Science and Higher School: Dichotomy of the Mobilization Paradigm
Vodichev Evgeny
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2019-11.3.1-58-78

The paper presents the author's vision of the sources of the dichotomy of the institutions of science and higher education, which were formed under the direct influence of the mobilization paradigm in Soviet society. The author analyses the doctrinal factors and the specifics of genesis and evolution of the institutionalized activities of the production, storage and transfer of scientific knowledge, which resulted in the minimized role of institutions of higher education in the Soviet system of scientific production. The paper gives interpretation of the basic concepts: dichotomy, social institution of science, social institution of education, mobilization, mobilization paradigm of development, modernization. Using the methods of interdisciplinary analysis involving the categories of sociology and social philosophy, social history of science, economic history and history of civil society, the author shows the doctrinal basis for the mismatch of two closely related components of the scientific and educational complex – scientific research and educational activities. The author draws attention to the fact, that there was a deviation from the classical university model, which combines the functions of generation, transfer and storage of scientific knowledge. According to the author, the quintessence was an instrumental and utilitarian approach to science and higher professional education, technologization, indoctrination and segmentation of scientific activity and professional education, which determined the key “starting points” and the boundaries of scientific, technical, scientific and educational activities. The paper highlights the relationship between the phenomena of mobilization and modernization in Soviet practice and the identification of the imperatives of the formation of the Soviet “protopolitics” in the field of science and higher professional education. The author shows manifestation of the mobilization paradigm of development in the field of science and higher professional education in the period of “late Stalinism”, associated with the formation of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT). The latter can hardly be regarded as a deviation from the mobilization paradigm: the creation of the Physics and Technology Institute became a priority point of growth in the interests of the military sector of the economy with limited opportunities to transfer the experience of scientific and organizational decisions to the civilian sector. The author concludes that social institutions of science and education, which developed in the conditions of the mobilization paradigm, demonstrated conservatism and stability throughout the Soviet era. And despite the objective needs for the model change the institutions did not allow significant deviations from the determined development vector.

Experience of Building Inclusive Spaces of European and Russian Universities (in the contexts of Russia and France)
Debrenn Michelle,  Osmuk Lyudmila
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2019-11.3.1-79-93

  The formation of an inclusive space of European and Russian cities is considered as a social process that has acquired a global scale. Almost all universities are involved in this process, but each of them has its own strategy and understanding of the inclusion of persons with disabilities in the educational space. The article raises the problem of comparing the models of strategies and the level of development of inclusive education in European and Russian universities. The comparative analysis is carried out on the example of French and Russian universities, in order to carry out the analysis, normative documents, University reports, as well as information displayed on the sites were used. The development of inclusive education is associated with the formation of an inclusive space, while it is proposed to take into account the context of urban space. The authors highlight the influence of universities on the development of inclusive culture of the territories as well as the common problems of the development of inclusive space of Russian and European universities, and the reasons for the slight backlog of Russian universities. The presented analysis is of practical importance in the context of the emergence of joint projects in this area between Russia and France.