Global Academia and National Scholarly Cultures: Points of Contention

The article attempts to analyze the configuration of interests within scientific communities, which is characterized by a juxtaposition between researchers disposed towards a global research space and scientists primarily associated with national science systems. This juxtaposition is examined from a viewpoint of “academic capitalism” and “transnational capitalist class” theories, both of which are skeptical towards globalization. The aim of the analysis is to determine the causes of such a positioning of scientists within the community. The main hypothesis of the article is that the key premise of this conflict is divergence of interests between scientists, aiming to improve their situation by increasing the flow of state resources, and researchers prioritizing participation in global science, which is dependent on connections with its infrastructure including world class universities, transnational corporations, and supranational organizations providing financial support of research.  The article offers an overview of the international development of science in the period from the late 1940s till the current decade. It accentuates the following milestones: the emergence of a distinct division between basic and applied science in the decade following World War Two, an explosive growth of higher education in the 1950-60s, reforms of intellectual property regulations and university funding in the 1980s; a realignment in relations between state and university in the 1990s. The article also considers a number of cases, which allow to determine the causes leading to the division of the scientific community into fractions representing diverging interests. Among them are the following: the problem of participation in English-language scientific press for researchers from non-Englishspeaking countries; development of world class universities in countries with strong scientific traditions differing from the American tradition, which dominates the global research space; collision of interests between national and supranational levels of research funding in Europe. The main conclusion made based on these cases is that the emergence of fractions in the scientific community is closely connected to wider social-economic contradictions, first of all those arising between globally and locally oriented social groups.

1. Blinov A.N., Talagaeva D.A. (2014).Nauchnoe soobshchestvo kak politicheskii aktor: rol' mezhdunarodnykh nauchnykh ob'edinenii [Scientific Community as a Political Actor: The Role of International Scientific Insitutions]. Politiia. No. 1. P. 174-183.

2. Bourdieu P. (2007). Sotsial'noe prostranstvo: poliaipraktiki [Social Space: Fields and Practices] Moscow: Institut eksperimental'noi sotsiologii. 288 p.

3. Braun D. (2015). Actor Constellations in the European Funding Area. InWedlin L., Nedeva M. (eds.) Towards European Science: Dynamics and Policy of the European Research Space. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. P. 61-82. DOI 10.4337/9781782545514.00010

4. Bush V. (1960). Science, the Endless Frontier. A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar ScientificResearch, July 1945. Washington D.C.: National Science Foundation. 184 p.

5. Canagrajah A. (2002). A Geopolitics of Academic Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 332 p.

6. Clark B. (2011). Sozdanie predprinimatel'skikh universitetov [Creating Entrepreneurial Universities]. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola ekonomiki. 240 p.

7. Cohen A., Kisker C. (2009). The Shaping of American Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 630 p.

8. Cremonini L., Bennworth P., Dauncey H., Westerheijden D. (2013). Reconciling Republican ‘Egalite’ and GlobalExcellence Values in French Higher Education. In Shin J., Kehm B. (eds.) Institutionalization of World-Class Universities in Global Competition. London: Springer. P. 99-124.

9. Dobbin F., Schoonhoven C. (eds.) (2010). Stanford's Organization Theory Renaissance, 1970-2000. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. 467 p.

10. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (eds.) (2001). Universities and Global Knowledge Economy. N.Y.: Continuum. 184 p.

11. Fukuyama F. (2007). Konets istorii i poslednii chelovek [The End of History and the Last Man]. Moscow: AST. 488 p.

12. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A. (2015). Sravnitel'nye osobennosti otechestvennykh i zarubezhnykh nauchnykh zhurnalov [Russian and International Publication Practices. A comparative study of IR Scholarly Journals]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 2. P. 114-140.

13. Kauppinen I. (2013). Academic capitalism and the informational fraction of the transnational capitalist class. Globalisation, Society and Education. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 1-22.

14. Krige J. (2006). American Hegemony and the Postwar Reconstruction of Science in Europe. Cambridge: M.I.T.Press. 376 p.

15. Konnov V.I. (2013). Razvitie sistemy vysshego obrazovanija v Rossii i zarubezhom: teoreticheskie orientiry [Development of Higher Education Systems in Russia and Abroad: Theoretical Guidelines]. PravoI upravlenie. XXI vek. No.1. P. 28-36.

16. Konnov V.I. (2009). O gosudarstvennykh nauchnykh fondakh [On State Science Foundations]. Rossiiskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal. No. 6. P. 95-101.

17. Konnov V.I., Repina M.I. (2015). Evoliutsiia modelei universitetskogo upravleniia ot «studium generale» do «predprinimatel'skogo universiteta» [Evolution of University Management Models from «Studium Generale» to «Entrepreneurial University»]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. No. 1. P. 35-47.

18. Latour B., Woolgar S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress. 294 p.

19. Mann A. (2001). For Better or for Worse: The Marriage of Science and Government in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press. 240 p.

20. Merton R. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 605 p.

21. Neal H., Smith T., McCormick J. (2008). Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century. Michigan:University of Michigan Press. 386 p.

22. Nelson R. (ed.) (1993). National Innovation Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 541 p.

23. Paasi A. (2015). Academic Capitalism and the Geopolitics of Knowledge. In Agnes J., Mamadouth V.,

24. Secor A., Sharp J. (eds.) The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Political Geography. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. P. 509-523.

25. Pfeffer J., Salancik G. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 300 p.

26. Pursiainen K., Medvedev S.A. (2005). Bolonskii protsess, Rossiiaiglobalizatsiia [Bologna Process, Russia and Globalization].In Pursiainen K., Medvedev S.A. (eds). Bolonskii protsess i ego znachenie dlya Rossii. [Bologna Process and its Implications forRussia]. Moscow: RETsEP. P. 17-28.

27. Rhodes R. (2012). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster. 886 p.

28. Robinson W. (2004). A Theory of Global Capitalism. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. 200 p.

29. Romanova M.D. (2015). Vliianie kul'turnogo konteksta na formirovanie nauchnoi politiki (opyt Frantsii) [Influence of Cultural Context on Formation of Science Policy (French Experience)]. Polis. No. 5. P. 119-129.

30. Rüegg W. (ed.) (2011). A History of the University in Europe: Volume 4, Universities since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. 635 p.

31. Shin J.C., Kehm B. The World-Class University in Different Systems and Contexts. In Shin J., Kehm B. (eds.) (2013). Institutionalization of World-Class Universities in Global Competition. London: Springer. P. 1-13.

32. Siepmann T.J. (2004). The Global Exportation of the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act. University of Dayton Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 2. P. 209-243.

33. Sklair L. (2000). The Transnational Capitalist Class. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 335 p.

34. Slaughter S., Leslie L. (1999). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore:The John Hopkins University Press. 276 p.

35. Slaughter S., Rhoades L. (2009). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. 370 p.

36. Williamson J. (1990). What Washington Means by Policy Reform? In Williamson J. (ed.) Latin American Readjustment: How Much Has Happened. Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics. P. 7-20.