Идеология и практика планирования фундаментальных исследований в СССР (1920-1930)

Abstract

Analysis of government regulation in the academic sphere during the USSR period is a highly relevant research area. Such studies are instrumental in elucidating both the positive and negative aspects of the Soviet scientific model. In this study, the author sets out to identify the main patterns of the transition towards directive planning of academic science in the RSFSR/USSR in the 1920s‑1930s. In the context of such transformation of Soviet academic science, it is important to consider not only the institutional decisions of the authorities but also the underpinning socio‑psychological and ideological motives. These factors significantly influenced the functioning of the scientific community. An interdisciplinary approach was used to achieve the research objectives. The study lies at the intersection of several related research areas: the history of science, science studies, and the history of economics. The research methodology employed comparative‑historical, historical‑cultural, and statistical methods to identify significant patterns of the phenomenon under investigation. Methodologically, this approach aligns closely with source studies and semiotic analysis. Such concepts as ‘scientist’, ‘thematic plan’, ‘thematic development’, and ‘research plant’ emerged and became institutionalised within the paradigm of directive planning of basic science. These concepts form a contextual layer of understanding. The ideologists of this system conceived the planning of basic science as a product of the industrial world. However, paradoxically, the ideology and methodology of directive planning, when imposed on theoretical science, yielded the opposite results. These included epistemological apathy among scientists and the reduction, if not extinction, of vast areas of research activity. The attempt of the government to adapt basic science to addressing strictly applied problems of industrialisation ultimately resulted in a mere semblance of ‘planned science’. Nevertheless, the internal compensation mechanisms of self‑organisation within the scientific community proved to be quite effective in the long run, even under the constraints of directive planning. The historical analysis conducted allowed the author to draw significant conclusions relevant to the formation of Russian scientific policy at its present stage.