Cultural Components of Resilience of a Scientific Community

Abstract

The article considers the concept of resilience of the scientific community, which is novel for the Russian science. By applying the conceptual analysis, the key message of the paper suggests that not only is the term instrumental in describing the traits of modern Russian science, but also it shows possible solutions of further development of science. The relevance of introducing this notion into scientific circulation is justified by both external and internal reasons, i.e. the science reform and the need to reflect on scientific and organizational processes, as scientific institutions face substantial challenges in adapting to new realities. The term is considered in a time continuum, as case studies focus on the following areas: scientists’ perceptions on funding, dilemmas of stable and competitive financing of science, organizational culture, the future image as seen by scientists and the interaction with the media. Comparative perspective is also included. Among the categories used to describe the functions and the status of scientific communities, collective subject is one that can focus on active role of such communities, on the interconnectedness and interdependence of individuals in a group, the ability of a group to show various forms of joint activity, the ability of a group to self-reflection – just like resilience. However, using subject for scientific needs seems not always suitable, for the sense it has covers not all the aspects that arise in conducting empirical research. Resilience, in contrast, suits perfectly. Another advantage the term resilience provides is that it seems to be appropriate for outlining the processes generated inside the scientific region, since it allows describing not only scientists as individuals, but also a community as a whole. This thesis is illustrated by a brief overview of research on the resilience of organizations and the resilience of families. The paper concludes with applying resilience to practice, as the state of the psychological community is assessed through the lenses of the crisis of resilience as opposed to the crisis of identity.