versusVersusVersus2782-36602782-3679Институт экономической политики имени Е.Т. Гайдараversus-31Research ArticleНАУКОМЕТРИЯBIBLIOMETRICSПерестать оценивать науку: историкосоциологическое обоснованиеStop Evaluating Science: A Historical-Sociological ArgumentХаллонстенУлофHallonstenOlof

Лунд

Lund, Sweden 

olof.hallonsten@fek.lu.seЛундский университет (LU)ШвецияLund University (LU)Sweden20221009202222104144Copyright © Халлонстен У., 20222022Халлонстен У.Hallonsten O.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://versus.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/31

Перевод с английского Юрия Каптуревского по изданию: Hallonsten O. Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument // Social Science Information. 2021. Vol. 60. № 1. P. 7–26.

На протяжении всей новейшей истории наука была в высшей степени успешной силой социального и технического развития и, если сравнивать с прошлыми временами, — основной причиной богатства и благосостояния современных обществ; тем не менее нынешний статус науки в обществе характеризуется фундаментальным недоверием к ней. Согласно широко распространенному ныне дискурсу наука является недостаточно продуктивной и нуждается в более строгом руководстве, бюрократическом менеджменте и оценке результатов деятельности, когда в качестве ключевого инструмента повышения эффективности используются системы количественных показателей. По-видимому, это представление основывается на убеждении, в соответствии с которым единственной целью науки является обеспечение экономического роста или устойчивого развития в сочетании с ним. В данной статье предлагаются анализ и деконструкция такого рода убеждений, выполненные с помощью теоретического инструментария классической социологии науки и современных концепций экономизации, демократизации и коммодификации научного знания и науки как института, а также выявляется их связь с более широкими темами рыночного фундаментализма и повышенного внимания современного общества к системам количественных показателей. Историко-социологический анализ, содержащийся в статье, позволяет сделать вывод о том, что нынешнее повсеместное распространение оценки результатов научной деятельности является по большей части беспредметным и контрпродуктивным, а политика в сфере науки остро нуждается в переоценке, направленной на сохранение продуктивности усилий ученых и их вклада в социальные и технические инновации.

Although science has been a formidably successful force of social and technological development in the modern era, and a principal reason for the wealth and well-being of modern societies in comparison to those of the past, its current status in society is characterized by profound distrust. According to the prevalent discourse, science is insufficiently productive and needs stricter governance and bureaucratic management, with performance evaluation by the means of quantitative metrics as a key tool to increase efficiency. The basis of this notion appears to be the belief that the sole purpose, or at least the key purpose, of science is to drive economic growth or, alternatively, sustainable development in combination with economic growth. In this article, these beliefs are analysed and deconstructed with the help of a theoretical toolbox from classic sociology of science and recent conceptualizations of economization, democratization, and commodification of scientific knowledge and the institution of science. This connects these beliefs to broader themes of market fundamentalism and to the metric fixation of current society. With the help of a historical-sociological analysis, this article shows that the current ubiquity of performance evaluation in science is pointless, for the most part, and counterproductive, and that this state of science policy is in dire need of reevaluation in order to secure the continued productivity of research and its contribution to social and technological innovation.

демократизацияэкономизацияоценкаповышенное внимание к количественным показателямсоциология науки.democratizationeconomizationevaluationmetric fixationsociology of scienceАвтор хотел бы поблагодарить всех коллег из Центра инноваций, исследований и компетенций в области экономики обучения (CIRCLE) Лундского университета за многочисленные и конструктивные комментарии к первоначальному варианту рукописи этой статьи.ReferencesБек У. Общество риска. На пути к другому модерну. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2000.Agar J. Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2012.Бок Д. Университеты в условиях рынка. Коммерциализация высшего образования. М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2012.Andreasen L. E. Europe’s Next Step: Organisational Innovation, Competition and Employment, Abingdon, Routledge, 1995.Вебер М. Протестантская этика и дух капитализма // Избр. произв. М.: Прогресс, 1990.Baldwin M. Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of ‘Peer Review’ in the Cold War United States. Isis, 2018, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 538–558.Вебер М. Промежуточное рассмотрение: теория уровней и направлений религиозного неприятия мира // Он же. Хозяйственная этика мировых религий: опыты сравнительной социологии религии. Конфуцианство и даосизм. СПб.: Владимир Даль, 2017. С. 399–445.Beck U. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity], Moscow, Progress-Traditsiya, 2000.Друкер Ф. Эпоха разрыва. Ориентиры для нашего меняющегося общества. М.: Вильямс, 2007.Berman E. P. Creating the Market University. How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2012.Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. М.: Канон, 1996.Berman E. P. Not Just Neoliberalism: Economization in Us Science and Technology Policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 2014, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 397–431.Коллини С. Зачем нужны университеты? М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2016.Bernal J. D. The Social Function of Science, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1967.Мертон Р. К. Наука и социальный порядок // Личность. Культура. Общество. 2000. Т. 2. Вып. 2. С. 151–168.Blasi B., Romagnosi S., Bonaccorsi A. Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)? The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (ed. A. Bonaccorsi), New York, Springer, 2018, pp. 361–392.Мертон Р. К. Непреднамеренные последствия преднамеренного социального действия // Социологический журнал. 2009. № 2. С. 5–17.Bok D. Universitety v usloviiakh rynka. Kommertsializatsiia vysshego obrazovaniia [Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2012.Поппер К. Логика научного исследования. М.: Астрель, 2010.Bonaccorsi A. Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH. The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities (ed. A. Bonaccorsi), New York, Springer, 2018, pp. 1–29.Ридингс Б. Университет в руинах. М.: ИД ВШЭ, 2021.Bourdieu P. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market, New York, The New Press, 1998Стиглиц Дж. Ю. Глобализация: тревожные тенденции. М.: Национальный общественно-научный фонд, 2003.Butler L. Assessing University Research: A Plea for a Balanced Approach. Science and Public Policy, 2007, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 565–574.Фуко М. Надзирать и наказывать. Рождение тюрьмы. М.: Ад Маргинем Пресс, 2018.Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Agar J. Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2012.Campbell R., Meadows A. Scholarly Journal Publishing: Where Do We Go From Here? Learned Publishing, 2011, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 171–181.Andreasen L. E. Europe’s Next Step: Organisational Innovation, Competition and Employment. Abingdon: Routledge, 1995.Cohen I. B. Revolution in Science, Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985.Baldwin M. Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States // Isis. 2018. Vol. 109. № 3. P. 538–558.Cole J. R. Academic Freedom Under Fire. Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom? (eds A. Bilgrami, J. R. Cole), New York, Columbia University Press, 2015, pp. 27–39.Berman E. P. Creating the Market University. How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.Cole J. R. The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected, New York, Public Affairs, 2009.Berman E. P. Not Just Neoliberalism: Economization in Us Science and Technology Policy // Science, Technology & Human Values. 2014. Vol. 39. № 3. P. 397–431.Cole J. R., Cole S. Social Stratification in Science, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973.Bernal J. D. The Social Function of Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1967.Collini S. Zachem nuzhny universitety? [What Are Universities For?], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2016.Blasi B., Romagnosi S., Bonaccorsi A. Do SSH Researchers Have a Third Mission (And Should They Have)? // The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities / A. Bonaccorsi (ed.). N.Y.: Springer, 2018. P. 361–392.Cozzens S. E. The Discovery of Growth: Statistical Glimpses of Twentieth-Century Science. Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (eds J. Krige, D. Pestre), Abingdon, Routledge, 2003, pp. 127–141.Bonaccorsi A. Towards an Epistemic Approach to Evaluation in SSH // The Evaluation of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities / A. Bonaccorsi (ed.). N.Y.: Springer, 2018. P. 20–21.Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias (eds B. Godin, D. Vinck), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2017.Bourdieu P. Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. N.Y.: The New Press, 1998.Dosi G., Llerana P., Labini M. S. The Relationships Between Science, Technologies and Their Industrial Exploitation: An Illustration Through the Myths and Realities of the So-Called “European Paradox”. Research Policy, 2006, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 1450–1464.Butler L. Assessing University Research: A Plea for a Balanced Approach // Science and Public Policy. 2007. Vol. 34. № 8. P. 565–574.Drucker P. Epokha razryva. Orientiry dlya nashego menyayushchegosya obshchestva [The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society], Moscow, Vil’yams, 2007.Cairney P. The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Durkheim É. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda [De la division du travail social], Moscow, Kanon, 1996.Campbell R., Meadows A. Scholarly Journal Publishing: Where Do We Go From Here? // Learned Publishing. 2011. Vol. 24. № 3. P. 171–181.Edquist C., McKelvey M. High R&D Intensity Without High Tech Products: A Swedish Paradox. Institutions and Economic Change: New Perspectives on Markets, Firms and Technology (eds K. Nielsen, B. Johnson), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 1998, pp. 131–149.Cohen I. B. Revolution in Science. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1985.Ejermo O., Kander A. The Swedish Paradox Revisited. Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional Regions (eds C. Karlsson, B. Johansson, R. Stough), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009, pp. 49–76.Cole J. R. The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensable National Role, Why It Must Be Protected. N.Y.: Public Affairs, 2009.Elzinga A. Features of the Current Science Policy Regime: Viewed in Historical Perspective. Science and Public Policy, 2012, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 416–428.Cole J. R. Academic Freedom Under Fire // Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom? / A. Bilgrami, J. R. Cole (eds). N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 2015. P. 27–39.Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research at the End of an Era (eds R. S. Rosenbloom, W. J. Spencer), Cambridge, Harvard Business School Press, 1996.Cole J. R., Cole S. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973.Espeland W. N., Sauder M. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 2007, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–40.Cozzens S. E. The Discovery of Growth: Statistical Glimpses of Twentieth-Century Science // Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century / J. Krige, D. Pestre (eds). Abingdon: Routledge, 2003. P. 127–141.Expertisation and Democracy in Europe (eds M. Góra, C. Holst, M. Warat), Abingdon, Routledge, 2018.Critical Studies of Innovation: Alternative Approaches to the Pro-Innovation Bias / B. Godin, D. Vinck (eds). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2017.Foucault M. Nadzirat’ i nakazyvat’. Rozhdenie tyur’my [Surveiller et pounir. Naissance de la Prison], Moscow, Ad Marginem Press, 2018.Dosi G., Llerana P., Labini M. S. The Relationships Between Science, Technologies and Their Industrial Exploitation: An Illustration Through the Myths and Realities of the So-Called “European Paradox” // Research Policy. 2006. Vol. 35. № 10. P. 1450–1464.Geiger R. L., Sá C. Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2008.Edquist C., McKelvey M. High R&D Intensity Without High Tech Products: A Swedish Paradox // Institutions and Economic Change: New Perspectives on Markets, Firms and Technology / K. Nielsen, B. Johnson (eds). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1998.Gertner J. The Idea Factory. Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation, New York, Penguin, 2012.Ejermo O., Kander A. The Swedish Paradox Revisited // Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Functional Regions / C. Karlsson et al. (eds). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2009.Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1990.Elzinga A. Features of the Current Science Policy Regime: Viewed in Historical Perspective the Swedish Paradox Revisited // Science and Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 39. № 4. P. 416–428.Ginsberg B. The Fall of the Faculty, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research at the End of an Era / R. S. Rosenbloom, W. J. Spencer (eds). Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.Giroux H. A. The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex, Boulder, Paradigm Publishers, 2007.Espeland W. N., Sauder M. Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds // American Journal of Sociology. 2007. Vol. 13. № 1. P. 1–40.Godin B. The Linear Model of Innovation. The Historical Construction of an Analytical Frameworkscience, Political Power and the State. Science, Technology & Human Values, 2006, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 639–667.Geiger R. L., Sá C. Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.Granberg A., Jacobsson S. Myths or Reality: A Scrutiny of Dominant Beliefs in the Swedish Science Policy Debate. Science and Public Policy, 2006, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 321–340.Gertner J. The Idea Factory. Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. N.Y.: Penguin, 2012.Greenberg D. S. Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2007.Giddens A. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.Gribbe J., Hallonsten O. The Emergence and Growth of Materials Science in Swedish Universities. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 2017, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 459–493.Ginsberg B. The Fall of the Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.Guston D. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000.Giroux H. A. The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2007.Hagstrom W. The Scientific Community, New York, Basic Books, 1965.Godin B. The Linear Model of Innovation. The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework // Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2006. Vol. 31. № 6. P. 639–667.Hallonsten O. Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Expertisation and Democracy in Europe / M. Góra et al. (eds). Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.Hallonsten O. On the Essential Role of Organized Skepticism in Science’s “Internal and Lawful Autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit). Journal of Classical Sociology, March 2021, doi:10.1177/1468795X211000247.Granberg A., Jacobsson S. Myths or reality: A scrutiny of dominant beliefs in the Swedish science policy debate // Science and Public Policy. 2006. Vol. 33. № 5. P. 321–340.Hallonsten O., Eriksson H., Collsiöö A. The Role of Research Infrastructures in Innovation Systems: The Case of Swedish Participation in the Halden Reactor Project (Hrp). Big Science and Research Infrastructures in Europe (eds K. Cramer, O. Hallonsten), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2020, pp. 177–197.Greenberg D. S. Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards and Delusions of Campus Capitalism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2007.Han B. C. The Burnout Society, Palo Alto, Stanford University Press, 2015.Gribbe J., Hallonsten O. The Emergence and Growth of Materials Science in Swedish Universities // Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences. 2017. Vol. 47. № 4. P. 459–493.Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for WorldClass Excellence, London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.Guston D. Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Hicks D. Performance-Based University Research Funding Systems. Research Policy, 2012, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 251–261.Hagstrom W. The Scientific Community. N.Y.: Basic Books, 1965.History of the University in Europe. Vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (ed. H. De Ridder-Symoens), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996.Hallonsten O. Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Hood C. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 1995, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 93–109.Hallonsten O. On the Essential Role of Organized Skepticism in Science’s “Internal and Lawful Autonomy” (Eigengesetzlichkeit) // Journal of Classical Sociology. March 2021. doi:10.1177/1468795X211000247.Hull D. L. Science as a Process, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1989.Hallonsten O. et al. The Role of Research Infrastructures in Innovation Systems: The Case of Swedish Participation in the Halden Reactor Project (HRP) // Big Science and Research Infrastructures in Europe / K. Cramer, O. Hallonsten (eds). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2020. P. 177–197.Irvine J., Martin B. R. Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners, London, Pinter Publishers, 1984.Han B. C. The Burnout Society. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2015.Jacobsson S., Rickne A. How Large Is the Swedish ‘Academic’ Sector Really? A Critical Analysis of the Use of Science and Technology Indicators. Research Policy, 2004, vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1355–1372.Hazelkorn E. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for World-Class Excellence. L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.Kevles D. J. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1995.Hicks D. Performance-Based University Research Funding Systems // Research Policy. 2012. Vol. 41. № 2. P. 251–261.Knowledge Society vs Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics (eds S. Sörlin, H. Vessuri), London, Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.History of the University in Europe. Vol. 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) / H. De Ridder-Symoens (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Luhmann N. Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Berlin, Suhrkamp, 1984.Hood C. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme // Accounting, Organizations and Society. 1995. Vol. 20. № 3. P. 93–109.Macdonald S. Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2015, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 264–279.Hull D. L. Science as a Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.Martin B. R. The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘Impact Agenda’: Are We Creating a Frankenstein Monster? Research Evaluation, 2011, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 247–254.Irvine J., Martin B. R. Foresight in Science. Picking the Winners. L.: Pinter Publishers, 1984.Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths, New York, Public Affairs, 2015.Jacobsson S., Rickne A. How large is the Swedish “academic” sector really? A critical analysis of the use of science and technology indicators // Research Policy. 2004. Vol. 33. № 9. P. 1355–1372.Medawar P. Plato’s Republic, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1982.Kevles D. J. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.Merton R. K. Nauka i sotsial’nyi poryadok [Science and the Social Order]. Lichnost’. Kul’tura. Obshchestvo [Personality. Culture. Society], 2000, vol. 2, iss. 2, pp. 151–168.Knowledge Society vs Knowledge Economy: Knowledge, Power, and Politics / S. Sörlin, H. Vessuri (eds). L.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. P. 1–2.Merton R. K. Neprednamerennye posledstviya prednamerennogo sotsial’nogo deistviya [The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action]. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal [Sociological Journal], 2009, no. 2, pp. 15–17.Luhmann N. Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. B.: Suhrkamp, 1984.Merton R. K. Priorities in Scientific Discovery. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 286–324.Macdonald S. Emperor’s New Clothes: The Reinvention of Peer Review as Myth // Journal of Management Inquiry. 2015. Vol. 24. № 3. P. 264–279.Merton R. K. Science and the Social Order. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 254–266.Martin B. R. The Research Excellence Framework and the “Impact Agenda”: Are We Creating a Frankenstein Monster? // Research Evaluation. 2011. Vol. 20. № 3. P. 247–254.Merton R. K. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England, Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press, 1970.Mazzucato M. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs Private Sector Myths. N.Y.: Public Affairs, 2015.Merton R. K. The Normative Structure of Science. The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (ed. N. W. Storer), Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1973, pp. 270–278.Medawar P. Pluto’s Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.Merton R. K. The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action. American Sociological Review, 1936, vol. 1. no. 6, pp. 894–904.Merton R. K. Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1970.Mirowski P. Science-Mart. Privatizing American Science, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2011.Merton R. K. The Normative Structure of Science // The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations / N. W. Storer (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973. P. 270.Mody C. Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2011.Merton R. K. Priorities in Scientific Discovery // The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. / N. W. Storer (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973. P. 286–324.Mody C. The Long Arm of Moore’s Law, Cambridge, MIT Press, 2016.Mirowski P. Science-Mart. Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011.Muller J. Z. The Tyranny of Metrics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2018.Mody C. Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011.Münch R. Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence, Abingdon, Routledge, 2014.Mody C. The Long Arm of Moore’s Law. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016.Münch R. Understanding Modernity. Towards a New Perspective Going Beyond Durkheim and Weber, Abingdon, Routledge, 2011.Muller J. Z. The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018.Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.Münch R. Understanding Modernity. Towards a New Perspective Going Beyond Durkheim and Weber. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011.Östling J. Humboldt and the Modern German University. An Intellectual History, Lund, Lund University Press, 2018.Münch R. Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. Abingdon: Routledge, 2014.Pacchioni G. The Overproduction of Truth, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2018.Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982.Parsons T. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective, Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall, 1966.Östling J. Humboldt and the Modern German University. An Intellectual History. Lund: Lund University Press, 2018.Parsons T. The Social System, London, Tavistock, 1952.Pacchioni G. The Overproduction of Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Parsons T., Platt G. M. The American University, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1973.Parsons T. The Social System. L.: Tavistock, 1952.Pestre D. Science, Political Power and the State. Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century (eds J. Krige, D. Pestre), Abingdon, Routledge, 2003, pp. 61–76.Parsons T. Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1966.Pithan D. The Discursive Legitimation of New Ideas. Emergence and Diffusion of the Industrial Research Laboratory in the United States, 1870–1930. PhD thesis. Wuppertal University, Germany, 2019.Parsons T., Platt G. M. The American University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973.Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2009.Pestre D. Science, Political Power and the State // Companion to Science in the Twentieth Century / J. Krige, D. Pestre (eds). Abingdon: Routledge, 2003. P. 61–76.Popper K. Logika nauchnogo issledovaniya [Logik der Forschung], Moscow, Astrel’, 2010.Pithan D. The Discursive Legitimation of New Ideas. Emergence and Diffusion of the Industrial Research Laboratory in the United States, 1870–1930. PhD Thesis. Wuppertal University, Germany, 2019.Power M. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.Polanyi M. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2009.Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science (ed. I. B. Cohen), New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press, 1990.Power M. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Radder H. From Commodification to the Common Good Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019.Puritanism and the Rise of Modern Science / I. B. Cohen (ed.). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990.Radder H. The Commodification of Academic Research. Science and the Modern Universities, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2010.Radder H. The Commodification of Academic Research. Science and the Modern Universities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.Ravetz J. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems, Piscataway, Transaction Publishers, 1971.Radder H. From Commodification to the Common Good Reconstructing Science, Technology, and Society. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019.Readings B. The University in Ruins, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1996.Ravetz J. Scientific Knowledge and its Social Problems. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 1971.Readings B. Universitet v ruinakh [The University in Ruins], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2021.Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market. The Breakdown of Scientific Thought / S. Rider et al. (eds). N.Y.: Springer, 2012.Ridley M. How Innovation Works. And Why it Flourishes in Freedom, New York, Harper, 2020.The Social Survey in Historical Perspective / M. Bulmer et al. (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.Roberts T., Shambrook J. Academic Excellence: A Commentary and Reflections on the Inherent Value of Peer Review. Journal of Research Administration, 2012, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 33–38.Ridley M. How Innovation Works. And Why it Flourishes in Freedom. N.Y.: Harper, 2020.Schluchter W. The Rise of Western Rationalism. Max Weber’s Developmental History, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1992.Roberts T., Shambrook J. Academic Excellence: A Commentary and Reflections on the Inherent Value of Peer Review // Journal of Research Administration. 2012. Vol. 43. № 1. P. 33–38.Somers M., Block F. From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets and Institutions Over 200 Years of Welfare Debate. American Sociological Review, 2005, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 260–287.Schluchter W. The Rise of Western Rationalism. Max Weber’s Developmental History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.Spaapen J., Sivertsen G. Assessing Societal Impact of SSH in an Engaging World: Focus On Productive Interaction, Creative Pathways and Enhanced Visibility of SSH Research. Research Evaluation, 2020, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1–3.Somers M., Block F. From Poverty to Perversity: Ideas, Markets and Institutions Over 200 Years of Welfare Debate // American Sociological Review. 2005. Vol. 70. № 2. P. 260–287.Stehr N. Knowledge Societies, London, SAGE, 1994.Spaapen J., Sivertsen G. Assessing Societal Impact of SSH in an Engaging World: Focus On Productive Interaction, Creative Pathways and Enhanced Visibility of SSH Research // Research Evaluation. 2020. Vol. 29. № 1. P. 2.Stiglitz J. E. Globalizatsiya: trevozhnye tendentsii [Globalization and Its Discontents], Moscow, Natsional’nyi obshchestvenno-nauchnyi fond, 2003.Stehr N. Knowledge Societies. L.: SAGE, 1994.The Social Survey in Historical Perspective (eds M. Bulmer, K. Bales, K. Kish Sklar), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1991.The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists / B. Wittrock, A. Elzinga (eds). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1983.The University Research System: The Public Policies of the Home of Scientists (eds B. Wittrock, A. Elzinga), Stockholm, Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1983.Tourish D. Management Studies in Crisis. Fraud, Deception and Meaningless Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.Tourish D. Management Studies in Crisis. Fraud, Deception and Meaningless Research, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2019.Välimaa J., Hoffman D. Knowledge Society Discourse and Higher Education // Higher Education. 2008. № 56. P. 265–285.Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market. The Breakdown of Scientific Thought (eds S. Rider, Y. Hasselberg, A. Waluszewski), New York, Springer, 2012.Watermeyer R. Competitive Accountability in Academic Life. The Struggle for Social Impact and Public Legitimacy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2019.Välimaa J., Hoffman D. Knowledge Society Discourse and Higher Education. Higher Education, 2008, no. 56, pp. 265–285.Weber M. Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions // From Max Weber / H. H. Gerth, C. W. Mills (eds). Abingdon: Routledge, 2009. P. 328.Watermeyer R. Competitive Accountability in Academic Life. The Struggle for Social Impact and Public Legitimacy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2019.Weingart P. Impact of Bibliometrics upon the Science System: Inadvertent Consequences? // Scientometrics. 2005. Vol. 62. № 1. P. 117–131.Weber M. Khozyaistvennaya etika mirovykh religii: opyty sravnitel’noi sotsiologii religii. Konfutsianstvo i daosizm [Die Wirtschaftsethik der Weltreligionen: Vergleichende religionssoziologische Versuche. Konfuzianismus und Taoismus], Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Dal’, 2017.Westwick P. J. The National Labs: Science in an American System 1947–1974. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.Weber M. Protestantskaya etika i dukh kapitalizma [Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus]. Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works], Moscow, Progress, 1990.Whitley R. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences // The Changing Governance of the Sciences / R. Whitley, J. Gläser (eds). N.Y.: Springer, 2007. P. 9–10.Weber M. Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions. From Max Weber (eds H. H. Gerth, C. W. Mills), Abingdon, Routledge, 2009, pp. 323–359.Whitley R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.Weingart P. Impact of Bibliometrics Upon the Science System: Inadvertent Consequences? Scientometrics, 2005, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 117–131.Zuckerman H. The other Merton thesis // Science in Context. 1989. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 239–267.Westwick P. J. The National Labs: Science in an American System 1947–1974, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2003.Whitley R. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences. The Changing Governance of the Sciences (eds R. Whitley, J. Gläser), New York, Springer, 2007, pp. 3–27.Whitley R. Changing Governance of the Public Sciences. The Changing Governance of the Sciences (eds R. Whitley, J. Gläser), New York, Springer, 2007, pp. 3–27.Whitley R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.Whitley R. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, 2nd ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000.Zuckerman H. The Other Merton Thesis. Science in Context, 1989, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 239–267.Zuckerman H. The Other Merton Thesis. Science in Context, 1989, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 239–267.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.