Natalia Demina: Elections in academic

On December 23, 2011, a message “The results of the elections in the Russian Academy of Sciences and Nationalists” appeared on the blog of scientific journalist Ivan Sterligov, in which he noted that from an oral announcement of the voting results voiced at the general meeting on December 22, the academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Nikolai Fedorovich Myasoedov, it follows that some mistakes were made during the calculations. He also noticed that the “pros for” the bearers of Slavic surnames received the maximum number of votes in all branches. ”

We asked two members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the Accounts Commission in the Academy of Sciences of 2011, mathematics Viktor Vasiliev and philologist Sergei Nikolaev to comment on some theses of I. Sterligov. We also publish comments by the sociologist Tatyana Zaslavskaya and linguist Irina Levontina about the elections in the Russian Academy of Sciences. The abbreviated version of the article was published in the newspaper Trinity - Science.

There was no "Churovshchina"

Doct. physical. sciences, professor of the NIU-SHE, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Vasiliev :

Firstly, about the "Churovshchina." The “first explanation” (mistaken in the calculations) does not pass: in the process of counting, each ballot (in which a member of the Academy voted for all candidates in the corresponding nomination: academics, member of the Kores or foreign) was introduced into the electronic system, while a checkmark was supposed to appear in exactly one of the three positions: for, without this, the whole newsletter was not taken by the system. Consequently, the sum of the numbers for all elected in this nomination that arose in the system should have been the same. I think that the discrepancies in the amounts are explained either by the poor vision of Myasoedov, or the mess when reprinting a piece of paper with the results that he read. In my opinion, such a discrepancy prominent, on the contrary, indicates the absence of evil intrigues: to fake results is still much more difficult than then trace that all the numbers issued to public come together.

But why, damn it, it was not to print all the results on the slides and not to display them on the screen in parallel with the performance of Myasoedov?

It seems to me wrong not only and not so much the minimum of the information issued in the certificates. (By the way, these certificates usually write the candidates themselves, and higher organizations only check so that there are no formal lies; so just real scientists very often do not know how to give the goods to face and write something very modest, without excellent degrees, which can hardly impress people who are far from their region.) You can only familiarize yourself with the results of the elections in the departments only during the results The pairs of hours at the general meeting, having received a freshly generated book with these, only on the eve of the results: accordingly, almost no substantial discussion occurs.

Finally, about nationalism. Yes, there were a certain number of ballots in which all or almost all the “wrong” surnames were deleted. I have not seen ballots in which only or almost such surnames crossed out: apparently, nationalism correlates with such character traits, thanks to which these people generally cross out quite a lot. I did not work out about the percentage of such ballots this time. However, I recall my work (in previous years) in accounting commissions in the elections in our section, then I got the impression that it is clearly a little less than 10 percent in an anti -Semitic way: perhaps 8 percent. Which is better than on average for our country, no matter how terrible it is to pronounce it.

"First of all, professional qualities"

Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, head of the department of the Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) RAS Sergey Ivanovich Nikolaev :

Sergei Ivanovich Nikolaev as a whole expressed satisfaction from the results of the elections in his historical and philological department, noting that truly worthy people became members of the academy. According to him, the discussion of candidates at the department was interesting and lively and was based on the professional qualities of scientists. One vacancy in the election was unfilled.

S.I. Nikolaev believes that you should not build any conclusions on the decoding of the audio recordings of the numbers voiced by the chairman of the Accounts Commission at the General Assembly of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He could be mistaken or not to pronounce them very clearly. Only protocols signed by all members of the commission, in which there were neither errors nor discrepancies in the amounts of voting and the number of ballots (and there is no doubt in the competence of members of the accounting commission), can serve as the basis for analysis.

“It was really very difficult, very difficult and absolutely democratic,” so Sergey Ivanovich commented on the elections to the Academy of Sciences.

What colleagues in the department are you especially happy to choose?

Unfortunately, in our department, in the specialty "literary criticism", the academician vacancy remained unoccupied. In other specialties, Vladimir Antonovich Dybo, a world -famous scientist, went to the academics, even the “Dybo law”, and the director of the Russian Language Institute, Alexander Mikhailovich Moldovan, has in linguistics. They are both extremely high -class specialists. Moldovan is a specialist in the history of the Russian language, historical lexicology and lexicography, paleography and textology of ancient Russian translation literature. And this decision of the Academy does not cause any doubt, only satisfaction.

I know the situation in sociology, where, in the opinion of some experts, there are practically no normal scientist, only administrators. And the scientists of other departments are not what does not give a damn about it, but they simply do not know this, they do not have the opportunity to judge all the sciences. It turns out that no additional examination is outside the departments. In fact, the opinion of the department “stamped” by members of other departments. And the quality of the department reproduces itself ...

I could say that not all candidates for other departments in which I can be somewhat competent, cause me a deep personal satisfaction, but you understand that we had absolutely free discussions, everyone could perform and most importantly-he could vote. If you pay attention even to unofficial numbers, you will see that there is far from unanimity. Secret vote is the best form of democracy.

As for the secret vote, I have no doubt that this is the best form of voting, but I was upset that there were almost no discussions of the candidates for departments at this meeting, only in two departments.

There were performances at the general meeting, and believe me that before the vote the discussion of the candidates had, if not hot, then a rather peppy character. I do not mean lobbying for “my” candidates at all, although all members of the academy are also people. A lively discussion was held with an assessment of the professional qualities of scientists.

On the blog of Ivan Sterligov, it was suggested that one of the Academy members voted on a national basis. Do you think there are grounds for such judgments?

Honestly, I do not like discussions on this topic at all. Because if you ask the representatives of the same directions, they will tell you that “there are all like that there,” and representatives of others will say that “there are all like that there.” This, believe me, is absolutely not true. First of all, when voting, we are always talking about the professional competence of one or another researcher. Of course, in the history of the Academy there were cases when, in addition to the scientific, various ideological and other aspects were connected and connected. This was both in the XX century, and in the 19th century. The Academy is not excluded from society, it is part of the society. But how much I imagine, the national issue was not only officially discussed, this, of course, is, nor on the sidelines.

I think that something can mean by someone here. And when it seems to be baptized, and since I am still engaged in scientific activity, I would like to avoid situations when someone imagines something. Of course, someone is chosen, someone is not chosen. But if we guess for what reasons this happens and give political, liberal, religious and other grounds, then this will be very bad. Because of this, we risk losing a scientific view of solving certain problems, and we will seek some metaphysical causes.

Several people ran from the Pushkin house. Did they all pass?

From the Pushkin house, one person ran for real members, and 8-9 people ran for corresponding members. But, unfortunately, they did not pass, although in the previous elections of 2008 we had one acting member of the Academy and one corresponding member. This year no one was elected. You see, this is not a distribution of organizations, this is really an election. Elections are elections with all inherent elements. But as I said, first of all, the professional competence of candidates is evaluated.

Doesn't it seem to you that the Academy is becoming more and more Academy of directors of institutes? I look at the list of elected, many member of the corrary or academicians-director of institutes ... or is it a normal process?

Firstly, there are as many academicians who do not want to be engaged in administrative work at all. I admit that when I was honored, and I became a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I was a researcher and did not fulfill any administrative duties. The fact that this year, perhaps, was (but I know this only from journalists) is a high percentage of the advanced directors of academic institutions, I can explain this way. There is a change of generations and a decision about whom to nominate at the academy is made by scientific councils of institutions. Then it would be unfair to initially assume that the director of the institute cannot be a major scientist.

If the vacancies remained free, will it be necessary to wait for new elections for 3-4 years?

According to the charter of the Russian Academy, elections to the Academy are held at least every three years. The past elections were in 2008, and before that they were in 2006. It depends on different circumstances. It so happened that in our department, one academician died two months before the election, and literally on January 3, academician Yu.S. Stepanov. Where to go! This is life. Probably, this will somehow be taken into account, although, of course, nothing can be said here in advance.

Manual control

Doct. Economy. Sciences, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Tatyana Ivanovna Zaslavskaya:

How would you comment on the results of the elections in the wounds? Are you happy with their results?

Not happy, because, in my opinion, a lot of different sciences are concentrated in the department of social sciences and each science is represented by a very small number of people. In this case, according to sociology, Gennady Vasilievich Osipov, and he forms, and he forms ... at first he was alone, then he gradually forms his lobby, which represents only one direction of sociological science in our opinion, in my opinion, far from the best, unpromising and unprincipled. Of course, I cannot rejoice at this. And not so much I would say even specific people, I would not want to somehow humiliate them as a manual way of forming. Not a single scientist, including an academician, has moral right to appoint. And this is essentially an appointment, not elections.

Of course, my peers have already passed the time, but the fact that Vladimir Alexandrovich Yadov was not even elected and a path was closed there, it was just a shame for sociology and now we have very bright, young sociologists worthy of election to the academy, and such a manual selection is just degeneration.

But what to do? I was at a general meeting, there was not a single vote against people from the department of public sciences, although they also opposed the sidelines.

I was not there already, I was only on the first day. I'm already by age. I would not speak, I just didn’t get enough for me, but one vote against.

It turns out that this community reproduces itself, but how to deal with it is incomprehensible.

Yes, yes.

And the same mathematicians or physicists do not understand what is good in sociology and what is bad. And what to do to us sociologists?

And the other department has a similar situation, I do not know specifically who they have is the main one, but there are 6 specialties there. There was also one Kudryavtsev, I adored him, and he probably picked up good people, but the method itself ...

And it seems to you, it would be more correct to conduct discussion, examination and elections? Is there a method that would be more effective and correct, by election to the academy?

The Academy is so conservative and such an institute is that here, in my opinion, nothing can be done.

Without the opinion of the community

Cand. philologist. sciences, senior researcher at the Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences, finalist of the Enlightener Award 2011 Irina Levontina

At the end of December, elections were held at the Academy of Sciences. How would you comment on their results in the separation of historical and philological sciences? In other departments? What scientists are you pleased with the election of? Was there something in these results, which on the contrary caused your irritation and rejection?

I must say right away that I am completely indifferent to the institutional aspect of science, to posts, degrees and titles, so I poorly understand how similar things are arranged. So my view will be largely third -party. I did not follow these elections at all, although I heard out of my ear that something was happening. And I already read only a list of newly-made member of the corps and academicians at our branch (department of historical and philological sciences).

I will try to describe my feelings. First of all, I was struck by the fact that I did not know anyone almost. Turning to the Internet, I found out that this is apparently connected with the fact that most of the elected historians and archaeologists (I don’t know how the quota is determined for each science, but in this case it turned out so). However, I knew not all philologists, which is already more strange - okay, in science a great specialization.

However, one “historical” surname in the list of academicians was just familiar to me and plunged me into deepest despondency. It was Sergey Pavlovich Karpov, the dean of the East Faculty of Moscow State University. The fact is that some time ago a scandal broke out about the textbook for students-historians “History of Russia. 1917-2009 ”(2010, ed. 3rd, expanded and recycled, authors-professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.S. Barsenkov and A.I. Vdovin), even a meeting of the Public Chamber.

It so happened that I also wrote about this textbook. This is a rather poor -quality brew with a distinct Stalinist and nationalist shower. Here is a link to the conclusion of an expert council created by decision of the Academic Council of the History Faculty. The role of Karpov in this whole story, without going into details, is very unseemly. One way or another, this person is largely responsible for the dramatic situation that takes place with historical education at Moscow State University -here you can see about it. Well, let's say, academics are elected for another, for their own scientific achievements. It is difficult for me to judge here, of course, but the opinion of Karpov as a scientist among his colleagues is very low: they even say that he, being a Byzantine, does not know the ancient Greek language. I don’t know if this is possible, but such is a reputation.

And so I think how such a shameful vote could take place? Well, for starters, as I understand it, historians and philologists vote separately, according to sections, and then simply affirm each other's decisions. Something like a non -aggression pact. Well, what about academicians-historians? True, Karpov consider Karpov a great scientist, or simply no one wants to quarrel with the dean of the Eastfacing and generally influential in the historical world? What am I, I am from another trade union-and of the current historians, how many will they decide to publicly say about Karpov what they say in private conversations? And so he is chosen - and now he himself will influence what academicians will appear after the next elections. Then it is clear.

However, the “philological” surnames as a whole pleased me. And especially I was glad to see in the list of A.A. Hippius is not only because he is my classmate and that I know him still according to the literary circle of the Palace of Pioneers, in which we were engaged together. He is really a wonderful scientist, immersed in science and far from administrative games. Gippius is engaged in the history of the Russian language, in particular, together with A.A. For many years he has been studying the Novgorod birch bark letters for many years. In his works, this is always the most carried away by this. It often happens that philologists and historians study the same monuments study. Phomo philologists (the third palatalization, reduced reflexes), historians about the herema (which from the monument can be gleaned about the events being studied). But Hippius somehow deftly turns out that he says about some tricky features of spelling, and suddenly it imperceptibly follows that such and such a prince in such a year, it turns out, went there. By the way, I want to notice that, as I later found out, another historian of the Russian language, V.B. Krysko is also a wonderful scientist and absolutely worthy candidate.

How do you generally evaluate the existing examination mechanism in the election of new members of the Russian Academy of Sciences? Does it serve as an effective selection tool for scientists who have made the most significant contribution to science?

Отвечая на Ваш вопрос, хочу начать с еще одного огорчения. Я не увидела в списке А.Д. Шмелева, что для меня совершенно удивительно. Если есть заметная фигура в среднем поколении наших лингвистов, то это Шмелев. Дело не только в том, что он автор огромного числа прекрасных работ в разных областях – от культуры русской речи, аспектологии и лексической семантики до прагматики, когнитивной лингвистики и концептуального анализа. Он внес огромный вклад и в теоретическую, и в дескриптивную лингвистику и пользуется действительно большим авторитетом среди коллег. Конечно, этот авторитет не становится меньше от того, что Шмелев все еще даже не член-корр. But still. Шмелева в этот раз выдвигали, но безрезультатно. Коллеги за него не проголосовали. На мой взгляд, это голосование против очевидности.

Разумеется, я пристрастна. Не стану скрывать, А. Шмелев мой давний друг и соавтор по многим работам. Но субъективна я в своем огорчении, оценка же моя, как мне кажется, вполне объективна. В любом случае, думаю, не найдется ни одного лингвиста, который будет утверждать, что все коллеги Шмелева, прошедшие в член-корры за последние годы, внесли в науку более значительный вклад, чем он. Зато найдется много таких, для кого естественно, столкнувшись с заковыристым вопросом, сказать: «Надо будет Шмелева спросить». Но мне интересно понять механизм.

Мне кажется, что для кандидата плохо, если он занимается чем-то, что на первый взгляд всем понятно. Ну что такое современный русский язык? Тем более культура речи. А тем более анекдоты. It is not necessary. Вот если что-то экзотическое или хоть несовременное... А так – это же каждый может. А если еще человек умеет писать просто и понятно и даже с блеском – это тем более подозрительно. Очень это, между прочим, глупо, доложу я вам. Открыть новое, увидеть загадку в том, что кажется понятным, не так просто. А для пользы дела было бы очень, кстати, неплохо, если бы у нас был ученый, который мог бы просто и понятно что-то народу объяснить про русский язык и культуру речи и который при этом назывался бы академиком. Ну пусть член-корром. А нам-то что, мы и так Шмелева ценим.

Как я понимаю, для успеха на выборах очень важно, чтобы нашелся авторитетный академик, который будет темпераментно и убедительно продвигать своего кандидата на заседании в Академии. Действительно ведь при нынешней специализации и разобщенности трудно самостоятельно оценить достижения в малознакомой области, приходится довериться чужому мнению. И вообще – может, мы тоже виноваты? Может, надо было провести какую-то артподготовку?

Я не знаю, как работает система экспертизы перед голосованием, но кажется, что как-то не очень учитывается мнение научного сообщества. Вот мы сейчас за что только не голосуем в Фейсбуке. Может, попробовать перед следующими выборами создать страничку, посвященную кандидатам по отделению, где можно будет обсудить кандидатов и даже проголосовать? Конечно, академики не обязаны все это учитывать в своем голосовании. Но все же – вот про Карпова, может, кто-то не знал? А Шмелева, может, просто представили неудачно? Так мы бы рассказали, всё бы рассказали. Не знаю, тут, конечно, возникнут свои проблемы. Анонимно, наверно, нельзя, а то кто-нибудь как начнет троллить своих конкурентов. А если под своим именем – то, опять же, боюсь, многие не захотят связываться. Но попробовать, наверно, стоит. Общественное мнение не панацея, но без него ничего невозможно.