The Post-Academic Trend in the Evolution of Methodological Consciousness

The development of science at all stages of its penetration into a technogenic society is accompanied by changes in methodological consciousness in its various incarnations. However, preferring to analyze the metamorphoses of science as special knowledge about the world, to examine the evolution of its methodological tools, forms of structural and functional organization of scientific and cognitive activity, at the same time, modern research practices leave aside the evolution of methodological consciousness as such. Although, according to the author, analysis of this phenomenon makes possible to define, if not a paradigmatic, then at least a syntagmatic approach to the study of modern post-academic science. The representation of methodological consciousness can be carried out in different versions. The article considers its evolution at various levels of functioning – individual and supra-individual, embodied in the methodological innovations of science itself as well as in the philosophical and methodological discourse interconnected with it. The assertion of unique forms of methodological consciousness at the supraindividual level, in particular, characterizes the development of modern social physics, which combines syntagmatics, inter- and transdisciplinarity as strategies of scientific search. The evolution of methodological consciousness at the individual level is inextricably linked with the renewal of the scientific habitus of individual scientists. In the context of the commercialization of post-academic science, destructive changes in the qualities of scientific creativity and scientific ethos undoubtedly affect the mental and cognitive components of the scientific habits of researchers. For the majority of the scientific community, the transformation of the scientific habitus proceeds spontaneously. Awareness of the uniqueness of post-academic science today occurs mainly within the framework of philosophical and methodological discourse. The result of this process is problematized by the author as a phenomenon of “post-academic philosophy of science,” characterized by a number of features of a substantive, methodological, and institutional nature. The question of its correlation with the traditional philosophy of science, on the one hand, and with disciplinary strategies in the study of science, on the other, opens up prospects for the emergence of new paradigms of modern philosophical and methodological discourse.

1. Ablazhey A.M. (2013) “Post-Academic” Science: Foreign Discussions and Russian Experience. Bulletin of the NSU. Series: Philosophy. Vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 42–48 (in Russian).

2. Chernikova I.V. (2015) Transdisciplinary Methodologies and Technologies of Modern Science. Voprosy filosofii. No. 4, pp. 26–35 (in Russian).

3. Fedotova V.G. (2015) Correlation of Academic and Post-Academic Science as a Social Problem. Moscow: RAS Institute of Philosophy (in Russian).

4. Grebenshchikova E.G. (2012) The Ethos of Post-Academic Science and the Transformation of Moral Imperatives of Knowledge Production. Filosofiya obrazovaniya. No. 1, pp. 33–38 (in Russian).

5. Hellström T., Jacob M., & Wenneberg S.B. (2003) The ‘Discipline’ of Post-Academic Science: Reconstructing the Paradigmatic Foundations of a Virtual Research Institute. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 251–260.

6. Kelogg D. (2006) Toward a Post-Academic Science Policy: Scientific Communication and the Collapse of the Mertonian Norms. International Journal of Communications Law & Policy. Special Issue: Access to Knowledge, pp. 1–29.

7. Kisel N.K. (2020a) Interdisciplinary Trend in the Development of Modern Social Physics. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy. Psychology. No. 1, pp. 44–48 (in Russian).

8. Kisel N.K. (2020b) The Phenomenon of Post-Academic Philosophy of Science: Towards a Problem Statement. In: Eighth Russian Philosophical Congress – “Philosophy in a Polycentric World.” Vol. 3: Symposia. Collection of scientific articles (pp. 958–960). Moscow: Russian Philosophical Society – RAS Institute of Philosophy – Moscow State University; Logos; Novye pechatnye tekhnologii (in Russian).

9. Lo J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge (Russian translation: Moscow: Publishing house of the Gaidar Institute, 2015).

10. Nordmann A., Radder H., & Scheimann G. (2011) Science after the End of Science. In: Nordmann A., Radder H., & Scheimann G. (Eds.) (2011) Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break (pp. 1–15). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

11. Pentland A. (2014) Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread – The Lessons from a New Science. New York: Penguin (Russian translation: Moscow: AST, 2018).

12. Zelenkov A.I. (2006) Minsk Philosophical and Methodological School as a Sociocognitive Phenomenon. Journal of Belarusian State University. Series 3: History. Economy. Law. No. 3, pp. 44–49 (in Russian).

13. Zelenkov A.I. (2019) Categorial Structure of Thinking and Dynamics of Forms of Methodological Consciousness. In: Philosophical Categorical Structures in Scientific Knowledge (pp. 958–960). Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika (in Russian).

14. Ziman J. (1996) “Post-Academic Science”: Constructing Knowledge with Networks and Norms. Science & Technology Studies. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 67–80.

15. Ziman J. (2000) Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.