The information field of the concept ‘Russian power reputation’ in the expert and public opinion

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article presents the results of the research project on the reputation of the Russian power, which aimed at identifying and explaining the content of the concepts ‘Russian power reputation’ (state and municipal power) and ‘reputation of the levels and branches of the Russian power’ (on the example of the regional executive power), and at assessing their closeness in the conceptual field. The author developed and empirically tested (expert and public opinion polls were conducted in the regions of Central Russia in August - November 2021) a theoretical model of the ‘Russian power reputation’, which has not been independently studied before. The article presents the structure and content of the information field of this concept, which (with a certain degree of convention) is defined as twocored. The basic core is a semantic field of the category ‘reputation’, the substantive core includes characteristics of the concept ‘Russian power reputation’. The author identifies key characteristics constituting the basis of the substantive core or the near periphery of the basic core, and characteristics of the far and extremely far periphery. The content of the concept ‘Russian power reputation’ consists of two main blocks - institutional and activity - in their integrating characteristics (service to the people and effectiveness/efficiency of power). The institutional block characteristics prevail (especially in public opinion), which indicates the priority of the value content of reputation over the pragmatic one. Thus, a new concept is introduced into the scientific discourse - ‘Russian power reputation’, which means a complex national phenomenon of the historically determined social and political reality - it represents a value perception and relatively stable opinion of citizens about the authorities as based on certain experience of communication and estimates of their real actions which determine a sense of trust and embody the purpose of government - to serve the people - in a productive, effective way; and it reflects the system of citizens’ expectations and perceptions of a proper power (honest, responsible, fair, caring and protective).

About the authors

N. N. Rozanova

Smolensk State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: rozznina@yandex.ru

кандидат педагогических наук, доцент кафедры менеджмента, начальник управления по научной работе

Przhevalsky St., 4, Smolensk, 214000, Russia

References

  1. Abushenko V.L., Katsuk N.L. Kontsept. Sociologiya: Entsiklopediya [Sociology: Encyclopedia]. Sost. A.A. Gritsanov i dr. Minsk; 2003. (In Russ.).
  2. Byurokratiya i vlast v novoj Rossii (rukovoditel proekta M.K. Gorshkov) [Bureaucracy and power in the new Russia (project leader — M.K. Gorshkov)]. Politiya. Analiz. Hronika. Prognoz. 2006; 1. (In Russ.).
  3. Vazhenina I.S. Imidzh, reputatsiya i brend territorii [Image, Reputation and Brand of the Territory]. Ekaterinburg; 2013. (In Russ.).
  4. Vaslavsky Ya.I., Gabuev S.V. Neoinstitutsionalny podhod kak metodologicheskaya osnova issledovaniya elektronnogo pravitelstva [Neo-institutional approach to the study of the electronic government]. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta. 2016; 6. (In Russ.).
  5. Dzyaloshinsky I.M. Krugly stol: “Imidzh. Reputatsiya. Kapitalizatsiya” [Roundtable “Image. Reputation. Capitalization”]. PR-Liniya. 2008; 2. (In Russ.).
  6. Efremov V.A. Teoriya kontsepta i kontseptualnoe prostranstvo [Concept theory and conceptual space]. Izvestiya RGPU im. A.I. Gercena. 2009; 104. (In Russ.).
  7. Kalmykov N.N., Krasnopolsky I.A. Reformirovanie sistemy gosudarstvennoj sluzhby Rossijskoj Federatsii [Reforming the civil service system of the Russian Federation]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 21: Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obshchestvo). 2016; 2. (In Russ.).
  8. Kanygin G.V., Gabdullin A.I. Skhema kontseptualizatsii sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniya [Conceptualization in the sociological research]. Teoriya i Praktika Obshchestvennogo Razvitiya. 2016; 7. (In Russ.).
  9. Kuznetsov A.M. “Novy institutsionalizm”: vzglyad cherez prizmu diskursivnogo analiza [“The new institutionalism”: A discursive-analysis perspective]. METOD. 2014; 4. (In Russ.).
  10. Maslennikov E.V. Printsipy formirovaniya kontseptualnoj modeli predmeta issledovaniya v metodologicheskom kontekste sociologicheskogo izmereniya [Principles of the conceptual model of the research object in the methodological context of the sociological dimension]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 18: Sociologiya i Politologiya. 2011; 3. (In Russ.).
  11. Panov P.V. Institutsionalizm(y): ob`yasnitelnye modeli i prichinnost [Institutionalism: explanatory models and causality]. Political Studies. 2015; 3. (In Russ.).
  12. Patrushev S.V., Ajvazova S.G., Kertman G.L., Kuchinov A.M., Miryasova O.A., Nedyak I.L., Pavlova T.V., Panov L.G., Filippova L.E. Institutsionalny analiz politicheskogo prostranstva v Rossii: predvaritelnye rezultaty [Institutional analysis of the Russian political space: Preliminary results]. Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya: ezhegodnik. Otv. red. M.K. Gorshkov. Moscow, 2019; 17. (In Russ.).
  13. Popova Z.D., Sternin I.A. Kognitivnaya lingvistika [Cognitive Linguistics]. Moscow, 2007. (In Russ.).
  14. Rudakova A.E., Grishin O.E. Reputatsionny kapital gosudarstva [State Reputational Capital]. Moscow, 2017. (In Russ.).
  15. Sabadashova M.G. Podhody k opredeleniyu kontsepta [Approaches to the definition of the concept]. Nauchnye Trudy KubGTU. 2016; 1. (In Russ.).
  16. Smorgunov L.V. Sravnitelnaya politologiya [Comparative Political Studies]. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.).
  17. Stepanov Yu.S. Konstanty: slovar russkoj kultury [Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture]. Moscow; 2004. (In Russ.).
  18. Tao Mentin, Bystrova T.Yu. Metodologichesky potentsial izucheniya kontseptov v kulturologii [Methodological potential of concepts in cultural studies]. Izvestiya UrFU. Seriya 1: Problemy Obrazovaniya, Nauki i Kultury. 2020; 26 (2). (In Russ.).
  19. Trubetskoj A.Yu. Psihologicheskaya model reputatsii v sisteme politicheskih kommunikacij [Psychological model of reputation in political communication]. Mir Psihologii. 2006; 2. (In Russ.).
  20. Tyulenev I.S. Osnovnye podhody k teoreticheskomu analizu reputatsii organizatsii: vozmozhnosti sotsialno-filosofskogo osmysleniya [Main approaches to the theoretical analysis of organizational reputation: Possibilities for the social-philosophical reflection]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo Universiteta im. N.I. Lobachevskogo. Seriya: Sotsialnye Nauki. 2010; 2. (In Russ.).
  21. Ustinova N.V. Politicheskaya reputatsiya: sushchnost, osobennosti, tekhnologii formirovaniya [Political Reputation: Essence, Features, Technologies of Formation]. Ekaterinburg, 2005. (In Russ.).
  22. Fokin V.V. Psihologicheskaya sushchnost reputatsii [Psychological nature of reputation]. Sovremennye Gumanitarnye Issledovaniya. 2009; 3. (In Russ.).
  23. Kharlamov I.G. Upravlenie formirovaniem reputatsionnogo kapitala [Managing reputational capital formation]. Vlast. 2008; 11. (In Russ.).
  24. Ehrenbrink P. Expert survey — triggers for state reactance. The Role of Psychological Reactance in Human–Computer Interaction. Cham; 2020.
  25. Eisenegger M. Trust and reputation in the age of globalization. J. Klewes, R. Wreschniok (Eds.). Reputation Capital. Building and Maintaining Trust in the 21st Century. Berlin– Heidelberg; 2009.
  26. Haveman H.A., Gualtieri G. Institutional logics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. R. Aldag (Ed.). Oxford University Press; 2016.
  27. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review. 1984; 78.
  28. Schmidt V. Comparative institutional analysis. Sage Handbook of Comparative Politics. Ed. by T. Landman, N. Robinson. L.–New Delhi–Singapore; 2009.
  29. Sztompka P. Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge University Press; 1999.
  30. Trotsuk I. “To trust or not to trust” is not the question; “How to study trust” is much more challenging task. Russian Sociological Review. 2016; 15 (4).
  31. Trotsuk I.V., Ivlev E.A. Few words on the high level of social distrust among the Russian youth: Civil servants’ social image. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2016; 2.

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2022 Rozanova N.N.

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