«Научная элита» как проблема и понятие
Научная статья
Выражение признательности
Исследование осуществлено в рамках Программы фундаментальных исследований НИУ ВШЭ (HSE-BR-2025-016).
Для цитирования
Качанов Ю. Л. «Научная элита» как проблема и понятие // Социологический журнал. 2026. Том 32. № 2. С. 59-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2026.32.2.4 EDN: FXRBGJ
Аннотация
«Научная элита» как эвристический принцип объяснения и аналитическая схема несет в себе идею значительного превосходства малого количества «выдающихся ученых». В статье вводится понятие пространства науки как многомерного распределения агентов производства научного знания по соотносительным позициям. Это пространство различий выступает как среда, в которой разворачивается научная конкуренция, а также символическое и политическое противоборство за ресурсы и признание. Условием и предпосылкой различий является неравномерное распределение ресурсов, а ставкой и целью борьбы — их перманентное перераспределение. Подобная оптика допускает множество размежеваний (например, исследователи/администраторы, революционеры/консерваторы, фундаментальные/прикладные исследования и т. д.) в зависимости от того, какие виды ресурсов становятся приоритетными, а какие теряют значение. Пространство науки — открытая структура, организованная вокруг противоречий и иерархий, одной из которых является противопоставление научной элиты ординарным ученым. Геометрическими объектами этого пространства являются позиции, и научная элита — одна из них. Ключевым объектом анализа становится не отдельный ученый, а объективные отношения между позициями, определяемые распределением специфических видов ресурсов. В рамках такого подхода научная элита понимается не как статистически определяемая совокупность выдающихся ученых, а как доминирующая позиция, обеспечивающая оптимальный доступ к ресурсам и возможность задавать образцы и нормы научных практик.
Ключевые слова:
научная элита, социология науки, социологическая теория, пространство науки, структура, П. Бурдьё
Литература
1. Кугель С.А., Тропп Э.А., Ломовицкая В.М. Социальные механизмы в воспроизводстве научной элиты. СПб.: Изд-во «Нестор», 1999. — 31 с. EDN: RWKHPN
2. Ломовицкая В.М., Петрова Т.А. Научная школа как механизм самоорганизации интеллектуальной элиты // Проблемы деятельности ученого и научных коллективов. 1995. № 9. С. 85–90. EDN: SYGUVZ
3. Пикетти Т. Капитал в XXI веке / Пер. с англ. А.А. Дунаев. М.: Ad Marginem, 2016. — 592 c.
4. Чепуренко А.Ю., Шереги Ф.Э., Шувалова О.Р., Обыденнова Т.Б. Российская наука в новых условиях: роль зарубежных фондов // Мир России. Социология. Этнология. 2005. Т. 1№ С. 138–161. EDN: MUYIOZ
5. Шматко Н.А., Маркова Ю.В. Социальное и символическое пространства в социологии Пьера Бурдье // Социологический журнал. 202Том 31. № 2. С. 111–128. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2025.31.2.6 EDN: TDLGBR
6. Abbott A. Processual sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. 336 p. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226336763.001.0001
7. Abend G. Making things possible. Sociological Methods & Research. 2022. Vol. 51. No 1. P. 68–107. DOI: 10.1177/0049124120926204
8. Akbaritabar A., Castro Torres A. F., Larivière V. A global perspective on social stratification in science. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. P. 914. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03402-w
9. Ayoubi C., Pezzoni M., Visentin F. The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions? Research Policy. 2019. Vol. 48. No 1. P. 84–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.021
10. Benteley R. A., Valverde S., Borycz J., Vidiella B., Horne B. D., Duran-Nebreda S., O’Brien M. J. Is disruption decreasing, or is it accelerating? Advances in Complex Systems. 2023. Vol. 26. No. 2. DOI: 10.1142/S0219525923500066
11. Bol T., de Vaan M., van de Rijt A. The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018. Vol. 115. No. 19. P. 4887–4890. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115
12. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Van den Besselaar P. A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics. 2010. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 211–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004
13. Bourdieu P. Homo academicus. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1984. 320 p.
14. Bourdieu P. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology. 1987. Vol. 32. P. 1–17.
15. Bourdieu P. La noblesse d’État: Grandes écoles et esprit de corps. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. 1989. 576 p.
16. Bourdieu P. 1990. Animadversiones in Mertonem. Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy. Ed. by J. Clark, C. Modgil , S. Modgil. L.: Falmer Press, 1990. P. 297–301.
17. Bourdieu P. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2004. 168 p.
18. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1992. 348 p.
19. Bucchi M. Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology. 2015. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 233–252. DOI: 10.1177/1468795X14558766
20. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H. Elite studies: For a new approach. Political Quarterly. 2021. Vol. 92. No. 4. P. 673–681. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.13072
21. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H., Steinberg I. The social origins and schooling of a scientific elite: Fellows of the Royal Society born from 1900. The British Journal of Sociology. 2022. Vol. 73. No. 3. P. 484–504. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12958
22. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H., Steinberg I. Social stratification in science: the ultra-elite in the UK. European Societies. 2024. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 1265–1306. DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2024.2308010
23. Bunge M. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 1997. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 410–465. DOI: 10.1177/004839319702700402
24. Camic C. Bourdieu’s cleft sociology of science. Minerva. 2011. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 275–293. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-011-9176-0
25. CañibaNo. C., Woolley R., Iversen E.J., Corona-SobriNo. C. The state-of-the-art of research on science research careers. Handbook of meta-research. Ed. by A. Oancea, G. E. Derrick, N. Nuseibeh, X. Xu. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2024. P. 293–308. DOI: 10.4337/9781839105722.00032
26. ChaigNo.n L. Highly cited researchers: Anatomy of a list. Quantitative Science Studies. 2025. Vol. 6. P. 305–327 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
27. ChaigNo.n L., Docampo D., Egret D. In search of a scientific elite: highly cited researchers (HCR) in France. Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128. No. 10. P. 5801–5827. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04805-3
28. Chan H.F., Mixon F.G., Torgler B. Fame in the sciences: A culturomics approach. Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 118. No. 2. P. 605–615. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2975-4
29. Chu, J.S.G., Evans, J.A. Slowed caNo.nical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Vol. 118. No. 41. P. e2021636118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118
30. Ciftci S.K., Karadag E., Ergin-Kocaturk H. The effects of parental’s cultural and ecoNo.mic capital and parental support on being an elite scientists. PLOS ONE. 2023. Vol. 18. No. 7. P. e0287967. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287967
31. Cole J.R., Cole S. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981. 284 p.
32. Firsov B.M. The reproduction of the scientific elite. Sociological Research. 1999. Vol. 38. No. 5. P. 64–76. DOI: 10.2753/SOR1061-0154380564
33. Fortunato S., Bergstrom C.T., Börner K., Evans J.A., Helbing D., Milojević S., Petersen A.M., Radicchi F., Sinatra R., Uzzi B., Vespignani A., Waltman L., Wang D., Barabási A.L. Science of science. Science. 2018. Vol. 359. No. 6379. P. eaao0185. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185
34. Frietsch R., Gruber S., Bornmann L. The definition of highly cited researchers: The effect of different approaches on the empirical outcome. Scientometrics. 2025. Vol. 130. No. 2. P. 881–907. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05158-1
35. Giddens A. Elites in the British class structure. The Sociological Review. 1972. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 345–372. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1972.tb00214.x
36. Gilens M., Page B.I. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics. 2014. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 564–581. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592714001595
37. Glänzel W., Moed H.F., Schmoch U., et al. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer Cham, 2019. 1103 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3
38. Golosovsky M. Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding. Quantitative Science Studies. 2021. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 527–543. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00127
39. Gouldner A. Sociology and the Everyday Life. The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton. Ed. by L.A. Coser. N.Y: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1975. P. 417–432. DOI: 10.4324/9781315132563-22
40. Graf A. Eliten im wissenschaftlichen Feld Deutschlands — Sozialprofil und Werdegänge. Soziale Welt. 2016. Vol. 67. No. 1. P. 23–42. DOI: 10.5771/0038-6073-2016-1-23
41. Hager S., Schwarz C., Waldinger F. Measuring science: Performance metrics and the allocation of talent. American Economic Review. 2024. Vol. 114. No. 12. P. 4052–4090. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20230515
42. Hart D.M., Victor D.G. Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research, 1957–74. Social Studies of Science. 1993. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 643–680. DOI: 10.1177/030631293023004002
43. Hedström P., Swedberg R. Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica. 1996. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 281–308. DOI: 10.1177/000169939603900302
44. Hedström P., Ylikoski P. Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010. Vol. 36. P. 49–67. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
45. Jin C., Ma Y., Uzzi B. Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics. Nature Communications. 2021. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 5619. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25712-2
46. KatchaNo.v Y.L., Markova, Y.V., Shmatko, N.A. How physics works: scientific capital in the space of physics institutions. Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 108. No. 2. P. 875–893. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2005-3
47. KatchaNo.v Yu. L., Shmatko N.A. The idea of social space by Pierre Bourdieu. The Russian Sociological Review. 2024. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 196–220. DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2024-4-196-220
48. Khan S.R. The sociology of elites. Annual review of sociology. 2012. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 361–377. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145542
49. KiNo.uchi R.R. Scientometrics: The project for a science of science transformed into an industry of measurements. Scientiae Studia. 2014. Vol. 12. P. 147–159. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-31662014000400008
50. Kladakis A., Mongeon P., Bloch C. Citation elites in polytheistic and umbrella disciplines: Patterns of stratification and concentration in Danish and British science. Minerva. 2024. Vol. 62. No. 3. P. 397–426. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7
51. Korom P. Star Sociologists: Anatomy of a Disciplinary Elite. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023. 232 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-13938-3
52. Kozlowski D., Larivière V., Sugimoto C.R., Monroe-White T. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022. Vol. 119. No. 2. P. e2113067119. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2113067119
53. Krauss A. Science of science: a multidisciplinary field studying science. Heliyon. 2024. Vol. 10. No. 17. P. e36066. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36066
54. Krauss A. Science of Science: Understanding the Foundations and Limits of Science from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. 185 p. DOI: 10.1093/9780198937401.001.0001
55. Krauss A. Science’s greatest discoverers: A shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. No. 272. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02781-4
56. Kwiek M. The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education. 2016. Vol. 71. No. 3. P. 379–397. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x
57. Larivière V., Macaluso B., Archambault É., Gingras Y. Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation. 2010. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 45–53. DOI: 10.3152/095820210X492495
58. Laudel G. Migration currents among the scientific elite. Minerva. 2005. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 377–395. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-005-2474-77
59. Li J., Yin Y., Fortunato S., Wang D. Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2020. Vol. 17. No. 165. P. 20200135. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2020.0135
60. Liu L., Jones B.F., Uzzi B., Wang D. Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2023. Vol. 7. No. 7. P. 1046–1058. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01562-4
61. Martin J.L. What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology. 2003. Vol. 109. No. 1. P. 1–49. DOI: 10.1086/375201
62. Mayntz R. Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2004. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 237–259. DOI: 10.1177/0048393103262552
63. Morgan A.C., LaBerge N., Larremore Daniel B., Galesic M., Brand, J.E., Clauset A. SocioecoNo.mic roots of academic faculty. Nature Human Behaviour. 2022. Vol. 6. No. 12. P. 1625–1633. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4
64. Mulkay M. The mediating role of the scientific elite. Social Studies of Science. 1976. Vol. 6. No. 3–4. P. 445–470. DOI: 10.1177/030631277600600308
65. Mulkay M. Part One Sociology of science in the West. Current Sociology. 1980. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 1–116. DOI: 10.1177/001139218002800301
66. Nielsen M.W., Andersen J.P. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Vol. 118. No. 7. P. e2012208118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012208118
67. Nielsen M.W., Gissi E., Heidari S., Horton R., Nadeau K. C., Ngila D., Noble S.U., et al. Intersectional analysis for science and technology. Nature. 2025. Vol. 640. No. 8058. P. 329–337. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08774-w
68. Park M., Leahey E., Funk R.J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature. 2023. Vol. 613. No. 7942. P. 138–144. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
69. Parker J.N., Allesina S., Lortie C.J. Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics. 2013. Vol. 94. No. 2. P. 469–480. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6
70. Petersen A.M., Fortunato S., Pan R.K., Kaski K., Penner O., Rungi A., Riccaboni M., Stanley H.E., Pammolli F. Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014. Vol. 111. No. 43. P. 15316–15321. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323111111
71. Savage M. Introduction to elites from the “problematic of the proletariat” to a class analysis of “wealth elites”. The Sociological Review. 2015. Vol. 63. No. 2. P. 223–239. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12281
72. Savage M. In defence of sociological description: A “world-making” perspective. The British Journal of Sociology. 2024. Vol. 75. No. 3. P. 360–365. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13083
73. Scott J. Modes of power and the re-conceptualization of elites. The Sociological Review. 2008. Vol. 56. No. 1. P. 25–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00760.x
74. Serenko A., Marrone M., Dumay J. Scientometric portraits of recognized scientists: A structured literature review. Scientometrics. 2022. Vol. 127. No. 8. P. 4827–4846. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04466-8
75. Sinatra R., Wang D., Deville P., Song C., Barabási A.L. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science. 2016. Vol. 354. No. 6312. P. aaf5239. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5239
76. Siudem G., Żogała-Siudem B., Cena A., Gagolewski M. Three dimensions of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. Vol. 117. No. 25. P. 13896–13900. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001064117
77. Sloterdijk P. Zorn und Zeit. Politisch-psychologischer Versuch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2008. 285 p.
78. Tijssen R.J.W., Visser M.S., van Leeuwen T.N. Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics. 2002. Vol. 54. No. 3. P. 381–397. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016082432660
79. van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., Moed H.F., Nederhof T.J., Van Raan A.F.J. The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics. 2003. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 257–280. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024141819302
80. Wacquant L. Bourdieu in the City: Challenging Urban Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2023. 288 p. DOI: 10.4324/9780429287961-45
81. Wang D., Barabási A.-L. The Science of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2021. 308 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108610834
82. Yin Y., Dong Y., Wang K., Wang D., Jones B.F. Public use and public funding of science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2022. Vol. 6. No. 10. P. 1344–1350. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5
83. Zeng A., Shen Z., Zhou J., Wu J., Fan Y., Wang Y., Stanley H.E. The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports. 2017. Vols. 714–715. P. 1–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.001
84. Zhang M., Liu L., Zeng D., Li X. Impact of academic title structure of university research teams on research output: evidence from 30 Chinese universities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 769. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03294-w
85. Zhu W., Jin C., Ma Y., Xu C. Earlier recognition of scientific excellence enhances future achievements and promotes persistence. Journal of Informetrics. 2023. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 101408. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101408
86. Zuckerman H. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995. 382 p.
2. Ломовицкая В.М., Петрова Т.А. Научная школа как механизм самоорганизации интеллектуальной элиты // Проблемы деятельности ученого и научных коллективов. 1995. № 9. С. 85–90. EDN: SYGUVZ
3. Пикетти Т. Капитал в XXI веке / Пер. с англ. А.А. Дунаев. М.: Ad Marginem, 2016. — 592 c.
4. Чепуренко А.Ю., Шереги Ф.Э., Шувалова О.Р., Обыденнова Т.Б. Российская наука в новых условиях: роль зарубежных фондов // Мир России. Социология. Этнология. 2005. Т. 1№ С. 138–161. EDN: MUYIOZ
5. Шматко Н.А., Маркова Ю.В. Социальное и символическое пространства в социологии Пьера Бурдье // Социологический журнал. 202Том 31. № 2. С. 111–128. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2025.31.2.6 EDN: TDLGBR
6. Abbott A. Processual sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. 336 p. DOI: 10.7208/chicago/9780226336763.001.0001
7. Abend G. Making things possible. Sociological Methods & Research. 2022. Vol. 51. No 1. P. 68–107. DOI: 10.1177/0049124120926204
8. Akbaritabar A., Castro Torres A. F., Larivière V. A global perspective on social stratification in science. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. P. 914. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03402-w
9. Ayoubi C., Pezzoni M., Visentin F. The important thing is not to win, it is to take part: What if scientists benefit from participating in research grant competitions? Research Policy. 2019. Vol. 48. No 1. P. 84–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.021
10. Benteley R. A., Valverde S., Borycz J., Vidiella B., Horne B. D., Duran-Nebreda S., O’Brien M. J. Is disruption decreasing, or is it accelerating? Advances in Complex Systems. 2023. Vol. 26. No. 2. DOI: 10.1142/S0219525923500066
11. Bol T., de Vaan M., van de Rijt A. The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018. Vol. 115. No. 19. P. 4887–4890. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1719557115
12. Bornmann L., Leydesdorff L., Van den Besselaar P. A meta-evaluation of scientific research proposals: Different ways of comparing rejected to awarded applications. Journal of Informetrics. 2010. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 211–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.10.004
13. Bourdieu P. Homo academicus. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1984. 320 p.
14. Bourdieu P. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Journal of Sociology. 1987. Vol. 32. P. 1–17.
15. Bourdieu P. La noblesse d’État: Grandes écoles et esprit de corps. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. 1989. 576 p.
16. Bourdieu P. 1990. Animadversiones in Mertonem. Robert K. Merton: Consensus and Controversy. Ed. by J. Clark, C. Modgil , S. Modgil. L.: Falmer Press, 1990. P. 297–301.
17. Bourdieu P. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2004. 168 p.
18. Bourdieu P., Wacquant L. An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1992. 348 p.
19. Bucchi M. Norms, competition and visibility in contemporary science: The legacy of Robert K. Merton. Journal of Classical Sociology. 2015. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 233–252. DOI: 10.1177/1468795X14558766
20. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H. Elite studies: For a new approach. Political Quarterly. 2021. Vol. 92. No. 4. P. 673–681. DOI: 10.1111/1467-923X.13072
21. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H., Steinberg I. The social origins and schooling of a scientific elite: Fellows of the Royal Society born from 1900. The British Journal of Sociology. 2022. Vol. 73. No. 3. P. 484–504. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.12958
22. Bukodi E., Goldthorpe J.H., Steinberg I. Social stratification in science: the ultra-elite in the UK. European Societies. 2024. Vol. 26. No. 5. P. 1265–1306. DOI: 10.1080/14616696.2024.2308010
23. Bunge M. Mechanism and explanation. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 1997. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 410–465. DOI: 10.1177/004839319702700402
24. Camic C. Bourdieu’s cleft sociology of science. Minerva. 2011. Vol. 49. No. 3. P. 275–293. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-011-9176-0
25. CañibaNo. C., Woolley R., Iversen E.J., Corona-SobriNo. C. The state-of-the-art of research on science research careers. Handbook of meta-research. Ed. by A. Oancea, G. E. Derrick, N. Nuseibeh, X. Xu. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2024. P. 293–308. DOI: 10.4337/9781839105722.00032
26. ChaigNo.n L. Highly cited researchers: Anatomy of a list. Quantitative Science Studies. 2025. Vol. 6. P. 305–327 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2993-2
27. ChaigNo.n L., Docampo D., Egret D. In search of a scientific elite: highly cited researchers (HCR) in France. Scientometrics. 2023. Vol. 128. No. 10. P. 5801–5827. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-023-04805-3
28. Chan H.F., Mixon F.G., Torgler B. Fame in the sciences: A culturomics approach. Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 118. No. 2. P. 605–615. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2975-4
29. Chu, J.S.G., Evans, J.A. Slowed caNo.nical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Vol. 118. No. 41. P. e2021636118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118
30. Ciftci S.K., Karadag E., Ergin-Kocaturk H. The effects of parental’s cultural and ecoNo.mic capital and parental support on being an elite scientists. PLOS ONE. 2023. Vol. 18. No. 7. P. e0287967. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287967
31. Cole J.R., Cole S. Social Stratification in Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1981. 284 p.
32. Firsov B.M. The reproduction of the scientific elite. Sociological Research. 1999. Vol. 38. No. 5. P. 64–76. DOI: 10.2753/SOR1061-0154380564
33. Fortunato S., Bergstrom C.T., Börner K., Evans J.A., Helbing D., Milojević S., Petersen A.M., Radicchi F., Sinatra R., Uzzi B., Vespignani A., Waltman L., Wang D., Barabási A.L. Science of science. Science. 2018. Vol. 359. No. 6379. P. eaao0185. DOI: 10.1126/science.aao0185
34. Frietsch R., Gruber S., Bornmann L. The definition of highly cited researchers: The effect of different approaches on the empirical outcome. Scientometrics. 2025. Vol. 130. No. 2. P. 881–907. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05158-1
35. Giddens A. Elites in the British class structure. The Sociological Review. 1972. Vol. 20. No. 3. P. 345–372. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1972.tb00214.x
36. Gilens M., Page B.I. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics. 2014. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 564–581. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592714001595
37. Glänzel W., Moed H.F., Schmoch U., et al. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer Cham, 2019. 1103 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3
38. Golosovsky M. Universality of citation distributions: A new understanding. Quantitative Science Studies. 2021. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 527–543. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00127
39. Gouldner A. Sociology and the Everyday Life. The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton. Ed. by L.A. Coser. N.Y: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1975. P. 417–432. DOI: 10.4324/9781315132563-22
40. Graf A. Eliten im wissenschaftlichen Feld Deutschlands — Sozialprofil und Werdegänge. Soziale Welt. 2016. Vol. 67. No. 1. P. 23–42. DOI: 10.5771/0038-6073-2016-1-23
41. Hager S., Schwarz C., Waldinger F. Measuring science: Performance metrics and the allocation of talent. American Economic Review. 2024. Vol. 114. No. 12. P. 4052–4090. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20230515
42. Hart D.M., Victor D.G. Scientific elites and the making of US policy for climate change research, 1957–74. Social Studies of Science. 1993. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 643–680. DOI: 10.1177/030631293023004002
43. Hedström P., Swedberg R. Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica. 1996. Vol. 39. No. 3. P. 281–308. DOI: 10.1177/000169939603900302
44. Hedström P., Ylikoski P. Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Sociology. 2010. Vol. 36. P. 49–67. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
45. Jin C., Ma Y., Uzzi B. Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics. Nature Communications. 2021. Vol. 12. No. 1. P. 5619. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25712-2
46. KatchaNo.v Y.L., Markova, Y.V., Shmatko, N.A. How physics works: scientific capital in the space of physics institutions. Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 108. No. 2. P. 875–893. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2005-3
47. KatchaNo.v Yu. L., Shmatko N.A. The idea of social space by Pierre Bourdieu. The Russian Sociological Review. 2024. Vol. 23. No. 4. P. 196–220. DOI: 10.17323/1728-192x-2024-4-196-220
48. Khan S.R. The sociology of elites. Annual review of sociology. 2012. Vol. 38. No. 1. P. 361–377. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145542
49. KiNo.uchi R.R. Scientometrics: The project for a science of science transformed into an industry of measurements. Scientiae Studia. 2014. Vol. 12. P. 147–159. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-31662014000400008
50. Kladakis A., Mongeon P., Bloch C. Citation elites in polytheistic and umbrella disciplines: Patterns of stratification and concentration in Danish and British science. Minerva. 2024. Vol. 62. No. 3. P. 397–426. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-024-09521-7
51. Korom P. Star Sociologists: Anatomy of a Disciplinary Elite. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023. 232 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-13938-3
52. Kozlowski D., Larivière V., Sugimoto C.R., Monroe-White T. Intersectional inequalities in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022. Vol. 119. No. 2. P. e2113067119. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2113067119
53. Krauss A. Science of science: a multidisciplinary field studying science. Heliyon. 2024. Vol. 10. No. 17. P. e36066. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36066
54. Krauss A. Science of Science: Understanding the Foundations and Limits of Science from an Interdisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. 185 p. DOI: 10.1093/9780198937401.001.0001
55. Krauss A. Science’s greatest discoverers: A shift towards greater interdisciplinarity, top universities and older age. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. No. 272. P. 1–11. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02781-4
56. Kwiek M. The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education. 2016. Vol. 71. No. 3. P. 379–397. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x
57. Larivière V., Macaluso B., Archambault É., Gingras Y. Which scientific elites? On the concentration of research funds, publications and citations. Research Evaluation. 2010. Vol. 19. No. 1. P. 45–53. DOI: 10.3152/095820210X492495
58. Laudel G. Migration currents among the scientific elite. Minerva. 2005. Vol. 43. No. 4. P. 377–395. DOI: 10.1007/s11024-005-2474-77
59. Li J., Yin Y., Fortunato S., Wang D. Scientific elite revisited: Patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact. Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2020. Vol. 17. No. 165. P. 20200135. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2020.0135
60. Liu L., Jones B.F., Uzzi B., Wang D. Data, measurement and empirical methods in the science of science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2023. Vol. 7. No. 7. P. 1046–1058. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01562-4
61. Martin J.L. What is field theory? American Journal of Sociology. 2003. Vol. 109. No. 1. P. 1–49. DOI: 10.1086/375201
62. Mayntz R. Mechanisms in the analysis of social macro-phenomena. Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 2004. Vol. 34. No. 2. P. 237–259. DOI: 10.1177/0048393103262552
63. Morgan A.C., LaBerge N., Larremore Daniel B., Galesic M., Brand, J.E., Clauset A. SocioecoNo.mic roots of academic faculty. Nature Human Behaviour. 2022. Vol. 6. No. 12. P. 1625–1633. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01425-4
64. Mulkay M. The mediating role of the scientific elite. Social Studies of Science. 1976. Vol. 6. No. 3–4. P. 445–470. DOI: 10.1177/030631277600600308
65. Mulkay M. Part One Sociology of science in the West. Current Sociology. 1980. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 1–116. DOI: 10.1177/001139218002800301
66. Nielsen M.W., Andersen J.P. Global citation inequality is on the rise. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2021. Vol. 118. No. 7. P. e2012208118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012208118
67. Nielsen M.W., Gissi E., Heidari S., Horton R., Nadeau K. C., Ngila D., Noble S.U., et al. Intersectional analysis for science and technology. Nature. 2025. Vol. 640. No. 8058. P. 329–337. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-025-08774-w
68. Park M., Leahey E., Funk R.J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature. 2023. Vol. 613. No. 7942. P. 138–144. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x
69. Parker J.N., Allesina S., Lortie C.J. Characterizing a scientific elite (B): publication and citation patterns of the most highly cited scientists in environmental science and ecology. Scientometrics. 2013. Vol. 94. No. 2. P. 469–480. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-012-0859-6
70. Petersen A.M., Fortunato S., Pan R.K., Kaski K., Penner O., Rungi A., Riccaboni M., Stanley H.E., Pammolli F. Reputation and impact in academic careers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014. Vol. 111. No. 43. P. 15316–15321. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1323111111
71. Savage M. Introduction to elites from the “problematic of the proletariat” to a class analysis of “wealth elites”. The Sociological Review. 2015. Vol. 63. No. 2. P. 223–239. DOI: 10.1111/1467-954X.12281
72. Savage M. In defence of sociological description: A “world-making” perspective. The British Journal of Sociology. 2024. Vol. 75. No. 3. P. 360–365. DOI: 10.1111/1468-4446.13083
73. Scott J. Modes of power and the re-conceptualization of elites. The Sociological Review. 2008. Vol. 56. No. 1. P. 25–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00760.x
74. Serenko A., Marrone M., Dumay J. Scientometric portraits of recognized scientists: A structured literature review. Scientometrics. 2022. Vol. 127. No. 8. P. 4827–4846. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04466-8
75. Sinatra R., Wang D., Deville P., Song C., Barabási A.L. Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science. 2016. Vol. 354. No. 6312. P. aaf5239. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf5239
76. Siudem G., Żogała-Siudem B., Cena A., Gagolewski M. Three dimensions of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. Vol. 117. No. 25. P. 13896–13900. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2001064117
77. Sloterdijk P. Zorn und Zeit. Politisch-psychologischer Versuch. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2008. 285 p.
78. Tijssen R.J.W., Visser M.S., van Leeuwen T.N. Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference? Scientometrics. 2002. Vol. 54. No. 3. P. 381–397. DOI: 10.1023/A:1016082432660
79. van Leeuwen T.N., Visser M.S., Moed H.F., Nederhof T.J., Van Raan A.F.J. The Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific excellence. Scientometrics. 2003. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 257–280. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024141819302
80. Wacquant L. Bourdieu in the City: Challenging Urban Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. 2023. 288 p. DOI: 10.4324/9780429287961-45
81. Wang D., Barabási A.-L. The Science of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2021. 308 p. DOI: 10.1017/9781108610834
82. Yin Y., Dong Y., Wang K., Wang D., Jones B.F. Public use and public funding of science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2022. Vol. 6. No. 10. P. 1344–1350. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5
83. Zeng A., Shen Z., Zhou J., Wu J., Fan Y., Wang Y., Stanley H.E. The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports. 2017. Vols. 714–715. P. 1–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.001
84. Zhang M., Liu L., Zeng D., Li X. Impact of academic title structure of university research teams on research output: evidence from 30 Chinese universities. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024. Vol. 11. No. 1. P. 769. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-03294-w
85. Zhu W., Jin C., Ma Y., Xu C. Earlier recognition of scientific excellence enhances future achievements and promotes persistence. Journal of Informetrics. 2023. Vol. 17. No. 2. P. 101408. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101408
86. Zuckerman H. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1995. 382 p.
Статья
Поступила: 25.10.2025
Опубликована: 26.06.2026
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
ACM
[1]
Качанов, Ю.Л. 2026. «Научная элита» как проблема и понятие. Социологический журнал. 32, 2 (июн. 2026), 59-77. DOI:https://doi.org/10.19181/socjour.2026.32.2.4.
Раздел
СОЦИОЛОГИЯ НАУКИ
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution-NonCommercial» («Атрибуция — Некоммерческое использование») 4.0 Всемирная.
JATS XML
