe history of science and technology.One feature of this approach has been the elaboration, with the help ofmechanical and electronic computer Itechnology, of some very interestingmethods for the quantitative analysis of large masses of information. Anotherfeature is the attempt to carry over into science studies the conceptualapparatus of economic analysis, and this is done by simply 'taking down' theconcept to the lower level of a supposedly analagous structure: the study ofthe economic potential of a country 'x'-an analysis of its scientific potential;the planning of the economy-scientific-technical forecasts and the planningof science, etc.

Such a transplantation, combined with a pronounced applied orientation,has led, according to how far it has progressed, to an unavoidable shift of thecentre of gravity from a general set of problems in science studies (sobshchenaukovedcheskoiproblematiki) to a study of three main topics: theworking out and empirical verification of quantitative methods of processinginformation on the history of science and technology; the study of scientificpotential and predictions about its growth; and the supply of information forscientific research and analysis.88 G. M. Dobrov, The Science of Science: An introduction to the general study ofscience (Kiev, I966); An Analysis of Laws and Forecasts of Scientific and TechnicalDevelopment (theses of symposia papers), Nos. I-IV, (Kiev, I967); V. N. Klimenyuk,'An analysis of rates of growth and the structure of the flow of demand for scientificdiscoveries',The All-Union Conferenceon QuantitativeMethods in the Study of

288 E. M. Mirsky


10/15

Notes and LettersThe most interesting aspect is the interpretation of problems involved instudying scientific potential. This potential is defined in its most general formas a complex of parameters describing the capacity of a scientific system

to resolve existing and future problems of scientific-technical development.Four groups of parameters are in turn distinguished within this complex:the provision of properly qualified [scientific] manpower (kadrami); the pro-vision of scientific information; material and technical provisionfor science; andoptimal organization of a given scientific system. Depending on what kind ofscientific organization is being discussed in a concrete case (an institute, asystem of scientific institutions, science at the level of the republic or of thecountry as a whole), the weight of the coefficients of each group withinthe complex may change significantly. However, all of them are 'held to beopen to a correct quantitative analysis; more accurately, it is chiefly themeasurable component of these four parameters that are taken into account.Large masses of documentation and concrete sociological and social-psycho-logical research on the efficiency of scientific organizations are processedtowards this end.Such methods seem fruitful when the researcher takes as his task theprediction of general tendencies in scientific development, since in this caseone is concerned with relatively crude indicators. On the other hand, thelimitations of a quantitative characterization of such complex and in essenceinadequately defined concepts as, for example, 'scientific-informationalsupply'(the 'anticipation' of one's own original ideas and information about the stateof international knowledge), or 'optimal organization of a scientific system',create serious difficulties in the interpretation of empirical and statisticalresults.The Kiev researchers have done much to popularize science studies, toestablish contacts with other trends in science studies, and to apply the resultsof their research to the solution of practical problems in organizing Ukrainianresearch workers. It was this group that began (in I969) publishing the inter-departmental periodical bulletin, Naukovedeniye i Informatika (Sciencestudies and information science).A rather different approaclhto the investigation of science as an informationScientific Development (Moscow, 1967); G. M. Dobrov, Contemporary Problems inScience Studies (Moscow, I968); G. M. Dobrov, Some ways of Optimizing the Organi-zational Structure of Science (Moscow, I968); V. V. Kosolapov, The Informational-Logical Analysis of Scientific Research (Kiev, I968); G. M. Dobrov and A. A.Korennoi, 'A mathematicalmodel of scientific communications',Naukovedenie iInformatika (Science studies and information science, Kiev), No. i, (I969); G. M. Dobrov,'Criteria of choice-an interdisciplinary research problem', Voprosy Filosofii (Problemsof Philosophy, Moscow), No. 3, (I969); G. M. Dobrov, et al., Scientific Potential (Kiev,1969); G. M. Dobrov, V. N. Klimenyuk, V. M. Ordin and A. A. Soloviev, The Studyof Organisational Factors in the Resultativity (Resul'tativnost') of the work of Scientists(a scientific report), parts I and II (Kiev, I969); The Forecast of Social Processes inSocialist Society: Science as an object of control (Kiev, I969); Science Studies, Fore-casting, Information Science (the work of the 2nd symposium) (Kiev, I969); S. E.Zlochevskii, A. V. Kozenko and V. V. Kosolapov, Information in Scientific Research(Kiev, 1969); G. M. Dobrov, 'The use of mathematical methods and computers foranalysing tendencies of development of science and engineering', Organon, No. 3, (1967).

289


11/15

system, and to the working out and analysis of quantitative methods, has beenadopted by some students grouped around the Laboratory of MathematicalStatistics at Moscow State University and the All-Union Institute of Scientific-Technical Information. The researchers themselves define their orientationas sciencometry (naukometzia); they consider that their principal task is to seekmeasurable indirect indicators of scientific development and to developmethods for their correct measurement, together with a subsequent interpreta-tive explanation of the results. Here scientific development is seen as one of theforms of the growth process, which allows a choice of mathematical models fordescribing it. But in contrast to a number of other groups, which applyquantitative methods willingly and on a broad front, the sciencometrists havea strong interest in the methodological side of research, in the critical analysisof the utility and effectiveness of quantitative or mathematical methods inscience studies research.9Work in this field may conditionally be divided into three groups: (a)methodological analysis of the problems of scientific research (the mathe-matical theory of experiment); (b) the study of methodologies for thequantitative and mathematical analysis of scientific development used bycontemporary students of science studies; (c) the application of quantitativeand mathematical methods to describe scientific phenomena and to define thetendencies of scientific development. One should further single out, amongthe works of the second group, a number of studies which have attemptedto clarify the nature of the basic dimensions used in science studies (forexample, the bibliographical law of Lotka-Bradford-Zipf), or to define themethodological significance of such an important instrument in contemporaryscience studies as the indices of cited scientific publications.The researchers in the third group, in formulating and solving their prob-lems, proceed from tasks of a theoretical and practical nature: to examinescientific growth indicators in the USSR in order to develop satisfactoryscientific statistics; to explain the internal relations between individual scholars,between scientific trends and between whole disciplines by analyzing thenetwork of citations; and so on. Much attention has been given here to aquantitative and interpretative study of the organization of scientific research,and especially to an analysis of the concept of efficiency of scientific work

9 V. V. Nalimov and N. A. Chernova, Statistical Methods for the Planning ofExtreme (Ekstremal'nyi) Experiments (Moscow, I965); V. V. Nalimov, 'Quantitativemethods in the study of the process of scientific development', Voprosy Filosofii(Problems of Philosophy, Moscow), No. I2, (I966). L. S. Kozachkov and L. A. Khurshin,'A model of the growth of scientific publications on the basis of the law of Lotka-Bradford-Zipf', Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya informatsiya (Scientific-Technical Information,Moscow), series 2, in Informational Processes and Systems, Moscow, VINITI, No. 7,(I968); A. I. Baranova, 'A definition of the problem area of science studies research onthe basis of an analysis of specialized bibliographical indicators', Ibid., No. 9; AppliedDocumentalistics (prikladnaya dokumentalistika) (Moscow, 1968); V. I. Gor'kova, ASystem of Analysis of Publications from Periodical and Continuous Publicationsaccording to the Productiveness of their Utilization in the Bibliographical Journal(Moscow, 1968) (International Congress of scientific information); V. V. Nalimov andZ. M. Mul'chenko, Sciencometry: the study of scientific development as an informationprocess (Moscow, i969).

E. M. Mirsky90


12/15

Notes and Letters(for this, studies of the general concept of efficiency are carried out, andattempts have been made to compare its significance in different sciences andtypes of research, to find methods for describing it quantitatively). On theapplied level, one of the main tasks of this group is to look for solutions toa number of problems related to the forecast and control of science, andthe elaboration of a system of quantitative expressions for the various aspectsof its development (the number of publications and their classification; thegrowth in the number of fundamental scientific achievements; the penetrationof some sectors of knowledge by others; the relationship between types ofresearch; etc.) The studies concerned with the detection of fast-growing trendsin science have an important practical significance.The vast bulk of science studies research is naturally related, in one wayor another, to the question of organizing scientific work; but one shouldemphasize the great diversity of treatments of the problem by different researchgroups. Some workers adopt a purely economic approach to the problemsof organizing science. Here the aim is to examine the economic efficiencyof existing concrete organizational structures, in the framework of someseparate branch or type of scientific institution, in order to rationalize it in thefuture on the basis of the results obtained. This kind of analysis, as a rule,involves the use of a conceptual apparatus which evolved in the course ofeconomic research into the organization of production, with a minimal modifi-cation of these concepts. Accordingly, the basic parameters of productiveactivity become the subjects of research: the organizational structure of theinstitution; the use of the labour time of the workers; methods of planningwork, forms of accounting, and other aspects of the scientific organizationof labour.10 Such research is being carried out in many towns and scientificcentres of the country (Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Novosibirsk, and others).Its practical value is often very great, although, because of the crudity of theconceptual apparatus and the empirical character of the research, one canonly fairly rarely use the results for generalizations in science studies.Attempts to understand theoretically the bases of the organization ofscientific activity, proceeding now not from existing organizational schemes,but from the peculiarities of the scientific phenomenon itself, have been takenup by some research workers, mainly those grouped around the 'historyand theory of the organization of science' section of the IHS&T AS USSR.These students investigate the organization of higher education and scientific-research work, the organization of research and scientific-research institutionsin different countries, and the typology of existing organizations of scientific

10See V. S. Sominskii, The Economics and Organization of Scientific and Experi-mental Work (Leningrad, I964); E. I. Kissel', The Organization of the Work ofResearchersand Planners (Moscow, 1967); A. P. Soloviev, Methods of Measuring theUse of Time in Scientific-Researchand Project-DesignOrganizations(Leningrad, 1967);Problems in the Economics and Planning of Scientific Research (Leningrad, I968);The Efficiency of Scientific-Technical Creativity (Moscow, I968); The Economics andOrganizationof Science: conference materials (Moscow, I969); ContemporaryProblemsof Scientific and Technical Creativity (Moscow, I969); E. I. Kissel', The Organizationof Workin Researchand Planning Institutions (Moscow, I969).

29I


13/15

activity, in relation to the aims of the different kinds of institution trainingscientific cadres.This group is attempting, through its study of the history of scientificorganization, to elucidate theoretically a number of cardinal problems: themethods and forms of organization of science (formal and informal) inthe period of its existence in universities; the conditions under which thespecialization of scientific research into sub-divisions becomes necessary; andthe problems of combining organizationally the two main tasks of science-the production of scientific knowledge and the reproduction of scientificactivity-at various stages of the scientific-technical revolution. With thisaim, prominent observers of and participants in the actual organization ofSoviet science are invited to contribute to the work of seminars and to thepublicationsof the section.1

This school is also characterized by work of an analytical and theoreticalkind, raising questions about the existence of science and ilts organizationalforms. Recently there has been some cooperation between this school ofresearch and the group engaging in systems analysisof science at the IHS&T.Since this approach involves the study of two types of organized scientificactivity (formal and informal), and the study of the various ways in whichthey are combined in the activity of scientific collectives, itherehas in recenttimes been a wide application of methods of concrete sociological research,andthe problem area of this approach borders on the problem area of manystudies carried out within the frameworkof the sociologyof science.The specific features of the development of the sociology of science in theUSSR have been influenced in a major way by a number of historical factors.The problemsof study on the societal level were first posed, and for the mostpart are still being posed, in the area of philosophical and historical investiga-tion, which focuses on the sociological interpretation of the contemporaryscientific-technological revolution. On the other hand, concrete social andsocial-psychological studies of science evolved not from sociology but fromscience studies research, which undoubtedly placed its imprint on theproblems tackled in such studies, and influenced their close ties with othertrends in science studies.12As an example one could point to the close contacts11Problems of the Organization of Scientific Research and its Elaboration (Moscow,I967); The Organization of Scientific Activity (in the series Science Studies: Problemsand Research) (Moscow, I968); M. K. Petrov, 'Some problems in the organization ofscience in the epoch of the scientific-technical revolution', Voprosy Filosofii (Problemsof Philosophy, Moscow), No. 10, (i968); The Organisation of Science in the First Yearsof Soviet Power (1917-1925) (collection of documents) (Leningrad, I968); G. A.Lakhtin, The Tactics of Science (Novosibirsk, 1969); Problems of the Activity of theScientist and of Scientific Collectives (materials and symposia), No. 2, (Leningrad, 1969);V. N. Makeeva, 'On the question of the coordination and planning of scientific researchwork during the first years of Soviet power (1917-1925)', Ibid.; E. M. Mirsky andM. K. Petrov, 'Changes in the system of reproduction of scientific cadres', Ibid.;Research-Analysis-Application (Moscow, 1970).12A. E. Nikolaev, 'Science in the system of social relations', Voprosy Filosofii(Problems of Philosophy, Moscow), No. 2, (1967); V. Zh. Kelle, Some Aspects andLevels in the Sociological Theory of Science (Moscow, I968); P. A. Pachkov, TheRole of Science in the Building of Communism (Moscow, 1969); G. N. Volkov,

E. M. Mirsky92


14/15

between the sociology of science and psychologists'groups examining problemsof scientific creativity. In these circumstances the two trends must be seentogether.Sociological research into formal and informal relations within scientificcollectives is going on at a number of institutes in the AS USSR (groups inthe IHS&T, the Institute of Concrete Social Research, the Institute ofPhilosophy), in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Novosibirsk, and other towns.Soviet sociologists and others studying scientific creativity have been especiallyinterested in the foundation and development of large scientific centres likethe Siberian division of the AS USSR, the Centre for Biological Research inPustchino-on-Oka,and the joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna.T'he main research problems in this area concern such questions as thesociological study of the formal and informal structure of the scientific

collective, the structure of scientific communications and the main ways inwhich the structure evolves, and the sociological characterization of thecompositionand dynamic of scientific cadres.A relatively large group is interested in sociological and psychologicalproblems of scientific creativity. This emphasis received an extra impetus afterthe symposium on 'Problems of scientific and technical creativity' held in I967,and after the setting up of special research sub-divisions in the IHS&T andthe Institute for Concrete Social Research, as well as within the philosophydepartment of Rostov University. The chief subjects of this research includequestions of scientists' internal and external motivation; the social-psycho-logical climate in the scientific collective; problems of leadership in science;and the application of research methods and results to scientific creativity.Special attention is also being given to methods of stating objectively, andmeasuring, the creative activity of scientists by means of indirect indicatorsgenerally accepted in science studies (the network of citations, co-authorshipin publications,average productivity, and so on).Finally we should note that in the last few years, science studies havebroadened their scope and deepened their theoretical content; there 'hasbeena significant increase in the professional level of their achievements, and thus,The Sociology of Science (Moscow, 1968); G. N. Volkov, 'Changes in the socialorientation of science', Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy), No. i (Moscow,I969); Problems of Scientific and Technical Creativity (materials and symposia), Nos.i and 2 (Moscow, I967); The Sociology of Science (Rostov-on-Don, I968); I. I.Leiman, Science Studies and some questions of Sociological Research of ScientificCollectives, Doctoral dissertation (Leningrad, i967); S. A. Kugel', The Study of theStructure and Dynamic of Scientific Cadres (Moscow, 1968); M. G. Yaroshevsky, ThePsychology of Scientific Work and Problems of Increasing its Efficiency (Moscow, 1968);S. A. Kugel, 'Professional mobility in science and its tendencies of change in theconditions of the scientific-technical revolution', Voprosy Filosofii (Problems of Philosophy,No. ii (Moscow, I969); E. Z. Mirskaya, 'Communication in science', Voprosy Filosofii(Problems of Philosophy), No. 8 (Moscow, I969); Scientific creativity (in the seriesScience Studies: Problems and Research) (Moscow, I969); A. A. Zvorykin, Science,Society, Man (Moscow, I969); I. V. Sergeeva, Social Problems in the Organization ofScientific Creativity, Doctoral dissertation (Moscow, Institute of Concrete Sociologicalresearch, I970); Ya. A. Ponomarev, Psychology and intuition (Moscow, I967).

Notes and Letters 293


15/15

294 E. M. Mirskytoo, an increase in efficiency in their application to concrete problems oforganizing and planning research.To use the science studies terminology, we can speak of an expanding classof publications which is stable in content and related by mutual citations,which usually testifies to the development of an independent area of researchand to its autonomous character. At the same 'time there is a felt need forbasic works which would no longer be confined to the identification of aproblem area (this stage is in the main completed), but which wouldgeneralize the results of the whole complex of research, and give it ascientific-theoretical interpretation.No less important for Soviet science studies is the question of trainingprofessional cadres in the framework of one independent specialism. It isespecially important to train cadres with the highest scientific qualifications,and to concentrate existing specialists in scientific councils examining disser-tations on science studies questions. Another problem related to the trainingof cadres is the need for a programme for the inclusion of science studiescourses in university level educational plans for the training of philosophers,economists and historians of science, since the level of professionalismnecessary for research into science studies is coming increasingly into contra-diction with the actual level of professional training of research personnel.The solution of these tasks opens a broad perspective for future theoreticalresearch in Soviet science studies, and for its practical participation in thedevelopment of our national science.

Documents

Science Studies in the USSR (History, Problems, Prospects)