Vol 26, No 1 (2026)

This article describes the current state and challenges of interaction between education and science in the context of the ongoing scientific-technological revolution (Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0). The author identifies the conditions and factors limiting the impact of education and science on those processes in the Russian society that influence the achievement of both scientific and educational goals; characterizes the impact of science on the learning process, efficiency of this impact forms and types; refers to statistical and sociological data to explain the contradiction between goals and purposes of education and science and their practical implementation; makes the conclusion that education and science are at a crossroads in their interaction due to both indirect and real reasons. Based on his own experience, the author mentions current and potential measures for improving the management of education and science in terms of their mutual enrichment and improvement. Finally, the author describes the specific interaction between sociological education and sociological science.

Russian science is going through a difficult period that can be described as a “depopulation trap”: the number of research scientists has declined, and each new generation of scientists is smaller than the previous one. In demography, this phenomenon is characterized as a transition - a qualitative transformation of living conditions that contributes to a decline in the birth rate. A similar phenomenon in science is the decline in the number of “avatars” - highly qualified scientists who act as “guides” into science for university graduates. The number of scientists with degrees - PhD and DSc - declines annually. The average age of scientists with PhD degrees exceeds 50 years, and with DSc degrees - 64 years. If this trend continues, within ten years, it will be difficult to form dissertation and academic councils in many scientific fields, which would further complicate reproduction of personnel in science. Currently, postgraduate education fails to produce highly qualified scientific personnel: only one in ten completes studies with the thesis defense, and only one in twenty plans to continue working in science after the defense. The author insists on urgent changes in scientific policy to support postgraduate education and young scientists and to improve the situation in science.

The article considers the challenges of contemporary university education and the problems in training highly qualified specialists for all spheres of today’s society. The author mentions the high mission of universities as possessing the greatest potential to influence the future. In turn, economic and political institutions affect the demand for specialists, set priorities for state support and determine the situation on the labor market. The current system of higher education is a symbiosis of the Soviet and national models, taking into account state needs and cultural traditions, which makes it a powerful driver of social development. The main challenge of the post-Soviet higher education system is its abandonment of national traditions and the decades-tested experience of training specialists, combining traditions and innovations and focusing on the needs of the national economy, and also the uncritical transfer of foreign experience to the national education system without due examination and adaptation. Haste and uncritical thinking, the lack of a system, monetization, formalism and bureaucratization have seriously harmed the higher education system which lost its credibility in the public opinion, just as professors and university teachers. Much work remains to be done to implement the “roadmap” for the development of education as part of national culture, a center for the formation of the value matrix of the future, an institution that will best meet the social demands of the time, based on the efficient use of technologies and a combination of traditions and innovations.

The transition to the post-industrial stage of society’s development has led to a crisis in administrative management based on directives and standardization. While the corporate sector successfully implements institutional approaches that create an environment for self-development of subordinates and innovations, the social sphere (in particular, higher education) moves in the opposite direction - increasing bureaucratization and regulation, which fundamentally contradicts its creative, complex and inertial nature. The article identifies similarities and differences between management in commercial organizations and educational sector. The dominance of administrative management, imitating corporate practices, in higher education leads to systemic negative effects: erosion of educational content, growth of formalism and bureaucratic burden, suppression of academic initiative and, consequently, decline in the quality of the national human capital. The authors present examples to show that the directive implementation of management innovations, ignoring the features of educational systems, results in the loss of their institutional development potential, and digitalization leads to new control tools rather than progressive models of interaction between teachers and students. The authors insist on the need to change management paradigm in education - from administrative control to institutional management that sets the framework for academic autonomy and self-development.

The article identifies two main “dimensions” of current discussions about the content, quality, and results of sociological training in Russian universities. First, a macro- and interdisciplinary discourse on general trends in the development of higher education under regional, national, and global challenges, such as the contradiction between traditional (classical, fundamental-value) and modernization (personal- and practice-oriented) paradigms, which in sociological training determines a shift towards applied research. Second, an intradisciplinary discourse shaped by a multitude of problem areas with varying levels of consensus in the academic community. The article provides examples of such areas: the inclusion of social-demographic competencies in the curricula for sociologists (“demographic literacy”); the ratio of qualitative and quantitative approaches in methodological courses (“marginal status” of qualitative approach in fundamental research and its dominance in applied non-sociological fields); the basis of sociological competence (sociological imagination) and the increasing complexity of its development due to a growing number of obstacles to acquiring “theoretical competence”. These difficulties are determined by two factors: low “philosophical competence” of senior sociology students (although the importance of philosophizing for professional and everyday well-being is emphasized in the latest scientific and popular science works); features of the theoretical canon in sociology (fragmentary presentation of the Russian tradition and the uncritical perception of the Western tradition). In conclusion, the author mentions some ideas of S. Andreski’s book recently translated into Russian: the book contains sharp criticism of social sciences (witchcraft), and its main directions reproduce the core of the discussions about sociological education and science (especially the fascination with quantification and terminology and the rejection of philosophy).

Today professional identity of the sociologist develops under digital transformation of the higher education, which increases demands on interdisciplinary competencies, and in the changing professional environment. The article considers the development of professional sociological identity in this context and outlines the corresponding role of teachers. The study’s methodology combines social-cultural and institutional approaches to the analysis of professional identity with qualitative approach and elements of secondary analysis; the empirical basis consists of published interviews with university professors, data on professional identity of sociology students, and studies of the digital transformation of Russian education and identity of young professionals. The author believes that the key challenge for the professional sociological identity is the inconsistency between the traditional concept of the profession and the new demands determined by digitalization and changing professional landscape. Professional identity of sociologists is not formed automatically, it requires systematic, targeted work of students, teachers and professional community. The professional identity model of the sociologist includes three key components: sociological imagination, digital competencies, and ethical consciousness. In shaping the sociological professional identity, the teacher serves as a bearer of professional culture, a mentor and a mediator between academic and professional fields. Today teachers’ roles change dramatically - they need to become architects of professional trajectories and mentors who help students find their professional calling. Under digital transformation, the teacher’s roles have become more complex due to the need to operate in hybrid formats.

This article considers social factors, mechanisms and conditions of the teacher image formation under digital transformation of educational environment. The empirical basis of the study consists of the online survey conducted in three Russian universities (Lomonosov Moscow State University, Siberian Federal University, and Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University; N=311) and of 20 expert interviews with teachers and administrators from 12 Moscow universities. The study revealed a gap between actual and ideal images of teachers as perceived by student and academic communities. The teacher image formed by the expert community primarily includes academic competencies - research activity and deep knowledge in their subject area, while communicative competencies play a supporting role. Students’ perception of the ideal teacher combines personal and professional qualities, with emotional responsiveness and communicative flexibility being just as important as academic competences (knowledge, ability to explain material, mastery of research methods and digital tools). In the digital age, the role of the teacher expands - an expert, a guarantor of the consistency and reliability of knowledge, a mediator - an intermediary between online knowledge and students. The authors conclude that the image of the higher education teacher is dual due to the gap between the actual (existing) and the ideal (desired) in students’ perception. This duality is based on the principle of complementing academic standards with communicative competencies: openness, emotional responsiveness, and readiness to dialogue.

Sociological research in public relations has become an increasingly important priority. In recent years, several studies were conducted in Russia on the use of sociological methods by public relations professionals. The authors identified the most frequently used tools, tasks and platforms in and outside the classroom to meet the needs of young public relations professionals at the beginning of their professional careers. As the social significance of public relations grows, it is necessary to understand how this field of activity influences society and why it is needed. To answer these questions, the authors rely on a combination of theoretical approaches, particularly to understand how public relations function at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels, referring to the sociological interpretation of concepts and conducting a methodological analysis of ongoing social processes. The article presents the results of research conducted in three broad categories: social change, social forces, and social interactions. Sociology of public relations as a branch of sociological science has developed primarily under the influence of a multitude of practical issues related to public relations and political problems under the rapid transformation of the media landscape. Many studies aim at identifying whether this specialized sociological discipline fulfils its promise of forming more rational, culturally adapted and productive individuals and, as a result, a “better” society.

The study of various subject areas of artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most popular topics in scientific and professional communities. Interest in this area is also fueled by the government as a key actor that actively encourages AI research not only from a technological but also from humanitarian perspective and through legislation. Rapid institutionalization increases the need for new personnel in this field and for regulation of AI-related activities. Universities find themselves in a difficult position: on the one hand, they are at the forefront of cutting-edge research and respond to the demand for integration of AI-based technologies into educational process; on the other hand, universities require regulations for the use of AI in educational activities. Today students actively use AI technologies - from spell checking to writing term papers and theses. According to the results of the online survey conducted in the RUDN University (N=576), despite understanding the limits of acceptable AI-generated material in various types of academic work, seven out of ten students use entirely generated texts without edits. In general students hold positive views on the use of AI in education, primarily focusing on improving the university’s organizational work and personalizing the educational system, but also mention the risks of AI-technologies.

The article explains the historical and logical connection between social technologies and the theory of social technologies: today simply acknowledging this connection is insufficient to understand the content and complexity of the relationships between these fields of social science and humanities. Digitalization processes in the hybrid environment necessitate the study of social technologies as a complexly structured set of algorithmically constructed, synchronized “physical”, social, and information-communication (digital) procedures and operations developed and used to optimize social processes. The author argues that the traditional perception of social technologies solely as a specialized field of social knowledge limits their application and transfer to the level of social engineering. However, developers of the idea of social architecture have not yet succeeded in overcoming shortcomings of the sociological analysis of social technologies.

Maintaining demographic potential is one of the basic components of national demographic security. To achieve this goal, the state should solve many tasks among which the most relevant are strengthening the family, increasing the birth rate and developing motivation for having many children. The Russian Federation has strategically outlined the course of state policy to preserve traditional family values (1) and has developed the relevant legislation. The year 2024, declared by the President of Russia as the Year of the Family (2), made it possible to emphasize at the national level the importance of the family institution and support for the prosperous large family as a significant model for solving demographic problems: such a model was declared in 2007 in the Concept of the State Policy in relation to Young Families (3); in general, the status of the large family has raised and institutionalized (4). The authors assess prospects for applying the program-targeted approach as a basis for developing and improving institutional mechanisms to support various types of families with children, which involves legislative, infrastructural, personnel and information support for the state family-demographic policy. Thus, a model describing institutional mechanisms of effective family-demographic policy in relation to different types of families and based on the authors’ classification becomes an urgent research task. Application of this model would improve efficiency of those measures of the state family-demographic policy that aim at supporting traditional values and families with children. The scientific task of the conducted study was to find efficiency criteria for mechanisms of the authors’ model of family-demographic policy in the context of the current Russian depopulation. The methodological basis of the study consisted of conceptual approaches of sociology of the family in the field of developing the institution of prosperous family with children, comparative-legal and historical-legal approaches.

This article considers the role of urban legends and narratives centered on rivers in shaping urban practices, social interactions and normative regimes. Moving beyond the conventional view of the river as either an economic resource or a symbol, the authors conceptualize it as a complex mediator, whose agency is enacted through narratives that circulate within the urban fabric. Legends concerning the river - its founding, floods, submerged sacred sites, mythical inhabitants - are not inert folklore but active participants within networks of urban communications, narratives that materially manifest in spatial planning, daily rituals of citizens, and legislative constraints. The theoretical framework synthesizes perspectives from urban anthropology, media theory (in particular the concept of “media as environments”), and sociology of interaction. Based on cases from Russian cities (Saint Petersburg, Voronezh, Ulan-Ude, Perm, Yekaterinburg), the authors identify channels - official cultural discourse, social media, touristic guides, oral histories, through which urban river legends develop and affect urban processes - from protests against waterfront to the formulation of environmental norms and codes for the public space design. Thus, the competition between river narratives - “living history” versus “engineering object”, “sacred source” versus “threat” - lies at the heart of many contemporary urban conflicts. The capacity of municipal authorities and professional communities to interact with river narratives rather than disregard them becomes a critical factor in managing urban development and ensuring public consensus.

The article is a brief overview of the scientific-journalistic book by Zh.T. Toshchenko and V.S. Kozhemyako Werewolves in the Fate of Russia. They Destroyed the Soviet Country (Moscow: Rodina, 2025, 444 p.) written as a dialogue between the two authors. Their conversation focuses primarily on social and personal characteristics of the 23 key actors in the destruction of the USSR, conditions and reasons for their emergence, and motivations for their actions. Based on the discussion, the authors identify the following main groups of “werewolves”: organizers of the geopolitical catastrophe, implementers of the ideas for the collapse of the Soviet Union, creators of the economic-financial basis for this destruction, and those who took on the ideological support for the rejection of the Soviet past. The book repeatedly emphasizes the man-made nature of this global catastrophe, referring to both objective social-economic conditions of the country’s development and subjective aspirations of most of its population (76.5 % voted to preserve the USSR in March 1991).

The article is a review of the book Independence: Blessing or Burden? (edited by K.N. Polivanova. Moscow: HSE, 2025. 416 p.) presented in the annotation as the result of its authors’ search for answers to the question of the essence, features, and relevance of schoolchildren’s independence for contemporary society. The authors rightly note a significant change in the perception of children’s independence: previously, it was considered as developing naturally, in the course of everyday life and typical interaction practices; therefore, the school literally relied on this “natural” independence formed during adolescence, without setting the task of specifically developing it with the support of educational and family-upbringing practices. Today the situation has changed radically, and the book presents a comprehensive panorama of practices for developing schoolchildren’ independence, relying on an interdisciplinary approach and the concept of self-regulated learning, reconstructing schoolchildren’s ideas about independence and assessing the external contexts of growing up (the city as a space for developing autonomy and the media’s influence on public opinion).

The article is a brief review-recommendation of a non-sociological book that will be useful to any researcher in the field of sociology of medicine - for broadening general horizons by reading related and interdisciplinary sources and for developing sociological imagination through understanding a complex combination of objective, historical, (geo) political and discursive factors that determined organization of medicine and healthcare as key social institutions in contemporary society. The book Public Health and Modernization: History of Public Health in Europe and Asia in the 19th and 20th Centuries (authors - D.V. Mikhel and I.V. Mikhel; Moscow: INION RAS, 2025. 501 p.) reconstructs just a part of the history of public health as “one of the exciting areas in contemporary historiography” and is intended for “historians, specialists in the field of healthcare history and everyone interested in the issues of general history” (p. 2), but it can also be recommended to sociologists for the reasons outlined in the review.