Suchergebnisse

.

The article offers a socialpsychological perspective on the process of shaping national science culture, which determines the peculiarities of scientific research in different countries. This point of view allows to determine the causes for emergence of national scientific cultures and provides instruments to describe them. The author applies the three-level scheme for describing cultures, developed by D. Oyserman and coauthors, and attempts to analyze the distal level of the Russian scientific culture, constituted by the influence of the Russian cultural tradition, which forms the context for the work of Russian scientists.

.

.

.

The article considers peer review as the main procedure for demarcating scientific knowledge from other kinds thereof, which do not meet the criteria set for research results. The authors examine the history of peer review, which has first been used in early scientific journals and then has become one of the key approaches to distributing funds for research in science foundations, such as the U.S. National Science Foundation. The article also considers the role of peer review in the legal process, wherein observance of this procedure can be seen as the main criteria, which separates scientific evidence from mere testimony. The description of the main elements of the peer review procedure is based on the "Statement of principles for scientific merit review" the summary of the results of the Global Summit on Merit Review, which brought together heads of science funding organizations from more than 50 countries. The Statement listed the following principles: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, integrity and ethical considerations. Although these principles are seen as a way to guarantee efficient peer review one has to consider the peculiarities of a particular research area, first of all the differences between social and natural sciences. Accordingly the article gives an overview of key traits of peer review in the social sciences and humanities. The authors also consider the main procedural elements - preparation of individual reviews, consideration by panels, anonymity of reviewers. Finally the article addresses the problems of peer review such as non-transparent process, elitism in selecting reviewers, conservativeness of decisions, and possible ways of handling these problems.

.

The article attempts to evaluate the influence of one of the main works of S. Freud on the psychoanalysis of culture "Totem and Taboo". The authors offer an overview of the history of the book's creation including its psychoanalytical, anthropological and historical sources, analyze its main concepts among them the connection between ancient prohibitions and limitations imposed by neurotics on themselves, similarity between neurotic behavior and behavior of primitive people, examine the place of the book among other works by Freud such as "Mass psychology and Ego analysis", "Cultural sexual morality and modern neurosis" and others. The article also investigates the main criticisms against Freud's work launched from historical and psychological positions and tries to single out its constructive elements. The authors trace the reception of the book by literary circles, among others by T. Mann, who suggested viewing "Totem and Taboo" rather as a new kind of myth creation than a work of science. And then the article turns to attempts to apply the book's ideas to the analysis of such events of modern history as the denazification of Germany and student uprising in the late 1960s following the works of the psychoanalyst M. Erdheim and philosopher O. Marquard. The authors conclude the article by offering their view of the possible applications of Freud's concepts in the analysis of social processes, which could be based on combining the scientific approach favored by Freud himself, despite his leanings toward speculative theory, with methods of reflection typical for art, which build upon free associations of events and are directed towards the wide public rather than a narrow group of specialists.

.