Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Scientific Innovation — Between Conflict and Solidarity

L. V. Shipovalova, E. Y. Sivertsev


The article problematizes the concept of scientific innovation. The authors focus their attention on an ambiguous understanding of the conditions for its emergence and its completion. They use two terms — conflict and solidarity — to define these conditions. In their extreme forms, behavior in conflict situations and solidarity practices oppose each other in two ways: there is contention and rejection of a different position, on the one hand, and “mechanical solidarity” (Durkheim), on the other. However, the intersection and even the coincidence of these practices are possible and actually realized, when described in terms of cooperation, on the one hand, and “organic solidarity” associated with the division of labor, on the other. The article aims, firstly, to describe the possibility of opposing conflict and solidarity in the processes of producing scientific innovation; secondly, to demonstrate the importance of intersecting and even combining these practices to produce and complete novelty in science. In their research, the authors address contemporary works from the fields of historiography and epistemology of science, revealing the concept of the Scientific Revolution, which refers to the emergence of a new science, as well as the concept of modernity, that defines the era in which scientific innovation sets the rhythm and the acceleration of social development. It is in the context of various interpretations of the concepts Scientific Revolution and modernity the concept of innovation is being clarified. The latter not only describes the event and the era of the emergence of modern European science, but also suggests possible contemporary scientific practices.


history and philosophy of science; scientific revolution; modernity; division of labor


Bernal, J. D: Science in History. 2nd ed. Watts., London, 1957.

Research Excellence Framework. URL: (Cited August 20, 2018).

Watermeyer, R., Olssen, M. ‘Excellence’ and Exclusion: The Individual Costs of Institutional Competitiveness, in Minerva, 2016, Vol. 54, Is. 2: 201–218.

Степанов Е.И. Современная конфликтология: Общие подходы к моделированию, мониторингу и менеджменту социальных конфликтов. М.: ЛКИ, 2012.

Stepanov, E.I. Modern conflict: General approaches to modelling, monitoring and management of social conflicts, LKI, Moscow, 2012. (In Russ.)

Анцупов А.Я., Шипилов А.И. Структура конфликта // Конфликтология. М.: ЮНИТИ, 1999.

Antzupov, A.Y., Shipilov, A.I. Conflict Structure, in Konfliktologia, UNITI, Moscow, 1999. (In Russ.)

Стребков А.И. Сунами А.Н. Концепт «конфликт ценностей» в зарубежной и отечественной конфликтологии // Конфликтология. 2016. № 4. С. 253–261.

Strebkov, A.I., Sunami, A.N. The Concept of a «Conflict of Values» in the Western and Russian Conflict Studies, in Konfliktologia, 2016, No.4: 253–261. (In Russ.)

Артёмов Г.П., Пинкевич А.Г. Опыт изучения взаимосвязи ценностных конфликтов и социальной напряженности на основе данных Всемирного исследования ценностей // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Философия и конфликтология. 2018. Т. 34. Вып. 2. С. 251–263.

Artemov, G.P., Pinkevich, A.G. The experience of studying the relationship between value conflicts and social tension on the base of the World Values Survey data, in Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 2018, Vol. 34, Is. 2: 251–263, doi: 10.21638/11701/spbu17.2018.209. (In Russ.)

Дюркгейм Э. О разделении общественного труда. М.: Канон, 1996.

Durkheim, E. The Division of Labor in Society, Canon, Moscow, 1996. (In Russ.)

Law, J. The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography, in Science Studies, 1973, Vol. 3, No. 3: 275–303.

Downey, K.J., The Scientific Community: Organic or Mechanical?, in Sociological Quarterly, 1969, Vol. 10, No. 4: 438–454.

Поппер К. Логика социальных наук // Эволюционная эпистемология и логика социальных наук: Карл Поппер и его критики / ред. В. Н. Садовский. М.: Эдиториал УРСС, 2000. С. 289–313.

Popper, K. Logic of Social Sciences, in Sadovskiy, V.N. (ed.) Evolutionary Epistemology and the Logic of Social Sciences: Karl Popper and his Critics, Editorial URSS, Moscow, 2000: 289–313. (In Russ.)

Бэкон Ф. Новый органон // Бэкон Ф. Собр. соч.: в 2 т. Т. 2. М.: Мысль, 1978. С. 5–214.

Bacon, F. The New Organon, in Bacon F. Collected papers in two vols., Vol. 2, Mysl, Moscow, 1978: 5–214. (In Russ.)

Schuster, J. Descartes-Agonistes: Physico-mathematics, Method & Corpuscular-Mechanism 1618–1633, Springer, 2013.

Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996.

Cohen, I. B. Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, 1987.

Wootton, D. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution, Penguin Books, Allen Lane, London, 2015.

Койре А. От замкнутого мира к бесконечной вселенной / пер. К. Голубович, О. Зайцевой, В. Стрелкова. М.: Логос, 2001.

Koyre, A. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe: transl. from English by K. Golubovich, O. Zaitzeva, V. Strelkov, Logos, Moscow, 2001. (In Russ.)

Hall, M.B. The Scientific Renaissance: 1450–1630 (The Rise of Modern Sciences), Dover Publications, New York, 1994.

Деар П. Событие революции в науке. Европейское знание и его притязания (1500–1700) // Деар П., Шейпин С. Научная революция как событие / пер. А. Маркова. М.: Новое литературное обозрение, 2015. С. 11–314.

Dear, P. Revolutioning the Sciences. European Knowledge and its Ambitions, 1500–1700, in Dear, P., Shapin, S. The Scientific Revolution as Event, transl. from English by A. Markov. New Literary Observer, Moscow, 2015: 11–314. (In Russ.)

Коперник Н. О вращениях небесных сфер. СПб.: Амфора, 2009.

Copernicus, N. On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, Amfora, Saint Petersburg, 2009. (In Russ.)

Delanty, G. Modernity, in Ritzer G. (ed.), Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology, Blackwell Publishing. Malden, Mass, 2007: 3068–3071.

Спор о древних и новых. М.: Искусство, 1985.

Quarrel of the Ancients and Moderns, Iskusstvo, Moscow, 1985. (In Russ.)

Blumenberg, H. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983.

James, P. They Have Never Been Modern? Then What Is the Problem with Those Persians?, in Pascoe, S., Rey, V., James, P. (eds.) Making Modernity from the Mashriq to the Maghreb, Arena Publications, Melbourne, 2015: 31–54.

Rosa, H. Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity, Columbia University Press, New York, 2013.

Латур Б. Нового времени не было. Эссе по симметричной антропологии. СПб.: Изд-во Европ. ун-та в С. Петербурге, 2006.

Latour, B. We have never been Modern. Essays in Simmetric Anthropology, Isdatelstvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt Peterburge, Saint Petersburg, 2006. (In Russ.)

Хардт М., Негри А. Империя. М.: Праксис, 2004.

Hardt, M., Negry, A. Empire, Pracsis, Moscow, 2004. (In Russ.)

Розов М.А. Традиции и новации в развитии науки. Научные революции // Философия и методология науки / ред. В.И. Купцов. М.: Аспект Пресс, 1996. C. 202–250.

Rozov, M.A. Traditions and Innovations in the Development of Science, in Kuptsov, V.I. (ed.), Philosophy and Methodology of Science, Aspect Press, Moscow, 1996: 202–250. (In Russ.)

Edge, D.O. The Sociology of Innovation in Modern Astronomy, in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1977, vol. 18: 326–339.

Galison, P. Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief (1998 abridgment), in Biagnoly, M. (ed.), The Science Studies Reader, Routledge, London & New York, 1999: 137–160.

Romero, F. Novelty versus Replicability: Virtues and Vices in the Reward System of Science, in Philosophy of Science, 2017, Vol. 84, No. 5: 1031–1043, doi: 10.1086/694005

Schmidt, S. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences, in Review of General Psychology, 2009, Vol. 13, No. 2: 90–100, doi: 10.1037/a0015108

Baker, M. Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test, in Nature International weekly journal of science, August 15, 2015, doi:10.1038/nature.2015.18248.



  • There are currently no refbacks.