Subjectivity of problem solving in regions with different levels of socio-cultural modernization
The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the interaction of key actors involved in solving local problems in regions with different levels of socio-cultural modernization. On the example of twelve regions of the Russian Federation the hypothesis that the level of civilizational development has a significant impact on the relations of subjects in the management of regional development was tested. The subjectivity of the participants as an activity characteristic that manifests itself in their interaction with each other was studied as a key parameter of the analysis. Since the interaction of subjects is evaluated in terms of influencing the future of regions, the subject of the analysis was not subjectivity as a property of the subject, but subjectivity as a qualitative characteristic of the goal (i.e. how subjects influence the solution of regional problems). The characteristics of the subjectivity of the interaction of regional problem solving were defined and interpreted, allowing the measurements to be carried out. The basis of assigning regions to a particular type of socio-cultural development was based on the methodology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, adapted under the guidance of N. I. Lapin to determine the levels of civilizational difference in the process of modernization. The empirical material included the results of the studies “Civil Expertise of the Problem of Reforming of Power and Administration Vertical in the Context of Socio-Cultural Modernization of Regions: from Monitoring of States to Projection Design” and “The Academic Project: Manageability of Social Group Formation Processes in Regions with Different Levels of Socio-Cultural Modernization and Population Support of the Development Strategy of RF until 2024”, conducted by CSU and STS RAS FNISC. The data of the field survey, online survey of experts and content-analysis of mass media were used. It was revealed that the interaction of key actors in solving regional problems have heterogeneous differences, which are levelled when obtaining average results for each level of socio-cultural modernization. Despite the fact that the regions move at different civilizational speeds, this feature is not significant in the formation of relations between subjects. To determine the factors influencing the subjectivity of solving regional problems, it is proposed to conduct a qualitative study of the interaction between the subjects on the implementation of national projects in the regions.
Demyanenko, V. I. (2021), “Subjectivity of problem solving in regions with different levels of socio-cultural modernization”, Research Result. Sociology and management, 7(4), 75-95. DOI: 10.18413/2408-9338-2021-7-4-0-5.
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Atlas of modernization of Russia and its regions: socio-economic and socio-cultural trends and issues: a collective scientific work (2016), in Lapin, N. I. (ed.), Ves Mir, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Bogdanov, V. S. (2018), “Informatization of regional management: problems and prospects”, Vestnik Instituta Sotsiologii, (25), 27-47. (In Russian)
Demyanenko, V. I. (2014), “Work on the Russian management model ‘extreme strategic project management’”, Russian management model: analysis and recommendations for use: Materials of the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia, 90-95. (In Russian)
Demyanenko, V. I. (2020), “Subjectivity of regional authorities in the social body of the problem of reforming the management system in the process of socio-cultural modernization of regions”, Conference: VI All-Russian Sociological Congress "Sociology and Society: Traditions and Innovations in the Social Development of Regions, Tyumen, Russia, 1098-1108. (In Russian)
Leont’ev, A. A. (2004), Activity. Consciousness. Personality, Smysl, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Lepsky, V. E. (2019), Methodological and philosophical analysis of the development of management problems, Kogito-Center, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Merzlyakov, A. A. (2018), “The problem of subjectivity in the sociology of management”, Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsial'naya praktika, (4), 95-104. (In Russian)
Merzlyakov, A. A. (2018), “Subjectivity of regions and its significance for reforming”, Vestnik Instituta sotsiologii, (25), 48-65. (In Russian)
Parsons, T. O. (2002), Structure of social action, Transl. by Chesnokova, V. F. and Belanovskiy, S. A., Akademicheskiy proekt, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Prigozhin, A. I. (2010), “Quality of objectives”, Social studies and the present, (1), 114-126. (In Russian)
Prokhorov, A. P. (2017), Russian model of management, Studii Artemiya Lebedeva, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Rechkin, D. N. (2009), Russian model of management: sociocultural factors of formation and specificity, VPO, Volgodonsk, Russia. (In Russian)
Ritzer, G. (2002), Modern sociological theory, Transl. by Boykov, A. and Lisicyna, A., Piter, Saint Petersburg, Russia. (In Russian)
Russia: reforming the power-management vertical in the context of socio-cultural modernization of regions (2017), in Tikhonov, A. V. (ed.), FNISTS RAN publ., Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Yadov, V. A. (1995), “Social and socio-psychological mechanisms of the formation of the social identity of the personality of the world of Russia”, Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiya. Etnologiya, (3-4), 158-181. (In Russian)
Yadov, V. A. (2001), “The social resource of individuals and groups as their capital: the possibility of applying a universal methodology for studying real stratification in Russian society”, in Who and where is seeking to lead Russia? ...: Actors of the macro-, meso- and micro-levels of the modern transformation process. International symposium, Moskovskaya vysshaya shkola sotsial'nyh i ekonomicheskih nauk, Moscow, Russia, 310-319. (InRussian)