Features of the Work of Insider Scientists in Russian Regions

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to analyze the general problems of the work of insider scientists in the conditions of Russian sociocultural reality and the organization of Russian science. The main attention is paid to researchers dealing with the problems of the ethnic culture of which they are representatives. As an example, we consider the work of a team of tuvinologists and the authors of this article, working on the same research project in 2021-2023. Scientific insiders living in the regions of Russia work in the system of Russian science; they are subject to the general professional and sociocultural conditions in the country. This article examines the work of insiders from different angles: customers of research, the scientific community (Russian and regional), culture, sociocultural environment and scientists in culture. This relationship contains a significant imbalance of power and interests. It is argued that the work of insiders is more difficult because scientists in their own culture can be both insiders and outsiders in relation to the issue under study, an aspect of the lives of fellow countrymen. The results of the authors’ own experience in solving similar problems are presented, and a way out is proposed called the joint circle strategy, which includes constant formulation and discussion of paradoxical questions.

About the authors

Chimiza K. Lamazhaa

Author for correspondence.
Email: lamazhaa@tuva.asia
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1813-3605
SPIN-code: 5840-5430

Doctor of Philosophy, Independent Researcher.

Russian Federation

Nadezhda D. Suvandii

Tuva State University

Email: suvandiin@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3817-2436
SPIN-code: 8738-8205

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Head of the Laboratory of Ethnology and Linguoculturology

36 Lenin str., Kyzyl, 667000, Russian Federation

References

  1. Lamazhaa, Ch.K., N.D. Suvandii, Sh.Yu. Kuzhuget, and Sh.B. Mainy. 2022. Tuvinians. Native people. Edited by Ch.K. Lamazhaa, N.D. Suvandii. Saint Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  2. Narayan, K. 1993. “How Native is a Native Anthropologist?”. American Anthropologist 95: 671–686. Print.
  3. Paerregaard, K. 2002. “The resonance of fieldwork. Ethnographers, informants and the creation of anthropological knowledge”. Social Anthropology 10 (3): 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0964028202000216
  4. Kuwayama, Т. 2003. “‘Natives’ as dialogic partners. Some thoughts on native anthropology”. Anthropology today 19 (1): 8–13. Print.
  5. Kempny, M. 2012. “Rethinking Native Anthropology: Migration and Auto-Ethnography in the Post-Accession Europe”. International Review of Social Research 2 (2): 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/irsr-2012-0015
  6. Meyers, R. 2019. “Native Anthropology, to be a Native Scholar, or a Scholar that is Native: Reviving Ethnography in Indian Country”. Anthropology Now 11 (1–2): 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2019.1648125
  7. Forster, A. 2020. “We Are All Insider-Outsiders: A Review of Debates Surrounding Native Anthropology”. Student Anthropologist 3 (1): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/j. sda2.20120301.0002
  8. Tsuda, Т. 2015. “Is native anthropology really possible?”. Anthropology today 31 (3): 14–17. Print.
  9. Mongush, M.V. 2010. “Foreign researchers of Tuva (a brief review)”. The New Research of Tuva, 2. 2: 203–237. Print. (In Russ.).
  10. Lamazhaa, Ch.K. 2016. “Tuvan ethnicity and the society in ethnosociological and anthropological studies”. The New Research of Tuva 2: 32–51. Print. (In Russ.).
  11. Lamazhaa, Ch.K. 2022 “Unknown Asian Russia: Nomadic, Turkic-speaking, Buddhist Tuva facing Modern Challenges”. Asian Studies, The Twelfth International Convention of Asia Scholars (ICAS 12) 1: 296–308. https://doi.org/10.5117/9789048557820/ICAS.2022.037
  12. Achkasov, V.A. 2022. “Why do Russians need the status of “state-forming people”. Political expertise: POLITEKS 18 (2): 215–224. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu23.2022.207 (In Russ.).
  13. Koshkareva, N.B. and E.V. Tyuntesheva, eds. 2021. Living space and spiritual world of man through the prism of the languages of Siberia. Novosibirsk: Akademizdat publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  14. Mandzhieva, E.B. 2009. “Formula Expressions of Traditional Etiquette in Russian and Kalmyk Linguocultures”. Candidate Diss. on Philology. Volgograd. Print. (In Russ.).
  15. Kolesnikova, S.M. 2022. “Gradual Semantics of Russian and Tuvanian Proverbs”. The New Research of Tuva 1: 90–103. https://doi.org/10.25178/nit.2022.1.6 (In Russ.).
  16. Nelyubova, N.Yu. 2022. “Axiological Dominants of Paremias as Typological Markers of Tuvan, Rusian, French Ethnocultures”. The New Research of Tuva 1: 146–163. https://doi.org/https://www.doi.org/10.25178/nit.2022.1.10 (In Russ.).
  17. Zinov’eva, E.I. and A.S Aleshin. 2022. “Family in comparative studies of Tuvan, Swedish and Russian languages”. The New Research of Tuva 1: 131–145. Print. https://doi.org/10.25178/nit.2022.1.9 (In Russ.).
  18. Sarangaeva, Zh.N. 2019. “Emblematic Representation of “Marriage” concept in Kalmyk, Russian and English Linguocultures”. Vestnik Omskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye issledovaniya 1 (22): 67–70. Print. (In Russ.).
  19. Abdullaeva, R.Kh. 2022. “Stereotypes of Beauty in Russian and Uzbek Linguocultures”. Neofilologiya 8 (4): 849–860. https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2022-8-4-849-860 (In Russ.).
  20. Berdimuratova, K.S. 2016. “Concept of “Marriage” as a freim in Russian and Kazakh Linguocultures”. In Aktual’nye problemy russkoi i sopostavitel’noi filologii: teoriya i praktika Proceedings. Ufa, May 12–13. Ufa: Bashkirskii gosudarstvennyi universitet publ. Pp. 112–117. Print. (In Russ.).
  21. Reznik, Yu.M., eds. 2012. Sociocultural anthropology: history, theory and methodology: encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt publ; Kul’tura publ; Kirov: Konstanta publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  22. Martynova, M.Yu. and V.A. Tishkov. 2022. Soviet ethnography in the history of state building and national politics. Moscow: IEA RAN publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  23. Tishkov, V.A. 2020. “Where Russian ethnology came from: a personal view in a global perspective”. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2: 72–137. https://doi.org/10.31857/ S086954150009606-6 (In Russ.).
  24. Tishkov, V.A. 2018. “Humanities in Russia”. Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii nauk 88 (10): 878–885. https://doi.org/10.31857/S086958730002144-6 (In Russ.).
  25. Tishkov, V.A. and A.V Tutorskii. 2023. “Russians”. In Bol’shaya rossiiskaya entsiklopediya [Great Russian Encyclopedia]. https://bigenc.ru/c/russkie-5c4935 (date of access: 12.05.2023). Web. (In Russ.).
  26. Zabulionite, A.K.I., I.B. Ardashkin and V.N. Badmaev. 2022. “Aktual’nost’ polemiki Yu.N. Solonina i M.S. Kagana. Fundamental’nye osnovaniya rossiiskoi kul’turologii (posvyashchaetsya pamyati prof. Yu.N. Solonina, k 80-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya)”. Chelovek. Kul’tura. Obrazovanie 4: 145–183. https://doi.org/10.34130/2233-1277-2022-4145 (In Russ.).
  27. Baranov, D.A. 2021. “Lokal’noe znanie i ‘drugie antropologii’”. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 5: 84–112. https://doi.org/10.31857/S086954150017416-7 (In Russ.).
  28. Zabulionite, A.K.I., I.B. Ardashkin and V.N. Badmaev. 2023 “The relevance of the controversy Yu.N. Solonin and M.S. Kagan. Fundamental foundations of Russian cultural studies (dedicated to the memory of Prof. Yu.N. Solonin, on the 80th anniversary of his birth) Proceedings. (November 20, 2021)”. Chelovek. Kul’tura. Obrazovanie 1: 160–187. https://doi.org/10.34130/2233-1277-2023-1-160
  29. Smith, L.Т. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd. Print.
  30. Kharitonova, V.I. 2019. “I walk through you”: on the issue of researching ISS in shamans”. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovaniya 2: 180–197. https://doi.org/10.17223/2312461X/24/10 (In Russ.).
  31. Zakharov-Gezekhus, I.A. 2015. Scientists believe in God. Moscow: Institut komp’yuternykh issledovanii publ. Print. (In Russ.).
  32. Kuraev, A.V. and V.I. Kuraev. 1995. Religious Faith and Rationality. In Historical types of rationality. Edited by. V.A. Lektorskii. V. 1. Moscow: IF RAN publ. Pp. 88–113. Print. (In Russ.).
  33. Ganga, D., Scott, S. Cultural 2006. “‘Insiders’ and the Issue of Positionality in Qualitative Migration Research: Moving ‘Across’ and Moving ‘Along’ Researcher-Participant Divides” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-7.3.134
  34. Komarova, G. 2013. “The profession of an anthropologist unusually broadens one’s horizons”. Antropologicheskii forum 19: 329–359. Print. (In Russ.).
  35. Komarova, G.A. 2007. “Respect for respondents is the most important commandment of a researcher”. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2: 120–131. Print. (In Russ.).
  36. Sokolovskii, S.V. 2010. “Autoethnography and New methods of Science”. In Etnometodologiya: problemy, podkhody, kontseptsii. Edited by A.A. Piskoppel’, V.R. Rokityanskii, L.P. Shchedrovitskii. Moscow: Rossiiskii nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut kul’turnogo i prirodnogo naslediya im. D.S. Likhacheva publ. Pp. 29–48. Print. (In Russ.).
  37. Komarova, G. 2011. “On the “medal” of anthropology studies”. Antropologicheskii forum 15: 448–474. Print. (In Russ.).
  38. Lamazhaa, Ch.K., and N.D. Suvandii, eds. 2022. Өөvүs. Caming back the Tuvan yurt. Kyzyl. Print. (In Russ.).
  39. Mongush, A.A., and M.V. Bavuu-Syuryun. 2020. “Lexical representations of ‘Homeland’ concept in poetry by Tuvan authors”. Yazyki i fol’klor korennykh narodov Sibiri 2 (40): 106–117. https://doi.org/10.25205/2312-6337-2020-2-106-117 (In Russ.).

Copyright (c) 2023 Lamazhaa C.K., Suvandii N.D.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies