By S.M. Medvedeva[1]
The article analyzes a stereotypical image of a Russian scientist, published in a range of books of Russian Academy of Science. This image represents a construction of an ideal Russian scientist, who possesses the most desirable personal characteristics and reflects values of Russian scientific community. The article stresses, that popularization of the image would contribute to rise of prestige of Russian science and profession of scientist.
The question of the necessity and possibility of the revival of Russian science has been being asked frequently in recent years. Prospects mostly looked dismal in the 1990s, but now there is a variety of opinions, from the belief that Russian science has passed the point of no return and complete lack of understanding of scientific needs in the high places to rather optimistic forecasts suggesting large investments, the Skolkovo innovative center project and the program of return of immigrant scientists to their home country. Actually, this trend is intertwined with the general political situation and the adamant decision Russia made in the late 1990s to regain its might and acquire a scientific and academic potential adequate to a great nation.
Let us set aside for a while the disputable question of the financing and financial deficit of Russian scientific project and take a look at the subjective aspect of the revival of Russian science. This is the question of psychological problems of people to be directly involved in that process, their standpoints, expectations, values and behavioral patterns. Obviously, objective development and consolidation of science in Russia are simply impossible without renaissance in minds. Therefore, the image of the Russian scientist who is the subject of this essay bears a direct relation to the subjective dimension of domestic science restoration.
Theoretical prerequisites for study of the image of the Russian scientist
At the same time, the role of the image of the scientist in the daily work of employees of various scientific institutions clearly needs to be specified. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to point out two aspects related to the functioning of the image of any professional or ethnic group, including the image of Russian scientists. For one, this is the question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction a person belonging to a particular social group feels about this belonging. The matter has been given a particularly profound analysis by British social psychologist H. Tajfel[1]. Tajfel said that our self-esteem directly depends on the social, ethnic or professional category we attribute ourselves to. To be more precise, how high and prestigious this category is in our own eyes and the eyes of the other people. Therefore, a person may have a positive or negative identity with a group, the British scientist said. The negative and positive identity depends not so much on the objective material benefits possessed by the group as on its access to moral resources, which regularly stand for a status and prestige. Then, a person belonging to a prestigious group (or, at least, regarding it as such) has moral satisfaction and is sure of oneself. But what happens to those who, for some reason, become members of a group, which is not valued by the society or has little attraction in their own eyes? The simplest way is to leave this group. Regarding the scientific community, this principle may be illustrated with the brain drain to foreign countries, a partial outflow of academic personnel to private businesses in the end of the 1980s - the beginning of the 1990s, and the current short supply of young specialists in scientific collectives (which may be regarded as an implicit form of departure from the group). Whenever the departure from a group is impossible, an individual uses various strategies, such as subconscious creation or promotion of negative images of other groups and surreptitious raising the attractiveness of the self group. However, this side of the group image and the group identity are irrelevant in this context. Another thing matters. It would be impossible to revive domestic science without a positive image of the scientist. Naturally, we do not presume that an attractive image of the scientist is the only need of domestic science and the only way to retrieve the situation. Yet this is unavoidable in the century of information technologies, which made the creation of images an industry.
Let`s take a look at the other aspect of the functioning of the group image: its information element. The subject can be clarified with the stereotyping theory, or, to be more precise (bearing in mind the great variety of such schools[2]), with the cognitivist approach to stereotypes because it deals with information processing in our brain and information coding into relatively solid clichёs, i.e. stereotypes.
Although the general public views this perception as negative and distorting the image of an object, modern psychologists have abandoned that idea a long time ago; they have discovered that stereotypes are not so much false as specific mental structures[3].
It also should be noted that the cognitivist approach to stereotypes has come to dominate over earlier interpretations of the existence of such clichёs in our mentality over the past few decades. Fundamentals of the cognitive model of stereotypes were laid down by such prominent scientists as already mentioned H. Tajfel[4], D. Hamelton[5], R. Axelrod[6] and others.
A general premise of this approach is that stereotypes are natural and normal manifestations of human mental activity. On the one hand, their appearance and functioning are linked with the surplus of information, which the modern man inevitably encounters and which forces him to reduce the incoming abundant information to simple and easily remembered and convenient schemes. On the other hand, stereotypes derive from the recurrence of daily experience of people, in which the use of clichёs appears to be efficient and becomes almost automatic.
Regularly, a social stereotype implies the image of a category of people distinguished on the ethnic, professional, gender or some other principles. There are ethnic and gender stereotypes and stereotypes of professional groups. Naturally, this essay is interested in the stereotype of a professional group, the stereotype of the scientist, although there are no essential differences between various types of stereotypes from the point of view of mechanisms of their formation and functioning. The only difference is the type of objects of stereotypes. Also it is believed traditionally that the stereotype contains a fixed set of characteristics of an ethnic, professional, gender or another group. The set of ascribed qualities is limited, which means the stereotype unavoidably simplifies the reality. Besides, the specifics of functioning of stereotypes are such that they actually mitigate differences between various elements of the category or individuals in the same professional group by attributing the same stable and invariable qualities (the assimilation process) to them. One may say that "tarring everyone with the same brush", stereotypes are excessive summarizations, in this sense. But it has already been noticed that the majority of scientists have abandoned interpretations of stereotypes as an absolutely false phenomenon and are inclined to believe that many qualities attributed to a group of a stereotype may be correct and their knowledge may be rather useful.
In other words, the stereotype of the scientist inevitably implies that, first of all, all members of the scientific community have common features and, in a sense, resemble each other. Similarity of people of the same profession by itself is not an absolute lie because it is quite possible that the profession attracts a particular kind of people and develops similar qualities in them. At the same time, the wish to affirm this quality is just one look at the reality, which inescapably simplifies it by ignoring individual differences and uniqueness of every person. Besides, by fixing a particular set of personal and professional characteristics of the scientist, the stereotype actually makes the other possible traits of his character invisible. Let us take, for example, the characters of Jacques Paganel from Captain Grant`s Children by Jules Verne and Emmett "Doc" Brown from Robert Zemeckis` Back to the Future. There is no doubt we are dealing with a stereotype, as the two characters have much in common. Besides, this is a rather lasting stereotype, as the characters were created over 100 years from one another. So, what are Jacques Paganel and Emmett "Doc" Brown? They are eccentric, extremely loyal to science, forgetful, unpractical, dreamy and good-natured. Their oddness has an effect on their manners, their speech and their looks.
The stereotype predisposes people to believe that this is what scientists are. Most probably, millions of people believe that. But it would be reasonable to suggest that many characteristic features of scientists have been overlooked. Actually, this is the way stereotypes work: they accentuate certain characteristics of a group and smooth over and overshadow the others.
One has to admit that, in spite of the variety of approaches and concepts, scientists have not generated a common theory to explain why certain characteristics of a group are emphasized and others are mitigated. It is quite possible that in addition to the properly psychological mechanisms of information coding and decoding, a large role is played by socio-cultural factors, which may have different effects on the content of stereotypes. Still, this question is not very important at this stage of the research. It is much more important to find out which functions the stereotype of a professional group has in human psychology and how it influences human behavior.
We have mentioned that ideas about the self group have an influence on people`s self esteem. But the spectrum of influence of these clichёs is much broader. In order to clarify this question, it is necessary to single out auto and hetero stereotypes, in other words, stereotypes of the self group and other groups, because their effects differ slightly. People use hetero stereotypes as guidance for the social world, for instance, add information about new people they meet, but auto stereotypes also act as a model, an etalon for community members. In other words, qualities coded by the auto stereotype are believed to be desirable and necessary for being a full member of the community, they need to be developed to become a true member of the group.
Thereby, these characteristics develop into values. From this point of view, the role of stereotypes about the self group is extremely important because they demonstrate desirable and approved norms and patterns of behavior. Naturally, this does not mean that all members of the community behave precisely the same way. We have mentioned truthfulness and falseness of stereotypes: stereotypes may be truthful but they contain only "a grain of truth" but not the whole of it.
Now we may add in the context of studies of the connection between stereotypes and values that in both cases we deal with the desired and appropriate characteristics, certain guidelines rather than the true state of affairs[7].
Going back to the image of the Russian scientist, we may also say that its study and purposeful formation and maintenance of a positive image are extremely important because
(1) a positive image or auto stereotype improves self esteem of Russian scientists and makes academic work more attractive primarily for existent and prospective scientists;
(2) demonstrate ideals and values of genuine academic work to members of the scientific community.
Certainly, regarding the last item, we cannot deny that stereotypes may be different. In fact, a negative stereotype is a phenomenon much better known and studied than a positive stereotype. There is no doubt that the group of the stereotype is significant. For instance, it is quite possible that students and post-graduates have a slightly different idea of scientists than scientists have of themselves. But this means only that negative stereotypes about scientists should be rid of, while the formation of positive stereotypes should be fostered because, as we have mentioned, they are directly related to the subjective side of the revival of domestic science.
The image of the Russian scientist based on materials of the Journal of the Russian Academy of Sciences: reconstruction attempt
A short time ago the Russian Academy of Sciences has released a series of books under the common title, Russian Science in Person[8]. Each book contains essays about scientists, which were earlier published by the Journal of the Russian Academy of Scientists under the headline, "Essays about Scientists". According to Journal editor in chief, Academician Yu. S. Asimov, "The editor`s office started that section of the Journal, which is popular with the authors and the readers, over 15 years ago. It tells about prominent Russian researchers, the scientific elite, whose creative legacy was put into textbooks, laid down the foundation of scientific search and developed in works of their contemporary followers[9]". The editors of the series said the authors were the distinctive feature of the books. Scientists, experts in the areas of knowledge where the book characters worked, write about scientists[10].
This is a perfect material for studying the auto stereotype of Russian scientists created by the scientific community. It is written by scientists about scientists, which makes it sort of a self-presentation of the Russian scientific community. Considering personalities described by the essays, there is no doubt we are dealing with ideals and ideas of what Russian scientists should be and what behavioral patterns they should be guided with and develop in themselves or welcome in their colleagues. It is also easy to predict the readers of these essays: that would be scientists. The Journal of the Academy of Sciences is a professional rather than popular edition. Also, its books have limited circulation and are meant for a limited audience rather than the general public.
So, we are dealing with essays written by scientists, who create ideal images of great scientists for other scientists to read about. Practically all the essays, with the exception of information about scientific merits and achievements of the characters, contain plenty of personal information. Naturally, the amount of information about personal traits of a scientist varies from one essay to another. In some cases there are detailed psychological descriptions of characters, while in other cases authors merely give a brief account of their biographic facts. But even the scarce information allows making certain conclusions about personal qualities of the characters.
Text analysis is a relatively simple procedure. At first, all the comments on personality of the scientists were selected. Then characteristics most frequently given in the books were listed and qualified as stereotypes or clichёs. The results are presented in Table 1. The frequency of mention was calculated from the correlation between the number of references to a certain quality or a group of similar qualities and the number of essays taken for 100%. So, the frequency of mention indicated the percentage of texts, in which such qualities were mentioned. The only exception is two categories, "organizational talent" and "industriousness and efficiency", in which there were two indicators of the frequency of mention: explicit and implicit. We will say why that was necessary a bit later, when we analyze each category.
Let us make the main conclusion of the research for the current stage: the wonderful recurrence of the same characteristics in the description of life and work of different people show that there is a certain scientist stereotype, which prompts the authors to accentuate precisely these qualities of academicians. We do not deny that characters of the essays from the Russian Science in Person series were industrious, charismatic or loyal to science and their home country. But apart from giving these general characteristics, the books present a great diversity of creative life stories of Russian scientists, who became symbols of Russian science. We are presented to a constellation of eminent and unique people. Besides, the majority of authors have unique writing styles. Actually, we are dealing of non-standardized texts. The fact that clichёs are still there is extremely important and interesting, as, we have mentioned before, (1) this proves the existence of certain ideals of the scientific community and certain requirements to oneself and (2) this performs a certain didactic function and sets values and guidelines for young members of the scientific community.
Let us make a more detailed analysis of the mentioned categories. Service to science and fatherland seems to be the most widely spread characteristic feature of Russian scientists. These two descriptions are often given simultaneously or even interpreted as "science being service to fatherland". The thesis is particularly illustrative in the essay about D.I. Mendeleyev who regarded his economic works as "one of the three main areas of service to fatherland, alongside works in natural history and pedagogical work[11]". In other words, the scientist regarded his entire professional activity as a service. The use of the slightly obsolete and emotionally charged word "service", which is rather common in these essays, enhances the general impression that the work of a scientist is not a banal daily chore of an average person but a spiritual feat and an act of selfless devotion to a cause. By the way, more neutral descriptions, such as loyalty to "fatherland and science" and so on, are also rather frequent. But the reader gets an impression that the category of service (and spiritual feat) is the cornerstone of all the other characteristics because Russian scientists often display super abilities and devotion in the course of their scientific work.
The equally frequent category is non-acquisitiveness, i.e. a lack of the scientist`s interest in material values and a ban on using science as a means of one`s enrichment. Quite possibly, it is closely linked to the service. For example, Sofia Kovalevskaya repents that her husband and even herself were possessed with "greed and various commercial projects" for a certain period. Naturally, the scientists simply wanted "to make a living so that afterwards they could freely do science without being distracted with the need to win their daily bread." But even in that case, economic ventures had consequences: the husband of Sofia Kovalevskaya, V.O. Kovalevsky, was a bad businessman and debts forced him to commit suicide. The opposite of this negative behavioral pattern is the extraordinary decision of Academician P.D. Grushin, a scientist "fully wrapped up in his work" who donated his entire savings of several decades for the construction of a center for young amateur engineers in Khimki in the middle of the 1980s[12].
Between these two poles of a peculiar punishment for the sin of acquisitiveness and the feat of selflessness, there is a variety of more neutral forms of the rejection of acquisitiveness by the Russian scientific elite. For instance, Academician A.A. Skochensky "could not stand people who joined the scientific community either accidentally or for selfish reasons. A person, especially if he had an academic degree, who quitted a position at the institute for the sake of a higher position, was no longer of interest for him"[13]. In the context of stereotype studies, the fact that Skochensky`s trait was remembered and mentioned in the essay is more important than he acted one way or another.
Notably, political activity and engagement are not only accepted but even welcomed while economic activity is rejected. This activity prevents academic personnel from stagnation and transformation into "armchair scientists". M.M. Kovalevsky managed to avoid that transformation thanks to his engagement in politics, participation in the work of the First State Duma and establishment of a political party[14].
However, Table 1 shows that the category of "political activity" is not as popular and common as many others. Importantly, the category gains weight with stories of political activity of future scientists in the pre-revolutionary Russia. It could be the Soviet biographic tradition, in which "revolutionary past" was the inseparable attribute and token of loyalty of all prominent public figures of the country. Political activity acquires a more ambiguous meaning when the Soviet period starts. There are a number of regretful recollections of scientists put under investigation, imprisoned and rehabilitated. In the overwhelming majority of cases the relationship between characters of the Russian Science in Person and the authorities is not commented at all. It is apparent, though, that directors of scientific institutes, centers and laboratories or even several ones could have hardly be disengaged from political realities of the Soviet Union. In this case the lack of comment is no less characteristic and significant than such indication.
The charisma category is heterogeneous. Generally, it implies personal charm and unforgettable impression scientists make on people around them. But charisma may be rooted in different personal qualities. It could be a striking personality, eloquence, impressive erudition or oratory skills, or introversion and sparing of words, in which the scientist`s charisma is implicit and suddenly amazes the interlocutor with the ability to see into detail and suggest profound ideas. In our case, the fact that the majority of such scientists impress the audience is important.
It seems that the passion category is linked with charisma and is a source of superior power of scientists over people around them. There are two manifestations of passion. First of all, there is passion for science as the fulfillment of the child`s dearest dream. Let us take the story of A.V. Novosyolova as an example. She was a student of the Moscow State University Department of Medicine and made her living as a kindergarten teacher. But she realized quickly that her choice of occupation was a mistake. It appeared that "natural sciences, including chemistry," were her big dream. So, she became a student of the Chemistry Department and made her living as a laboratory assistant. Thanks to her ability to understand her call early, A.V. Novosyolova had a bright future in Russian science. The essay author wrote, "She loved chemical experiments. Novosyolova spent all her free time in the laboratory staging experiments together with her colleagues."[15]. Тhe same quality is attributed to N.K. Bunge "who had a passion for science and believed in the force of power. He was enlightened and wished enlightenment to spread across the land of Russia, which he loved with sincere and profound patriotism[16]". As we have mentioned, the same passion for science was characteristic of the overwhelming majority of scientists.
The other aspect of "passion" was the peculiar and high energy of scientists. Their exuberant nature and amazing energy are mentioned very often. It is not excluded that this energy is the source of charisma of our characters. At the same time, this is probably a link to the next category, industriousness and efficiency: apparently, people are simply unable to work so much and so fruitfully without being passionate and possessing super capacities. Examples prove the common rule. Academician D.S. Rozhdestvensky and his staff came to work before the official working hours and worked until 10 p.m. or even midnight[17]. Academician I.N. Nazarov worked into late at night and during his official vacations and brought to the institute each fall "pages with his new ideas and work plans[18]".
Yet, this category is far from always mentioned by authors of the Russian Science in Person. Probably, the list of academician`s merits is deemed sufficient for proving their efficiency and industriousness. True, those people worked a lot and achieved much. It would be unnecessary to give additional details. We just singled out two indicators in this category: (1) explicit, when authors mention such qualities; (2) implicit when the quality is implicated by the essay text.
The same is true for the category organizational talent. It is implicit much more frequently than explicit because the majority of characters of the Russian Science in Person are founders and heads of institutes, laboratories, departments, scientific societies and so on. There is no doubt they possessed exemplary organizational skills.
The next category, multifacetedness and rejection of narrow specialization, is a rather peculiar phenomena: bearing in mind the deepening specialization of modern science one would expect that from scientists. But this does not happen. Same as passion, the multifacetedness category has several dimensions. For instance, it may be displayed with the keenness of a scientist on several scientific areas, as well as broad perception and understanding of one`s subject. For instance, N.N. Burdenko not just covered a broad range of purely medical areas (tuberculosis therapy, prosthetics, rheumatology, standardization of medical instruments and hospital equipment and so on). He also showed an interest in history, such as the duel wound of A.S. Pushkin and his treatment, and the related report Burdenko made at the Academy of Sciences caused a large public response[19]. There is also the breadth of views and interest in other areas unrelated to science, such as literature or art. The third dimension of multifacetedness of Russian scientists disagrees with the previous two, to a degree. This is the desire and ability to investigate every detail of the scientific research and discovery and to do any, even the pettiest and dirtiest, work. The most illustrative example is Academician Rozhdestvensky who cleans a clogged sink in a colleague laboratory without waiting for a plumber. "You should do whatever you can do," he says didactically.[20]. Many other essays describe scientists who, irrespective of their rank, go on expeditions, assemble devices, visit plants and talk to average workers. One may say that such scientists are a link between the upper and lower stories of the Russian scientific architecture, theory and practice. This trait also spares a genuine scientist the notorious transformation into "an armchair scientist" disconnected from the real life, which, as we have noted, is totally rejected by genuine Russian science.
The last two traits of the Russian scientist are linked with stages of his development and establishment as an academician. In the first case, early development indicates early demonstration of his talents. It could be an early expression of interest in his prospective scientific area. Or, which happens more often, general success in primary and secondary education - a bright, prominent and remarkable student. The other category, continuity, indicates a link between the young scientist and scientific traditions. That could be work for an acclaimed laboratory or center or a meeting with an acclaimed teacher. In other words, this is an outstanding scientific environment, into which the young scientist comes at a rather early stage and which assists in his further establishment as an academician. It must stressed that the scientist not just establishes himself inside the scientific community but also contributes to scientific continuity after he becomes an acclaimed academician with pedagogical work, which is also regarded as a worthy occupation, alongside scientific research.
Conclusions and prospects
Naturally, as we have mentioned, the image of the Russian scientist reconstructed in this essay has its specifics. The essays about scientists from the Russian Science in Person series we have quoted are dedicated to remarkable and outstanding representatives of Russian science. Their image is ideal; this is not the image of a rank-and-file worker of a research center. So, the ideal image of the Russian scientist is a bright and charismatic person regarding his professional work as a selfless service to science and fatherland. Public and political activity is not alien to him, but he is indignant at the use of science as a means of personal gains (instead of selfless service). Since the early age, the scientist is gifted and shows a keen interest in knowledge, which makes him different from his peers and helps his career.
This is an extremely energetic, active, industrious and efficient person. He has a broad vision of prospects of his area of science and is capable of profound summarization and a general breadth of views. He least resembles a clerk or a futile theoretician. This simply cannot happen due to his personal characteristics and ability to descent from the theoretical heights to the rock bottom of the research process and to combine theories and practice, which is assisted with the scientific institutes and laboratories he establishes.
There is no doubt this ideal image raises the general self esteem of the older generation of contemporary Russian scientists and may present an example to younger scientific personnel. In the context of the subjective side of the revival of Russian science stated in the beginning of this essay, it should be stressed once again that any popularization of the ideal image of the Russian scientist inside and outside of the academic community is rather useful. It raises the prestige of Russian science and the scientific profession, without which further development of science would be difficult or even impossible.
In conclusion of our deliberations on the image of the Russian scientist, we would like to sum up results of this research and map out certain new areas of further work, which will deepen understanding of the role of the scientist in the Russian research culture. First of all, it is the question of studies of not only the ideal image of the scientist reconstructed from biographies of coryphaei of science but also the everyday image based on the image of contemporary scientists in the eyes of their colleagues. Comparison of these two images yields interesting material with regard to correlation between the ideals and reality of modern Russian science. Is there a similarity between ideals of the scientist and the reality? Or are we dealing with unattainable models? There is no doubt these questions need to be answered.
Another dimension of the research of the image of the Russian scientist is related to the comparison of this image with similar images of other cultures of the world and scientific communities of other countries. This dimension can help identify the national and cultural components of characteristics ascribed to scientists. Are such traits as non-acquisitiveness, perception of work as a service and a spiritual feat, charisma and others are inseparable qualities of any international scientist or are we dealing with exclusively Russian culture, which puts an imprint on the culture of domestic science? There is no doubt this question is of big interest for further studies of the Russian research culture and principles of work of Russian science.
Naturally, these are future plans, and it will take time to develop them. But we can say already that studies of the image of the scientist is a promising research area, which will help understand, at least, certain (psychological) aspects of the principles and peculiarities of development of Russian science. Further analysis will give a more profound understanding of the personal, cultural and psychological fundamentals of Russian academic traditions, which will contribute to the revival of domestic science.
Scientists about scientist: reconstruction of the Russian scientist image based on Journal of Russian Academy of Science.
By S.M. Medvedeva
Summary: The article analyzes a stereotypical image of a Russian scientist, published in a range of books of Russian Academy of Science. This image represents a construction of an ideal Russian scientist, who possesses the most desirable personal characteristics and reflects values of Russian scientific community. The article stresses, that popularization of the image would contribute to rise of prestige of Russian science and profession of scientist.
[1] Svetlana Mikhailovna Medvedeva - Ph. D. (Political Science), Associate Professor of Philosophy Faculty of the MGIMO (U) of the MFA of Russia.
The essay is written with the financial support of the Russian Fundamental Research Fund, Project No12-06-00395
Key words
Science, scientist, image, social stereotype, scientific community, culture
Notes:
[1]Tajfel H. Human Groups and Social Categories. - Cambridge., Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[2] Learn more about various theories of stereotypes from S.M. Medvedeva. Problem of Political Stereotype in Foreign Political Psychology. - М.: MGIMO University, 2005.
[3] See N.P. Shikherev. Modern Social Psychology - М.: IP RAN, KSP +; Academic Project, 1999; Stereotyping and Prejudice: Changing Conceptions / D. Bar-Tal et al. - N.Y., Springer-Verl., 1989.
[4] Tajfel H. Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice. - J. Of Social. Issues. - 1969, 4; Tajfel H., Forgas J. Social Categorization: Cognitin, Values and Groups / Social Cognition: perspectives on Everyday Understanding / Forgas J. (Ed.) - London etc., Academic press, 1986.
[5] Hamilton D., Sherman J. W. Illusory Correlation: Implications for Stereotype Theory/ Stereotyping and Prejudice: Changing Conceptions / D. Bar-Tal et al. - N.Y., Springer-Verl., 1989; Hamilton D., Sherman J. W. Stereotypes / Handbook of Social Cognition. V.2 - Hilsdail, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1994.
[6] Axelrod R. Schema Theory: An Information Processing Model of Perception and Cognition. / The American Political Science Review. - 1973, V. LXVII, 4. - pp. 1248-1279.
[7] Concerning link between stereotypes and values, see Rokeach M. Beliefs, Attitude and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change. - San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, 1972.
[8] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3, 4. - М., Arademia, 2004, Russian Science in Person, Issue 5 , 6. - М., Arademia, 2009.
[9] Russian Science in Person, Issue 6. - М., Arademia, 2009. - p. 7.
[10] Russian Science in Person, Issue 4. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p. 1.
[11] Russian Science in Person, Issue 6. - М., Arademia, 2009. - p. 40.
[12] Russian Science in Person, Issue 6. - М., Arademia, 2009. - p. 24.
[13] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p. 86.
[14] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p 36.
[15] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - pp. 405-406.
[16] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p. 17.
[17] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p. 136.
[18] Russian Science in Person, Issue 6. - М., Arademia, 2009. - p. 47.
[19] Russian Science in Person, Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - pp. 142-143.
[20] Russian Science in Person. Issue 3. - М., Arademia, 2004. - p. 137.
