Suchergebnisse

In our modern world electoral sociology, which is under constant scrutiny by the general public, as well as members of the media, in many ways shapes the image of sociology as a scientific discipline. Today sociology is often represented by media reports about the results of public opinion polls on the subject of politics and electoral affairs. Meanwhile a certain other trend is apparent: the high expectations imposed on electoral studies, as well as on their verifiability and efficiency, encourage the further development of sociological research and sociology in general. Scientific studies on electoral processes are defined by the convergence of various schools and paradigms of research, which implies an overlapping of different approaches and methods. This article presents the stages of electoral sociology's development, from "straw polls" to contemporary theories of electoral behavior (the straw poll stage, electoral sociology in the 1930's and 1940's, ecological analysis in electoral sociology, the behavioral approach, the sociological theory on electoral behavior, the socio-psychological theory of electoral behavior, the theory of instrumental rationality), which in modern electoral sociology are known as "post-Gallup" theories. The author reveals the main characteristics of each stage of modern electoral sociology's development, while highlighting its achievements and value, and giving a comprehensive analysis of modern theories of electoral behavior, with regards to issues located on the line between political sociology and sociology of law. Among these issues special consideration is given to elections as a political phenomenon, the political culture and political attitudes of the electorate, features of voting systems, political mechanisms and electoral technologies.

This article analyzes multi-shift schooling and its effect on the quality of education in the city of Ulaanbaatar in Mongolia. Highlighted are the features, advantages and shortcomings of multi-shift schooling, achievements of middle-school pupils, satisfaction of parents and pupils with the quality and accessibility of education. Also evaluated are opinions on multi-shift schooling. After the downfall of socialism and a transition towards a free market, multiple migratory flows from provinces to the country's capital city have led to a specific increase of the population, and as a result of government policy to admit all 6-year old children into schools, as well as an increased strain on account of transitioning from a 10-year education system to a new 12-year one, schools have encountered a lack of funds, as well as a shortage of teachers and equipment. In an attempt to solve these issues, some schools have increased the amount of pupils attending one class to 45 or more, while also instituting a third shift, which has become common practice among many of Ulaanbaatar's middle-schools. Within the framework of a 2016 research project, the Mongolian State University's department of sociology and social work has conducted research and evaluated the multi-shift schooling system, while utilizing various research methods (survey, interview, observation, content analysis). Under the guise of a study called "Multiple shifts in Ulaanbaatar's secondary schools and the quality of education", conducted in 2016-2017, scientific approaches were used such as structural functionalism, phenomenology and exchange theory in order to analyze qualitative and quantitative data. A multi-shift schooling system, especially one with three shifts, creates some serious problems. Based on our research, the main parties concerned (teachers, parents and pupils) for the most part see it as detrimental to the quality of education, and as a liability when it comes to pupils' opportunity to enroll into the highest tier universities, given that those who go to schools working three shifts receive 20% less learning hours compared to schools working two shifts. Three shifts were introduced mainly in schools attended by children from vulnerable social groups. Such a practice creates social discrimination and violates children's rights to an equal and quality education. 17.9% of respondents who took part in our study receive an income of less than 185,000 tugriks a month (which is less than 80 USD), while 5.4% have no income at all. A three shift system of schooling has a negative effect on health and safety in the school environment, with an increase in the disease rate among children and the number of absences.

A data-sociology approach is introduced by analyzing results obtained by the Russian voluntary networking community «Dissernet». As is the case with data-journalism, data-sociology is based on the publically accessible (open source) data and takes advantage of modern information processing technologies. The results obtained in the framework of this study help to reconstruct a socio-landscape and to reveal problematic areas where any sort of fraud is highly welcomed. As a matter of fact, the same areas are highly problematic for society as a whole. Data collected by the «Dissernet» allow practical conclusions to be drawn about the work of various professional groups of people, e.g. expert committies in science and higher education (Dissertation Committies), editorial boards of scientiic journals, as well as governmental bodies at regional and federal level.

This article discusses the problem of the relationship between sociology and philosophy in 1920's Soviet Russia, the result of which was the birth of "Marxist sociology" and its approval in the 1930's. In the first part of the article, the problem becomes more acute in the question of whether there was any sociology in the USSR during those years. It is argued that the answer to it cannot be unconditional and unequivocal, because much depends on what was considered to be "sociology" at the time. In this regard, the thesis about the existence of "empirical sociology" in the 1920's is questioned. The article briefly highlights the original meaning of the concept of "sociology", the history of its existence in the Russian Empire. It analyzes how the trends of "philosophical nihilism" in the early years of Soviet government were reflected in its interpretation. The task is set not only to describe the historically and socio-culturally conditioned changes in the meaning of the term "sociology" in the 1920's, but also to determine the factors that influenced them from the perspective of sociology of knowledge. In this regard, the key yet negative role of Vladimir Lenin in the history of domestic social thought is considered.

The article substantiates the need for training personnel with theoretical knowledge in the field of the history of Eurasianism as a civilizational space, cultural and historical features of the Eurasian states, as well as those who are able to work in a multinational team, research and design activities to improve the efficiency of integration processes in the post-Soviet space. The main approaches to the development and implementation of the Master's program in sociology «Integration processes in Eurasia» are proposed, the purpose of which is to form a pool of specialists with the necessary competencies for this: research, preparation of predictive and analytical recommendations for government agencies and various organizations, participation in the implementation of interstate programs. The socio-humanitarian meanings of the development of integration interaction of the EAEU member states, the tasks of promoting socio-humanitarian values for the development of Eurasian integration are substantiated. Based on expert assessments, conditions have been proposed to guarantee the successful implementation of the program: the introduction of new teaching methods and technologies; broad partnership with employers and public organizations; the use of the advantages of digitalization of the educational process, programs, applications and other digital resources for
e-learning both remotely and directly at the university; the introduction of online courses. The ideas formulated in the article can be used in the development of educational programs for the training and education of not only specialists — sociologists, but also other specialists of social and humanitarian professions, additional professional programs (advanced training programs and professional retraining programs) for representatives of institutions of the Eurasian Economic Union, public authorities, business and non-profit sector of the EAEU member states and other countries, a network program in the field of Eurasian integration of the Eurasian Network University (ESU), a Network CIS universities, Slavic universities, etc.

The sociological study of volunteerism typically uses a definition which includes all possible types of free, unpaid activities which benefit other people. Such an approach transforms the very phenomenon of volunteerism into an analytical tool for studying various fields of economic and social life: degrees of development of civil society, employment structure, features of a certain economic mode. Regardless, the use of such a definition when researching volunteer movements presents certain problems. Multiple critics point out that such an approach towards understanding volunteerism, on one hand, leads to various types of volunteer activity being excluded from the scope of research, namely those which do not fully comply with the aforementioned criteria of free choice and gratuitousness; on the other hand, it waters down the concept of volunteerism, by merging it with other forms of civil action, such as political activism. Furthermore, most studies exhibit a tendency towards highlighting volunteerism as a special type of action, which possesses persistent intrinsic characteristics regardless of the field in which it is being undertaken. Such an approach results in a complete lack of care for certain essential features of various types of those productive activities which volunteers can partake in. It's also worth noting that research doesn't tend to include practices of volunteerism when the main focus of analysis shifts towards studying the socio-demographic characteristics of participants, as well as issues concerning their motivation. Based on analyzing Russian and foreign sources, the article presents an overview of the issues associated with defining the boundaries of the field in question, while discussing the main difficulties when it comes to constructing a general theory of volunteerism, and analyzing the separation of various forms of civil activity which is typically present in foreign literature: volunteerism, grassroots political involvement, civil activism. The article brings forth arguments for limiting the subject of research and for analytical separation between various forms of civil activity.

The article provides a brief overview of the scientific, organizational and pedagogical activities of the outstanding Russian historian and sociologist N.I. Kareev (1850–1931). The main focus is his participation in the processes of the initial period of institutionalizing sociology in Russia: the publication of scientific papers and textbooks on sociology. He was the first person in Russia to give a systematic course in sociology to university students, was co-opted to the Council of the Psychoneurological Institute, in which the first department of sociology was established in Russia. During Soviet times N.I. Kareev taught sociology in Petrograd at Women's Courses. In 1918, by decision of the People's Commissariat of Education, he was included in the list of 30 Russian professors who taught sociology at universities of Petrograd and sociological courses for sociology teachers working at secondary schools. N.I. Kareev took an active part in the formation and functioning of the sociological section at the Historical Society of St. Petersburg University and the М.М. Kovalevsky Sociological Society. In 1919, N.I. Kareev actively participated in the formation of the departments of sociology, sociological and social studies at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Petrograd University. But later, his activity began to receive less and less approval from the new organizers of science and education in Russia.

This article is an overview of P.A. Sorokin's participation in the processes of developing sociology as a science in Russia during his studies at the Department of Sociology at the Psychoneurological Institute, at the Faculty of Law at the St. Petersburg University, in preparation for thesis presentation during the First World War and in the early years of the Soviet regime. Particular attention is paid to his publications, participation in organizing the functioning of the first Russian sociological society named after M.M. Kovalevsky, Department of Sociology at the Petrograd University and in the empirical research conducted by the Sociological Institute.

The article raises the question of the relation of sociology to modern wars. Scientific knowledge in the modernist and postmodern era is actively exploited by states and governments to enhance the country's defense capability. The author comes to the conclusion that the turn of sociology has come. During the Second World War, the US government has attracted representatives of the social sciences to research in defense, including such well-known scholars as Paul Lazarsfeld, Elmo Roper, Louis Guttman, Renss Likert and others. The latest type of war, which the modern Russian-Ukrainian hybrid war fully complies with, requires a lot of specific social knowledge. It forms the theoretical foundation for non-military instruments of the hybrid war. Every such instrument should harm the enemy's society, destroy the social order and change the consciousness of the population. The maximum task is to achieve a victory before the first shot. The article examines four concepts that have been actively developed since the beginning of zero years by social researchers in the interests of the army and special services: 1) network theory, 2) the theory of controlled chaos, 3) cognitive warfare, 4) the concept of reflexive management. All of them have found practical application in operation «russian spring», which marked the beginning of the active phase of the war in 2014. The question of moral responsibility of social scientists both from the side of the aggressor country and the country that fights sovereignty and freedom is raised. ; В статье поднимается вопрос об отношении социологии к современным войнам. Научное знание в эпохи модерна и постмодерна активно эксплуатируется государствами, правительствами в целях усиления обороноспособности стран. Автор приходит к выводу, что наступает черед социологии. Во времена Второй мировой войны американское правительство привлекло представителей социальных наук к исследовательской деятельности в интересах обороны, в т.ч. известных ученых – Пауля Лазарсфельда, Элмо Роупера, Луиса Гуттмана, Ренсиса Лайкерта и др. Новейший тип войны, которому полностью соответствует современная российско-украинская война, требует специфичного социального знания, образующего теоретический фундамент невоенных инструментов гибридной войны. Каждый такой инструмент должен быть способным нанести вред социуму противника, разрушать социальный порядок и изменять сознание населения. Максимальное задание – достичь победы еще до первого выстрела. В статье рассмотрены четыре концепции, которые активно разрабатывались с начала нулевых годов российскими социальными исследователями в интересах армии и спецслужб: 1) сетевая теория, 2) теория управляемого хаоса, 3) когнитивная война, 4) концепция рефлексивного управления. Все они нашли свое применение в кампании «русская весна», с которой началась активная фаза войны в 2014 г. Ставится вопрос о моральной ответственности социальных ученых как со стороны страны-агрессора, так и страны, которая борется за свой суверенитет и свободу. ; У статті піднімається питання відношення соціології до сучасних воєн. Наукове знання в епоху модерну і постмодерну активно експлуатується державами, урядами в цілях посилення обороноздатності країн. Автор доходить висновку, що настала черга соціології. За часів Другої світової війни американський уряд залучив представників соціальних наук до дослідницької діяльності в інтересах оборони, серед яких такі відомі вчені, як Пауль Лазарсфельд, Елмо Роупер, Луіс Гуттман, Ренсіс Лайкерт та інші. Новітній тип війни, якому повністю відповідає сучасна російсько-українська гібридна війна, потребує специфічного соціального знання, що утворює теоретичний фундамент невійськових інструментів гібридної війни. Кожен такий інструмент має наносити шкоду соціуму супротивника, руйнувати соціальний порядок і змінювати свідомість населення. Максимальне завдання – досягти перемоги до першого пострілу. В статті розглянуто чотири концепції, які активно розроблялися з початку нульових років російськими соціальними дослідниками в інтересах армії та спецслужб: 1) мережева теорія, 2) теорія керованого хаосу, 3) когнітивна війна, 4) концепція рефлексивного управління. Усі вони знайшли практичне застосування в кампанії «руська весна», з якої починалася активна фаза війни у 2014 р. Ставиться питання щодо моральної відповідальності соціальних вчених як зі сторони країни-агресора, так і країни, що виборює суверенітет і свободу.