СОЦИОЛОГ ЛЮДМИЛА ГЛЕБОВНА БОРИСОВА И ЕЕ ВРЕМЯ

Abstract

The article problematizes the possibility of replicating unique scientific and educational innovations in the institutional space of Russian society on the example of referring to the creative biography of Lyudmila Glebovna Borisova and her scientific sociological school. The methodology is based on the concept of the diversity of the transition to modernity by S. Eisenstadt; the method of researching scientific schools in the context of the relationship between the structure of science itself and the social problems of society, of which scientific institutions are a part; generational approach, biographical method and smart grid research method. The empirical base of the research is based on the documents of Lyudmila Glebovna Borisova from the Open Archive of the SB RAS: 10 office documentation, materials of personal origin, scientific publications. The key milestones in the biography of L.G. Borisova in the context of the institutional transformations of science and education of the late USSR, the development of the Novosibirsk Scientific Center (NSC); the history of the formation of sociological schools in the Novosibirsk Academgorodok is shown, the features of one of them, the school of sociology of education, are revealed. The characteristic of a special, selfless type of the Russian scientist is given. The history of the successes and failures of Lyudmila Glebovna Borisova is shown against the background of social changes in society and its institutions. In the context of the late USSR, the development of the scientific school of the sociology of education was influenced by the personality of L.G. Borisova, an ascetic scientist who underwent primary professional socialization in a pedagogical team with an ethos-oriented orientation, containing the ideas of humanism, the unity of word and deed, public service, and equality of interests between the elders and the younger. This ethos she conveyed in relationships with students and colleagues. The new stage of reforms significantly reduced the autonomy of professional communities of scientists and teachers, narrowed the base for recruiting scientific personnel in science and pedagogy, and increased the alienation of professionals from decision-making. In the changed conditions, her departure was irreparable for the scientific school.