History and Sociology of Science During the Crisis and Transitional Periods of Social Development





history of science, sociology of science, social development in times of crisis, research project, research culture, science communication with society and government, innovative culture of society


Introduction. During critical or crisis periods of social development, the need to search for forms of interaction
between science and society, to solve problems in organizing research activities and researcher individual work, and to identify scientifi c problem to be solved for overcoming social challenges becomes especially relevant. It is reasonable to use the heuristic possibilities of studies in history and sociology of science and the experience gained.
Problem Statement. Rethinking the subject areas and tasks of the history and sociology of science, which are
pro posed to be considered not only a historical description of the impact of social processes on the development of
science, or science on society, but also knowledge that allows identifying the mechanisms for enhancing the de velopment of science and society through mutual understanding, inclusive and sustainable growth, innovation culture.
Purpose. To defi ne the heuristic potential of history and sociology of science for fi nding ways to overcome
the challenges related to interaction between science and society during crises associated with the practice based
approach of modern science; urgent problems of researcher professional activity; social aspects of the project
method of organizing scholarly research; issues of science communication with society and government in times
of pandemic and war.
Material and Methods. The research is based on the comprehensive use of general scientifi c principles of
historicism, objectivity, reliability, integrity, systematic approach, and representativeness.
Results. It has been substantiated that studying history and sociology of science enables identifying problems
and mechanisms of enhancing the development of science and society through mutual understanding, inclusive
and sustainable growth.
Conclusions. For the successful innovation-driven development of Ukraine’s economy it is necessary to focus
primarily on developing the innovation culture of society and implementing science-centric government policy. The
social and humanitarian sphere should become one of the priority areas of innovation in Ukraine.


Horobets, V. M. (2010). New social history. Encyclopaedia of the history of Ukraine. Vol. 7. Kyiv. URL: http://resource. history.org.ua/cgi-bin/eiu/history.exe?&I21DBN=EIU&P21DBN=EIU&S21STN=1&S21REF=10&S21FMT=eiu_all& C21COM=S&S21CNR=20&S21P01=0&S21P02=0&S21P03=TRN=&S21COLORTERMS=0&S21STR=Nova_ sotsialna (Last accessed: 20.11.2022) [in Ukrainian].

Bogolyubov, О. М. (1994). Social history of mathematical natural science. Essays on the history of natural science and technology, 41, 3—16 [in Russian].

Ogurtsov, О. P. (2001). Social history of science: strategies, directions, problems. Principles of historiography of natural sci ence: XX century. St. Petersburg. P. 34—68 [in Russian].

Potishchuk, O. O. (2012). Methodological strategies of social history of science. Bulletin of NTUU “KPI”. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 3(36), 49—55 [in Ukrainian].

Shashkova, L. O. (2006). Methodological aspects of problems of integration of natural-scientifi c-social-humanitarian know ledge. Scientifi c Bulletin of Chernivtsi University: Philosophy, 309—310, 9—13 [in Ukrainian].

Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In F. Suppe (Ed.). The Structure of Scientifi c Theories. Urbana. P. 459—482.

Knorr-Tsetina, K. (2006). Sociality and objects. Social relations in post-social knowledge societies. Sociology of things. Moscow [in Russian].

Braben, D. W. (2020). Scientifi c Freedom: The Elixir of Civilization Hardcover. San Francisco.

Forsberg, E., Geschwind, L., Levander, S., Wermke, W. (2022). Peer review in an Era of Evaluation: Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia. Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75263-7

Bjørkdahl, K., Santiago, A., Duharte, F. (2022). Academic Flying and the Means of Communication. Palgrave Macmillan (Last accessed: 20.11.2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4911-0.

Ryzhko, L., Onoprienko, V., Bessalova, T., Zhivaga, O. V., Borozdikh, N. V. (2019). A scientist in postmodern culture. Kyiv. URL: https://stepscenter.org.ua/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/monografi a_block.pdf (Last accessed: 20.11.2022).

Macfarlane, B. J. (2019). The neoliberal academic: Illustrating shifting academic norms in an age of hyper-performativity. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 53, 5. https: //doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1684262.

Onoprienko, V. (2015). The image of science in changing society. Saarbrücken [in Russian].

Petricini, A. T. (2022). Friendship and Technology: A Philosophical Approach to Computer Mediated Communication. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003188810.

Martinez-Vargas, C. (2022). Democratizing Participatory Research. Pathways to Social Justice from the South. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0273

Hennessy, S. (2014). Bridging between Research and Practice. Supporting Professional Development through Collaborative Studies of Classroom Teaching with Technology. Rotterdam. URL: https://brill.com/view/title/36714 (Last accessed: 20.11.2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-434-5

Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (Eds.). (2018). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Moscow [in Russsian].

Maasen, S., Dickel, S., Schneider, C. (Eds.). (2020). TechnoScienceSociety. Technological Reconfi gurations of Science and Society. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, SOSC, 30, 1—18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43965-1.

Rommetveit, K. (Ed.) (2022). Post-Truth Imaginations. New Starting Points for Critique of Politics and Technoscience. New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053061

Dobrov, G. M. (1989). Science of science. Kyiv [in Russian].

Bogomolets, О. О. (1956, 1958). Selected works. V. 1—3. Kyiv [in Russian].

Born, M. (1977). Refl ections and memories of a physicist. Moscow [in Russian].

Ostwald, V. (1910). Greatest people. Saint-Petersburg [in Russian].

Zerbino, D. D. (1994). Scientifi c school as a phenomenon. Kyiv [in Russian].

Kuhn, T. (1975). The structure of scientifi c revolutions. Moscow [in Russian].

Lakatos, I. (1978). The history of science and its rational constructions. In: Structure and development of science. Moscow, 204—269 [in Russian].

Mykulinsky, S. R., Yaroshevsky, M. G., Kreb, H., Steiner, G. (Eds.). (1977). Schools in science: collection. Moscow [in Russian].

Kartsev, V. P. (1984). Social psychology of science and problems of historical and scientifi c research. Moscow [in Russian].

Khramov, Yu. О. (1991). History of establishment and development of physics schools in Ukraine. Kyiv [in Russian].

Khramov, Yu. О. (1986). Scientifi c leader and his characteristic features. Science of science and informatics, 27, 81—91 [in Russian].

Malitsky, B. A. (2007). Applied science of science. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., Straza, T. (Eds.). (2021). UNESCO Science Report: the Race Against Time for Smarter Development. UNESCO Publishing. Paris.

Hessels, L. K., van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: a literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740—760. URL: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Peer-Review/Hessels-Re-thinking-New-Know ledgeProduction-2008.pdf (Last accessed: 20.11.2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008

Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge.

Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science: What It is, and What It Means. Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541391

Macfarlane, B., Cheng, M. (2008). Communism, Universalism and Disinterestedness: Re-examining Contemporary Support among Academics for Merton’s Scientifi c Norms. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 67—78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9055-y

United Nations. (2021). Technology and innovation report. Catching technological waves. Innovation with equity. URL: https://unctad.org/publication/technology-and-innovation-report-2021 (Last accessed: 20.11.2022).

European Commission (2022). Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, European Research Executive Agency, Publications Offi ce of the European Union, CORDIS results pack on science communication, Publications Offi ce of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2830/389864

Hessels, K. L., van Lente, H., Smits, R. (2009). In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Science and Public Policy, 36(5), 387—401. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X442034.

Malitsky, B. A. (2023). Science-centric state policy as a necessary and eff ective tool for improving living standards in Ukraine. Science and science of science, 1(119), 18—34 [in Ukrainian]. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2023.01.018.

What researchers think about the culture they work in. Wellcome, 15 January (2020). URL: https://wellcome.org/ re ports/what-researchers-think-about-research-culture (Last accessed: 09.02.2023).

OECD. (2021). Reducing the precarity of academic research careers. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, 113. Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/0f8bd468-en.

Popovych, O. S., Kostrytsya, O. P. (2023). Towards the search for the optimal dynamics of building up the personnel potential of Ukrainian science in a period of its post-war recovery. Science and science of science, 1(119), 69—80. https:// doi.org/10.15407/sofs2023.01.069 [in Ukrainian].

Petrushyna, T. (Ed.). (2017). Domestic science in the sociological dimension. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Ylij oki, O-H. (2016). Projectifi cation and confl icting in academic knowledge production theory. In: Theory of science, 38(1), 7—26. https://doi.org/10.46938/tv.2016.331.

Guggenheim, M. (2006). Undisciplined research: the proceduralisation of quality control in transdisciplinary projects. Science and Public Policy, 33(6), 411—421. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778795

Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525, 308—311. https://doi.org/10.1038/525308a

Aksoy, C. G., Eichengreen, B., Saka, O. (2020). Revenge of the Experts: Will COVID-19 Renew or Diminish Public Trust in Science? IZA — Institute of Labor Economics, 13865. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/232617/1/ dp13865.pdf (Last accessed: 30.01.2023). https://doi.org/10.3386/w28112

Evans, R. (2022). SAGE advice and political decision-making: ‘Following the science’ in times of epistemic uncertainty. Social Studies of Science, 52(1), 53—78. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211062586

Final report of the Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force (NCS-TF). Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force. March, 2022. (2022). URL: https://sciencetaskforce.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/AbschlussberichtSTF29Mar2022-DE_en_fi nal.pdf (Last accessed: 02.01.2023).

Byesov, L. M. (2004). History of science and technology. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].

Petrenko-Tseunova, O. (2022). Why is history timely? Scientists explain. Ukrainian Week (July 19). URL: https://tyzhden. ua/ chomu-istoriia-na-chasi-poiasniuiut-naukovtsi (Last accessed: 02.01.2023).

History of the rocket and space science and engineering of Ukraine. (2021). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Zhukovsky, A. I. (2011). History. In: Encyclopedia of Modern Ukraine. Кyiv. URL: https://esu.com.ua/article-12823 (Last accessed: 15.04.2023).

Whitley, R. (1980). Cognitive and social institutionalization of scientifi c specialties and areas of research. In: Scientifi c activity: structure and institutions. Moscow, 218—257 [in Russian].




How to Cite

RYZHKO, L., LYTVYNKO, A., & ZHYVAHA, O. (2024). History and Sociology of Science During the Crisis and Transitional Periods of Social Development. Science and Innovation, 20(2), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.15407/scine20.02.024



General Questions on Modern Scientific, Technical and Innovation Policy