Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros40DossierSoviet Industrial Sociology, 1960...

Dossier

Soviet Industrial Sociology, 1960s-1970s

A Specialism Developed in Local Research Institutes
La sociologie industrielle soviétique des années 1960 et 1970. Une spécialité qui s'est développée dans des instituts de recherche locaux
Sheila Pattle
p. 111-132

Résumés

Pour comprendre le développement rapide de la sociologie industrielle soviétique dans les années 1960, il faut franchir l'enceinte de l'Académie des sciences de Moscou pour se focaliser plutôt sur des environnements locaux spécifiques, où des établissements d'enseignement supérieur ont créé des instituts de recherche en sociologie. Le travail de ces instituts comprenait à la fois la recherche scientifique et de nombreux projets réalisés dans le cadre de contrats économiques avec des entreprises industrielles. Ces projets sous contrat ont certainement encouragé la croissance rapide des instituts de sociologie et le nombre de sociologues dans les années 1960 et 1970. Toutefois, le redéploiement des résultats de ces projets à des fins universitaires et scientifiques s'est heurté à d'importantes contraintes. En outre, la sociologie a plus largement adopté un conformisme idéologique à partir de 1972. En conséquence, les responsables scientifiques des instituts se sont concentrés sur la construction d'un consensus autour de la méthodologie de la recherche sociologique.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

I am grateful to Andy Byford, the editors, and reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

  • 1 Tsentral’nyi komitet Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1967, 6.

1At the 23rd Party Congress in 1966, Aleksei Kosygin, then Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, remarked on the increasingly important role of sociological research in resolving various practical problems in Soviet industry, including enhancing production and developing the workforce. Industrial sociology had indeed arisen as a key subdomain of Soviet sociology during the 1960s, following the latter’s rehabilitation under Nikita Khrushchev from the late 1950s. This field’s development was aided, in particular, by the impact of certain new measures enabling individual enterprises to incentivise their workforces, which were part of the economic reforms announced by Kosygin in 1965, soon after Leonid Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev as First Secretary of the Communist Party. A 1967 resolution of the Party’s Central Committee directed the development of the social sciences (including sociology) towards participating actively in the construction of communism.1

2The renewed interest in the ‘human factor’ in industrial production led to the sudden expansion of sociological research projects in and for industrial enterprises from the second half of the 1960s. To understand the nature of the rapid growth in the numbers of institutions and people working in the domain of industrial sociology, it is essential, therefore, to look beyond sociology’s central institutions, such as the Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Sociological Research (Institut sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii, ISI), and to focus instead on the social scientific work that was carried out in very specific local environments.

  • 2 Using Michael Burawoy’s schema of sociological knowledge, the scientific research work would be cl (...)

3Indeed, Soviet industrial sociology developed a distinctive form, shaped by the locations in which the sociologists worked, their activities, and the challenges they faced. Key to its development were the research institutes in local higher educational institutions, which carried out two activities – scientific research and the projects commissioned by individual industrial enterprises under economic contracts, which started in the mid-1960s.2 During both of these activities, the factories had to be construed not simply as production units, but also as social entities to be studied sociologically. Vital to this type of contractual work was the applied nature of industrial sociology – namely, the notion that sociology as science could somehow be deployed in industry. However, in the 1960s, Soviet industrial sociology was not well-established with research tools ready to be applied, but instead a new field still in development. Indeed, its development was by no means straightforward, as it was situated in both the academic and industrial fields and linked to a set of contingencies connected with the development of the broader academic discipline of sociology and Soviet industry at this point in the country’s history.

4The two key challenges for the new specialism of industrial sociology were: first, to develop a clearly defined role in industry and to demonstrate its usefulness in the context of the transformations that the management of Soviet enterprises were undergoing at this juncture; and, second, to achieve academic legitimacy as a field within the recently re-emerged discipline of sociology. This article addresses the following questions: how did sociologists based in academic institutions redeploy their work to suit the industrial context? In what ways did the projects designed for the needs of industrial enterprises benefit sociology as a recently re-emerged discipline in Soviet science? And what kind of identity did industrial sociology as a legitimate academic field acquire in the process?

  • 3 For example, Shlapentokh, 1987; Weinberg, 2004; Mespoulet, 2007; Firsov, 2012; Titarenko and Zdrav (...)
  • 4 The archives consulted for this project were located in Saint Petersburg and Perm and related to a (...)

5Research into the history of Soviet sociology has thus far focused mainly on the establishment of the discipline’s central institutions and the political context in which this occurred.3 Crucial to the development of industrial sociology, however, was the forging of working partnerships between academic and industrial organisations at the local level. A few specific localities and institutions outside Moscow were at the vanguard of these initiatives, including Leningrad and Perm, which offer distinct case studies. My analysis is based on two case study institutions: Leningrad State University’s (LGU) Scientific-Research Institute of Complex Social Research (Nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut kompleksnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, NIIKSI), a leading institution in the field, and the less well-known Perm Polytechnical Institute’s (PPI) Laboratory of Sociological Research (Laboratoriia sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii, LSI). I will use archival and other documentary sources and the oral history interviews, which I conducted with eight people who worked in sociological institutes in Leningrad, Perm, and elsewhere during and after the period under review.4 As the archival sources do not include comprehensive records of the sociologists’ work processes, the interviews were especially useful to contextualize the fragmentary documentary sources.

6I argue that Soviet industrial sociology developed especially in local research institutes, which were established under higher educational institutions, particularly during the 1960s, and supported financially by the work carried out under contracts with individual industrial enterprises. This work continued despite the upheavals from 1965 to 1972 at the Academy of Sciences, which shaped the institutionalization of sociology there. However, those events, together with certain constraints emanating from within the enterprises, caused the institutes’ scientific leaders to focus on constructing a consensus around the methodology of sociological research, rather than building industrial sociology into an academic field more broadly.

Establishing late-Soviet industrial sociology

  • 5 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 15-31.
  • 6 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 35-36.
  • 7 Lieberstein, 1975; Kozulin, 1984, 11-25, 49-61; Siegelbaum, 1990, 226-233.

7Sociology was practiced as a separate discipline in the late tsarist era and into the early Soviet period.5 Sociological surveys of the work sphere were popular in the 1920s.6 However, during the 1920s and into the 1930s, the more significant scientific approaches to Soviet industry were not developed by sociology, but by a range of other human sciences and practices, including psychophysiology, psychotechnics (a form of psychology), and the scientific organisation of labour, which was derived from the American Frederick Taylor’s ideas.7 Together, these formed a multidisciplinary approach to industry which was typical of the 1920s.

  • 8 Siegelbaum, 1988, 16-23.
  • 9 Siegelbaum, 1988, 40-53.

8This multidisciplinary scientific approach to tackling problems in industry did not last long, however, due to changing state priorities. From the end of the 1920s, after Stalin came to power, the Five-Year Plan (1928-1932) introduced closer state control over the economy, the collectivization of agriculture, and rapid industrialization. These upheavals, together with a famine in 1932-1933, caused an influx of millions of unskilled peasants into the urban industrial workforce.8 As a result, the main motivational programme in industry became socialist competition, which was seen as more suitable for the industrial workforce at that time and given the managers’ new focus on meeting planned production targets.9

  • 10 Fitzpatrick, 1978, 8.
  • 11 Weinberg, 2004, 1-10; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 33-41.
  • 12 Lieberstein, 1975, 53-55; Siegelbaum, 1990, 233-240.

9The intelligentsia were the targets of the cultural revolution (1928-1931), which aimed to establish a new proletarian intelligentsia through class war.10 Around 1930, amid debates over defining a Marxist sociology, the independent discipline of sociology virtually disappeared on the grounds that it was considered ‘bourgeois’.11 The use of psychotechnics in industry and the scientific organisation of labour also ceased during the 1930s.12

  • 13 Mespoulet, 2007, 81-82; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 43-53.

10From the late 1950s, Soviet sociology was permitted to re-emerge under Khrushchev. Sociology developed as an academic discipline within a system which encompassed the Academy of Sciences, universities, journals, publishers, and its voluntary association, the Soviet Sociological Association (Sovetskaia sotsiologicheskaia assotsiatsiia, SSA). Not all of these elements were in place throughout the period under review. In the Academy, sociology was initially institutionalized under institutes for other social sciences and, from 1968, as part of a new unit for social research. An institution specifically for sociological research, ISI, was finally established in 1972.13 Sociology’s own journal, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia (Sociological research), was first published by ISI in 1974.

11The Communist Party’s Central Committee expected the social sciences, including sociology, to function as academic and practical disciplines deployed in furthering the Soviet project. Sociology needed to apply itself to the most significant sectors of the Soviet economy – the extractive and manufacturing industries. Given the lengthy hiatus since sociology’s work for industry in the 1920s and the transformations of the Soviet industrial economy in the intervening period, the industrial sociology that was established in the 1960s was essentially a new specialist field.

12In the 1960s and 1970s, Soviet industrial sociology was only broadly and loosely delineated, and referred to the sociological work carried out in and for industry. Its focus and boundaries shifted over time as the needs of industry changed. Several terms were used when referring to this domain of work during the period under review: ‘industrial sociology’ or ‘sociology of production’ (promyshlennaia sotsiologiia, proizvodstvennaia sotsiologiia) appeared and, more frequently, the ‘sociology of work’ (sotsiologiia truda). The concepts of ‘work’ (trud) and ‘workers’ were prominent ideologically, loaded with positive symbolic meaning, and closely associated with industry, but also with agriculture.

  • 14 For surveys of the field, see Osipov, 1966; Kravchenko, 2005, 76-358.
  • 15 SP3.

13The topics covered by industrial sociology reflected a combination of the concerns of the Soviet state, the management of different industries and particular plants, and the interests of the sociologists.14 One significant topic was people’s attitude towards their work, particularly that of young people. Tangential to this were the issues of career choice, labour discipline, motivation, incentives, socialist competition, and social relations in the workplace. Time budgets and working and non-working time were of interest to the late-Soviet sociologists, as they had been to their predecessors in the 1920s. Many factory managers were concerned about staff turnover, and it became a fashionable topic for the sociologists.15 The practice of social development planning in industrial enterprises, which was a consequence of the economic reforms announced by Kosygin in 1965, provided sociologists with significant opportunities for projects aimed at formulating a scientific basis for such plans.

  • 16 Three of the forty specialist areas listed were clearly within the remit of industrial sociology: (...)
  • 17 Demidova, 1978, 201.

14Industrial sociology became institutionalized under different types of organisations: the Academy of Sciences, the industrial ministries and their enterprises, and in universities and other higher educational establishments. There is, however, no systematic data on the numbers of institutions and people involved during the period under review. The SSA’s membership list from 1970 revealed that industrial sociology was a significant specialist area: 36% of all institutional members, 34% of the fifty higher educational establishments which were institutional members, and 18% of all individual members specialised in the sociological problems of labour.16 This is not, however, a complete picture because membership of the SSA was not obligatory. In 1978, by which time sociology was a more established field than in 1970, there were over two hundred sociological laboratories and divisions within higher educational institutions and other organisations (excluding the Academy of Sciences), though their specialist interest is not known.17 In addition to the significant number of institutions specialising in industrial sociology, certain well-known figures in the field participated in the discipline’s central institutions, as the case studies below exemplify.

Scientific research institutes and laboratories

15The Soviet state supported the development of sociology starting from the late 1950s and encouraged its application to industry in particular. However, the way in which sociology was institutionalized within higher educational institutions depended to a considerable extent on local circumstances, rather than being dictated by a central authority. The key factors in these developments were the initiative of individual sociologists and the support of the local authorities. In the case of industrial sociology, the interest and enthusiasm expressed by the management of individual industrial enterprises were also important. The ministries for different industries, which were reinstated as part of the 1965 economic reforms and were situated above the enterprises within the hierarchical organisation of the Soviet industrial economy, and the State Planning Committee (Gosplan) were not generally involved in these local developments.

  • 18 Undergraduate degrees in sociology were not approved until the mid-1980s.

16Sociological research was usually situated in laboratories, either under social science departments or within multidisciplinary research institutes for the social and human sciences. Laboratories had a lower status than an institute or department and were primarily concerned with empirical research or project work, rather than having a pedagogical function. Similarly, most sociologists working at the laboratories were researchers and relatively few also taught courses in sociology.18

The leading institutions in Leningrad and Perm

  • 19 Himmelstrand, 2000, 276-277.
  • 20 Shlapentokh, 1987, 21; Kravchenko, 2005, 301. A number of prominent American sociologists, includi (...)
  • 21 Iadov, 1999, 45.
  • 22 Himmelstrand, 2000, 277-278.
  • 23 Weinberg, 2004, 32.
  • 24 Sokolov, 2017, 184.

17Around 1960, Vladimir Iadov (1929-2015) and Andrei Zdravomyslov (1928-2009) set up Leningrad’s first sociological laboratory under LGU’s philosophy faculty. Iadov had studied at this faculty in the late 1940s, returned to LGU in the mid-1950s, and subsequently moved into the new discipline of sociology, though he regarded himself also as a social psychologist.19 He was among a handful of sociologists who visited capitalist countries under the bilateral exchange agreements negotiated from the late 1950s as part of the opening up of the USSR under Khrushchev.20 Iadov went to the UK in 1963 and 1964 to study empirical research techniques at Manchester University and the London School of Economics.21 He was in contact with a number of foreign social scientists at this time, including some he subsequently met at the World Congress of Sociologists held in Evian in 1966.22 In the late 1960s, Iadov gained one of the first doctorates based on sociological research with a thesis about the methodological problems of research.23 He held positions at LGU and at the discipline’s central institutions, including as Director of ISI from 1988 to 2000. Iadov was one of the few scholars in the field who had something akin to a personality cult around them.24

  • 25 Rusalinova, 2008, 62-63; Weinberg, 2004, 36.
  • 26 Anan’ev’s conception for NIIKSI, with the connection between the biological and the social, and th (...)
  • 27 Sharov, 2008, 337.
  • 28 Nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut kompleksnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1966.

18In 1963, LGU’s sociological laboratory was combined with its laboratories of social psychology and other social sciences.25 The creation of the Scientific-Research Institute of Complex Social Research (NIIKSI) in 1965 was an initiative of Boris Anan’ev (1907-1972), the head of LGU’s psychology department, who believed that the person must be studied as a whole, including their social relations (economic, political, cultural, psychological, and legal aspects) and biological nature.26 To achieve this, NIIKSI initially brought together the four existing laboratories: those for sociological research under Iadov, social psychology, engineering psychology, and differential psychology and anthropology under Anan’ev.27 By 1966, NIIKSI had expanded to comprise seven laboratories: the four founding laboratories plus those for economics, law, and programmed instruction (a technique for self-administered education).28 It also had had close ties with the physiology of labour laboratory at LGU’s Institute of Physiology. NIIKSI was an institution for more broadly conceptualised ‘social’, as opposed to specifically ‘sociological’, research.

19The history of the institutionalization of sociology at the Perm Polytechnical Institute’s Laboratory of Sociological Research (LSI) is considerably more straightforward than that of NIIKSI. The key figure at LSI was Zakhar Fainburg (1922-1990), who graduated from Moscow State University in economics after the war and defended his doctoral thesis in that field in 1959. The following year, Fainburg took a post at the newly established PPI and became the head of the Department of Scientific Communism in 1964. By the mid-1960s, Fainburg had come to national prominence as a sociologist: he was a member of SSA’s board and the Academy of Sciences’ Scientific Council for Problems of Concrete Social Research. Despite these union-wide responsibilities, Fainburg stayed at PPI for the remainder of his career.

  • 29 Scientific communism was a new discipline which emerged in the 1960s. Shlapentokh, 1987, 18-21, 28 (...)
  • 30 P2.
  • 31 P4.

20In 1967, LSI was established under PPI’s Department of Scientific Communism, a discipline which, like economics and other social sciences, sometimes acted as a protective ‘cover’ for the institutionalization of sociology at this juncture.29 LSI’s principal function was to be a self-supporting research unit that carried out contracted projects, mainly for external organisations.30 At the start, LSI’s work focused on industrial topics but later it shifted into regional issues, mainly social development planning for cities and regions. By 1972, fifty-seven people worked at LSI, of whom fifteen or sixteen were sociologists and the rest were technicians and other clerical staff.31

21LSI’s focus was explicitly and narrowly sociological. By contrast, NIIKSI was concerned with social matters, and this involved the application of a considerably broader range of expertise and possibilities for multidisciplinary work. In addition, as PPI was a relatively new and smaller institution than LGU, LSI was especially focused on its need to be financially self-sufficient.

Staffing the institutes

  • 32 P2; P9.
  • 33 P2; P9.
  • 34 P9; SP2.

22The contractual projects supported the expansion of the cohorts of sociologists in research institutes: once a contract was gained, researchers were recruited, either on a temporary basis for a particular project or in a permanent position, and technicians (usually women with young children) were employed on temporary contracts to process the data gathered.32 Some informants interviewed for the present study who worked in the research institutes and laboratories had just graduated, while one was a postgraduate student at PPI and combined his studies with LSI’s projects for industry.33 Others worked in managerial roles in industry, before changing direction and moving to a sociological research institute.34

  • 35 Iadov, 1999, 42.
  • 36 Demidova, 1978, 202.
  • 37 Shlapentokh, 1987, 34-36; P2.

23As Iadov observed: ‘We are all self-taught in sociology’.35 In the absence of undergraduate degrees in sociology, the research institutes’ staff had varied academic backgrounds. According to a 1978 report, only 9% of the individual SSA members who worked as both sociologists and scientific workers (which included some of those at the institutes under educational institutions) had received some form of education in sociology.36 Reading textbooks and articles and attending seminars and conferences were means of obtaining knowledge and establishing connections between Soviet sociologists.37

  • 38 SP1.

24Despite the hurdles to becoming a sociologist in an institute, it was neither especially prestigious, nor a well-remunerated job; nor did it offer an attractive and secure career path. However, those who engaged in it often perceived it as interesting and meaningful. An informant recalled his ‘small salary’ from the institute where he worked and continued: ‘We were not interested materially. It’s a curious thing. We were enthusiasts of sociology itself.’38

  • 39 P2; P7.
  • 40 P2.

25As well as gaining practical research experience from their work on various projects in different industries, the young sociologists might be able to travel extensively and encounter new and at times challenging experiences professionally and as citizens of the richly diverse USSR.39 One informant remembered his shock at encountering for the first time the cultural alienation of migrant factory workers, who were not fluent in Russian because they had grown up in villages where Russian was not spoken at home, and the indifference of local bureaucrats to their plight.40

The institutes’ work in industrial enterprises

26Research institutes and laboratories carried out two activities in industry: scientific research for the advancement of sociological knowledge and the contracted projects commissioned by industrial enterprises. These activities were interlinked and mutually beneficial, but in very specific ways.

  • 41 The city authorities needed to approve the research proposal for this project. Ruble, 1990, 156-15 (...)
  • 42 Iadov, 2005, 4, 6-7.
  • 43 Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1967. The missing chapter was published in an updated edition in 2 (...)
  • 44 For example, Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1970.

27Soon after LGU’s sociological laboratory was established, Iadov and Zdravomyslov led a significant scientific research project in industry, which became a defining work for the LGU sociologists and for late-Soviet industrial sociology more generally. This project also coincided with the Leningrad authorities’ interest in using the new field of industrial sociology to address the gap between the city’s ambitions and policies for economic development and the skills of the local workforce.41 The project was carried out between 1961 and 1965 on the attitudes of young factory workers in Leningrad. Data was collected at twenty-five different plants by a questionnaire survey of 2,700 young workers plus an older control group, together with some interviews. In addition, an American academic, whom Iadov had contacted, organised a comparative survey in the USA, but these results were not permitted to be published at the time.42 The 1967 book Chelovek i ego rabota (Man and His Work) also framed this research as an exemplary research project.43 This book became a standard item in the literature lists in subsequent Soviet publications on industrial sociology. It was also published in translation in the United States, East Germany, and Poland, which added greatly to its significance as a product of Soviet industrial sociology.44

  • 45 Rusalinova, 2008, 62.
  • 46 These contracts were referred to as economic contracts (khoziaistvennye dogovory) and the institut (...)

28This type of scientific research was relatively rare, though. One difficulty was gaining access to research subjects in the factories for this kind of project and another significant issue was the cost of the institute’s staff and research materials. Although NIIKSI was approached to carry out projects for other organisations, which resolved the problem of access, they soon realised that it was impossible to do this for free.45 The solution was found in the contracts and partnerships that research institutes ended up forming with industrial enterprises to carry out research projects and be paid for doing so.46

29The numerous projects carried out by the sociological research institutes under contracts with industrial enterprises were very different to the ‘Man and His Work’ project, though the latter was useful as a model sociological research project and was commonly referred to in the reports of projects commissioned by industrial enterprises. The contracted projects looked at specific issues defined by the enterprise’s management in order to produce practical recommendations. These contracts did not simply provide the researchers with access to the field, to research subjects, and, ultimately, to data for analysis, they also presented sociologists with concrete research problems, which needed to be interpreted and presented simultaneously as problems of science and for industry.

  • 47 P7.

30In the 1960s, industrial sociology in the USSR was by no means a developed science, ready to be applied to resolve the problems faced by Soviet industry. It was a discipline in the making, the development of which could, moreover, only take place in industry, or rather, in partnership with it. How did the representatives from two different spheres – the sociologists from academia and the managers from the industrial sector of the economy – come together to make these contracts and, in some cases, enter into enduring partnerships? Certainly, when promoting a sociological project to a prospective client, misunderstandings could arise: an informant recalled a notable occasion where the sociologists needed to explain repeatedly to a senior manager at an enterprise that it was essential that the enterprise’s management and workforce were fully committed to and involved in the project and that the sociologists could not work for them if that was not the case.47

  • 48 Gosplan SSSR, 1970, 128.

31These contracts eventually became relatively common, particularly once social development planning became a more widespread practice in the early 1970s. In 1970, Gosplan issued instructions that the development of an enterprise’s social plan should be preceded by and reflect the results of sociological research.48 There was still no general practice of the industrial ministries or other central institutions commissioning the research institutes to undertake projects in industrial enterprises. Instead, different local circumstances dictated the context and manner in which contracts between a specific institute and a specific enterprise were established. One must therefore look at each case to understand the motivations behind these contracts, the nature of the work, and the durability of the relationship between the research and industrial organisations.

  • 49 Tiagushev and Fedotova, 1985, 3-5.
  • 50 Rusalinova, 1998, 44; Rusalinova, 2008, 76. Alla Rusalinova was the project leader and scientific (...)
  • 51 Rusalinova, 1998, 40-42.

32Immediately after NIIKSI was established in 1965, it entered into a sociological contract with Svetlana, a local light bulb and electronics production group, which had been selected by the authorities in Leningrad as a showpiece for innovation, including social development planning.49 Svetlana developed a long-term partnership with NIIKSI from 1965 to 1991, under which teams from NIIKSI carried out numerous projects, which included inter-disciplinary work and projects with multiple stages over two or three years, on seventy specific issues.50 The impact of monotonous production line work, conflicts within a team and between the workers and the factory’s administration, non-monetary incentives, and the identification of staff for promotion into leadership roles were among the topics addressed in these studies.51

  • 52 P5.
  • 53 Partkom Permskogo telefonnogo zavoda, 1970.

33LSI, by contrast, developed a long-term partnership with the Perm Telephone Factory based on a personal connection between two enthusiasts: Fainburg and the factory director, who was interested in innovation in industrial management.52 In 1970, following a display of the Perm sociologists’ work at the Exhibition of the Achievements of the National Economy (VDNKh) in Moscow, the USSR’s leading public exhibition space, staff from both the Telephone Factory and LSI received medals for their roles in the development of sociological research methods and the implementation of research results.53

  • 54 P4; P7.
  • 55 Based on the reports from six projects in 1966-1972. State Archive of the Perm Krai (Gosudarstvenn (...)

34LSI also secured contracts with many different organisations in Perm, but also in Central Asia, Moscow, Norilsk and Taganrog, some of which were one-off assignments, which had a more commercial or transactional rather than scientific nature.54 This work often entailed the repetition of the study of similar topics at different enterprises, such as investigations of the organisation of the work of technical and office staff, and the cultural and technical levels of the workforce, which were used in preparing enterprises’ social development plans.55 The repetition of the same topics increased the efficiency of LSI’s work: sometimes, the same team of staff were involved, the same questionnaires used to gather data, and they even replicated the same wording in parts of their written reports.

35The specific methods of data collection selected for these projects needed to meet the empirical and practical requirements of both science and industry. The methods chosen had to be suitable for relatively inexperienced researchers to use within the time allocated to the project. It was also important that the data collection methods were appropriate for the research subjects, the bulk of whom were factory workers, and useable on a mass scale. Finally, the data needed to be collected in such a way that it could be collated into a form meaningful to the enterprise’s management and from which they could draw practical conclusions. Surveying using questionnaires met these different requirements and it became the emblematic method used in the sociological projects in the factories.

  • 56 Kapeliush, 1967.
  • 57 Gromov, Maksimov and Iushchenko, 1972, 65; Slepenkov, 1974, 76.
  • 58 The questionnaires themselves tended to be sizeable: a single questionnaire could take an hour or (...)

36A quote in the newspaper Komsomol’skaia pravda seemed to sum up the popular view of these surveys in the late 1960s: ‘We know about this sociology. Distribute questionnaires, collect questionnaires. That’s the entire science!’56 By the 1970s, the terms ‘questionnaire-mania’ (anketomania) and ‘questionnaire blizzards’ (anketnye meteli) described the sociologists’ activities.57 The prevalence of large-scale surveys and long questionnaires meant that the sociologists needed to process enormous quantities of data, sometimes using new data processing machines and computers.58

  • 59 Rusalinova, 2008, 82.

37The reports from the projects that I have examined did not use the results of one study, or a body of work more generally, to compare with or inform those from another, even for two factories under the same industrial ministry. Instead, each project was treated as a completely separate piece of work, even though the research topics might be the same. This phenomenon arose because the management of industrial enterprises were reluctant to share data, particularly when it revealed negative tendencies, which could attract criticism.59

  • 60 P3.
  • 61 P4.
  • 62 P4. P2 and SP2 quoted similar examples.

38The final stage of the projects could be rather unsatisfactory for the sociologists. Sometimes, the results were not welcomed by the factory management because they contradicted an accepted narrative about a particular issue.60 There were certainly instances where reports from research projects simply disappeared and no action was taken.61 Informants suspected that some projects had been commissioned simply so that the client could say to the higher authorities that they had a sociological report, but without any intention of actually initiating further action: ‘When there was no interest, we worked, completed the project, they paid us, we withdrew and then nothing changed.’62

39The contracted projects for industrial enterprises certainly supported the development of sociology when measured in terms of the growing numbers of sociological institutes and the sociologists and clerical staff working in them. However, the scientific leaders in the sociological institutes were also concerned about the academic development of the field. For them, the ultimate role and purpose of the institutes’ projects for industry was to build industrial sociology itself as a new and distinctive sociological field.

Building industrial sociology as an academic field

  • 63 Gerring, Mahoney and Elman, 2020.
  • 64 Peter and Olson, 1983, 114-115; Starbuck, 2006, 164-168.

40Typically, building an academic field involves synthesizing and generalizing from empirical research, and integrating findings into a larger body of work and a theoretical framework.63 The development of robust, transferrable methodologies which would facilitate the replication of findings is certainly an important form of epistemic generalization. It is also vital for academic researchers to publicize their work to their peers in order to build consensus and develop an academic field.64

41The sociologists working in the local research institutes were faced with the challenge of establishing a role for themselves in the quest to achieve academic legitimacy for industrial sociology as a field within sociological research, which was itself established only gradually within the Academy of Sciences. The development of industrial sociology as an academic field was not straightforward. Circumstances emanating from within and outside the field caused pivotal changes to the development process.

  • 65 Kozlova and Fainburg, 1963.
  • 66 Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1967; Shlapentokh, 1987, 141.

42During the first half of the 1960s, articles about specific research projects in industrial sociology appeared in various journals, such as Fainburg’s 1963 article about the changing character of work and personal development published in a journal for philosophy.65 In the second half of the 1960s, a few key works were published, including the scientific research project ‘Man and His Work’ in 1967.66 This roughly coincided with the start of the local sociological institutes’ contract work for industrial enterprises, which was important in driving the demand for research tools.

  • 67 Beliaev, 1966, 156; Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 196 (...)
  • 68 Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1968, 8-12; 1969, 16-18
  • 69 Moser, 1958. Claus Moser was Professor of Social Statistics at the London School of Economics when (...)

43Research methods and data analysis were discussed at conferences held in Leningrad and Novosibirsk in 1966 and in Sukhumi the following year.67 These events were useful for publicizing the research work being undertaken and building consensus. The conferences were also valuable in establishing ties between the sociologists working in the scattered institutes and other organisations. In 1968 and 1969, eight complete issues of the Informatsionnyi biulleten’ (Information Bulletin), a publication for Soviet sociologists produced between 1967 and 1971 by institutions in the Academy of Sciences, were devoted to research methods.68 Three of these comprised a translation of Claus Moser’s 1958 book on survey techniques, which was a standard textbook in the UK.69 This was a clear example of the encouragement of the use of techniques initially developed in capitalist countries.

  • 70 Sandle, 2002.
  • 71 Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1969, 5, 6. Levada was (...)
  • 72 Shlapentokh, 1987, 45-48.

44Sociology as an academic discipline more generally was affected by the political campaign against liberal intellectuals which emerged gradually from 1965 and intensified in the aftermath of the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.70 The clampdown started at the disciplinary centre with ideological criticism of the lectures of the prominent Moscow-based sociologist, Iurii Levada, which had been published in two issues of the Informatsionnyi biulleten’ in 1969.71 Other leading liberal sociologists were soon subjected to criticism as well. In 1972, the leadership of sociology at the Academy of Sciences was overhauled, instigating a general shift in the discipline towards a more conformist direction.72

  • 73 Shlapentokh, 1987, 47, 139-149. For example, Changli, 1973.

45These upheavals had little impact on the research institutes’ contractual projects for industry, which continued as before. However, the development of industrial sociology as an academic field was affected, especially as ‘work’ was a prominent concept in Soviet ideology and sociologists had been studying potentially sensitive matters such as workers’ motivation and young peoples’ attitudes towards work. What was demanded after 1972 was evidence of ideological conformism, in which generalization in publications would mostly take the form of references to ideology and especially the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin.73

  • 74 Rusalinova, 2008, 82.

46Those working on building industrial sociology as an academic field already faced significant constraints in redeploying the contracted project work done in the industrial enterprises for academic purposes. The sociologists were generally unable to synthesize and generalize from the numerous contracted projects in a way that would have assisted the development of industrial sociology as an academic field. One of the main reasons for this was that publication of the results of their work was severely restricted because of the sensitivity of the empirical findings. As mentioned above, the management of industrial enterprises were reluctant to divulge data, particularly when it revealed negative tendencies, such as dissatisfaction among the workforce, which could attract criticism.74

  • 75 P1; P4.
  • 76 Rusalinova, 1998, 43. For example, Ostrovskii and Rusalinova, 1975; Polozova, 1976.

47As a result, there were few opportunities for the scientific leaders in the institutes to publish the results of the contracted projects or even to use them to form the basis for testing and validating the explanations and interpretations of phenomena discovered in their work for other enterprises. Informants recalled with regret that only a single collection of articles had been published on the basis of LSI’s work during a twenty-year partnership with a particular enterprise, which they considered to be the pinnacle of the Laboratory’s work.75 A significant exception was NIIKSI’s work at Svetlana, which was less like a typical site for contracted project work and more like a willing field for scientific research. NIIKSI’s work there formed the basis of numerous academic publications in which Svetlana featured essentially as an exemplary model case study.76

  • 77 P1.
  • 78 Klopov’s 1985 book on the working class and its development attempted to use research results from (...)

48The substantial body of data and findings resulting from the contracts and partnerships with enterprises were not integrated into a larger body of work in order to build industrial sociology into an academic field, but instead simply accumulated in institutes and laboratories across the USSR. There was simply no mechanism for bringing together all the data collected.77 Even if the sociologists had been able to publish their work, it would have been a complex matter to synthesize and generalize from the separate projects carried out under contracts with different industrial enterprises.78

  • 79 Iadov, 1972; Osipov, 1976.

49Rather than publishing and generalizing the results of their commissioned projects for industry, the leading academic sociologists specialising in industrial sociology resorted instead to elaborating the methodologies of ‘concrete’ sociological research, a domain in which they had considerable practical experience. The 1970s saw a proliferation of methodological publications, including Iadov’s 1972 textbook on sociological research, which was the USSR’s first sociological textbook, and ISI’s 1976 workbook for sociologists undertaking ‘concrete’ sociological research.79 As a focal point for discussion and publication in the academic field, methodology had significant advantages. It avoided addressing ideological matters and potentially controversial social issues; it was content-free and did not require the revelation of empirical details; and, finally, it filled the gap caused by the inability to publish the actual results of specific projects.

50The systematization of sociological methods and the extensive debates around problems of methodology went some way towards placing the work in industrial sociology, where these methods were being deployed regularly throughout the country, at the centre of discussions about sociology more generally. The lack of theory building (which was replaced by Soviet Marxism’s historical materialism) and the restrictions on engagement with empirical findings led to the focus on methods, but this was often seen as limited intellectually and not sufficient for sociology in general and industrial sociology in particular to gain the credentials of a fully-fledged science. This was how an alternative means of developing scientific status rose to prominence – namely that of embedding the development of industrial sociology into the more general forging of particular academic communities, which became known as ‘schools’ of sociology.

Industrial sociology’s role in the sociological ‘schools’

  • 80 See, for example, Kostiushev, 1998; Kravchenko, 2005, 336-337; Sokolov, 2017, 185. Similar ‘school (...)

51One way in which the academic sociologists in the local institutes became connected to a much larger intellectual project, and thereby their work for industry acquired greater significance, was through their association with an understanding of sociology that was rooted neither in an academic discipline nor a particular academic institution, but in the much looser and vaguer notion of an academic ‘school’. Indeed, as part of the conceptualization and self-historicization of late-Soviet sociology, sociologists from the period and recent commentators have sought to structure their field with reference to a small number of ‘schools’ associated with particular cities.80 Some of these, notably those in Leningrad and Perm, were known for their work in industrial sociology.

  • 81 Iadov, 1998, 18-19.

52The ‘schools’ constituted a form of institutionalization of sociology but, as intellectual and performative constructs, they represented a very different type of institutionalization compared to that generated via research institutes. While NIIKSI was a multidisciplinary institute, the Leningrad ‘school’ was specific to sociology. Moreover, the concept of ‘school’ juxtaposed the idea of a distinctive theoretical and methodological framework with that of a close and friendly community of researchers, but both were imagined as relatively loose entities.81

  • 82 Other examples were Tatiana Zaslavskaia and Rozalina Ryvkina in Novosibirsk and Lev Kogan in Sverd (...)

53As was typical of Soviet academic ‘schools’ in other disciplinary contexts, the sociological ‘schools’ crystallised around one or two leading scholars as charismatic ‘heroes’, and they were identified with the cities and institutions where these scholars were based. The key examples here were Iadov and Zdravomyslov in Leningrad and Fainburg in Perm.82 They embodied the different facets of industrial sociology in the research institutes, being the intellectual leaders of key institutions, the scientific supervisors of projects in the factories, authors of exemplary texts, inspiring lecturers, and the ‘heroes’ of particular sociological ‘schools’.

  • 83 Kostiushev, 1998, 5; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 58.
  • 84 Pugacheva, 2011, 69.

54The communities based around these leading scholars functioned, in part, as a focus for the sociologists’ self-education, which compensated for the lack of formal education programmes in sociology. This self-education included communal activities – seminars, reading groups, and translation projects – which were useful not only as a means of disseminating information, but also of fostering the ‘schools’’ special professional mentality among those working in the research institutes and their wider group of followers.83 Iadov based his seminars on the industrial sociology project ‘Man and His Work’.84 This exemplifies the connection between the work of the research institutes’ sociologists in industry, its synthesis in methodological publications, and the sociological ‘schools’.

  • 85 Vail’ and Genis, 1998, 109-38.
  • 86 Batygin, 1999.
  • 87 Kostiushev, 1998; Boronoev, 2008.

55With their enthusiastic ‘hero’ figures and friendly communities meeting to expand their knowledge, the ‘schools’ seem to embody the general mood identified with the Soviet 1960s, a decade which has since been mythologised.85 Soviet sociology in the 1960s has been treated as worthy of special consideration, but only at the level of the discipline as a whole.86 In the cities where the charismatic ‘heroes’ worked, however, it is the ‘schools’ that have been mythologised, rather than sociology in the 1960s. The ‘Leningrad school’ of sociology of the 1960s to the 1980s was celebrated at a conference in 1994 and in an anthology published in 2008.87 The ‘Perm school’ was historicized at events in the city in 2016 and 2017, which coincided with the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of LSI.

  • 88 Sokolov, 2017, 204.
  • 89 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 6.

56Arguably, the fêting of the ‘schools’ and their charismatic ‘heroes’ in the post-Soviet period is somewhat paradoxical given their intellectual legacy. According to Mikhail Sokolov, few today would claim to develop their theoretical legacies or use their empirical findings.88 Larissa Titarenko and Elena Zdravomyslova, both contemporary sociologists, described the paradox that it is not easy to understand that several leading sociologists of the 1960s did not produce ‘“classical works” in sociology and nevertheless they are still viewed in the professional community as “heroes”’.89 In fact, because of the constraints which the academic sociologists faced in using their empirical work to develop industrial sociology as an academic field, the function of the ‘heroes’ was not to produce sociological works as such, but instead, by means of the ‘schools’, to embody a symbolic meaning of science. The continued memorialization of the ‘schools’ and their ‘heroes’ reflects their importance as part of the history of the discipline and as the means by which the local institutes’ research work in industrial sociology was encompassed within a larger intellectual project with its own academic status and legitimacy.

Conclusion

57To understand the rapid development of Soviet industrial sociology in the 1960s, it is essential to focus on very specific local environments and the two strands of work that were done – the academic research and the practically-oriented contracted projects for industrial enterprises. Even though these two strands were interlinked and mutually beneficial, the interconnections between them were not straightforward.

58The contracted projects for industry resulted in enormous quantities of data, generated from the lengthy questionnaires completed by thousands of workers. These documents were collected by enthusiastic young sociologists, whose profession came to be identified in the popular imagination with those very questionnaires. The data processing in the laboratory, which, in time, used new computerised technology, was akin to an industrial process, albeit one that took place in an academic institution. Despite all this work, the project results were usually neither published nor compared with nearly identical projects elsewhere. Nevertheless, the numerous contracted projects underwrote economically both the expansion of the research institutions and the rapid growth in the number of sociologists, which benefited the still relatively new discipline of sociology.

59This activity and the flourishing sociological institutions appear to be a significant response to the Party Central Committee’s 1967 resolution on the involvement of the social sciences in the construction of communism. However, looking more closely, industrial sociology’s development was also shaped by the limitations imposed on sociology after 1972 and by other parts of the state system. The restrictions on publishing the results of contracted projects became key to developing the distinctive shape of late-Soviet industrial sociology. Instead of synthesizing the results of local projects in industry, efforts at generalization focused on the development of methodologies of sociological work in industry.

60Whilst there were certainly more people working in industrial sociology, few had an educational background in the field. The sociologists working at the institutes built their expertise through a combination of specialist training, self-education, and the practical experience gained at work. Towering above this group were the charismatic ‘heroes’ of the sociological communities, which became known as ‘schools’ of sociology, including Iadov, Zdravomyslov, and Fainburg, who specialised in industrial sociology. A very specific form of meaning became attached to the work of the research institutes through their association with these ‘schools’ of sociology. The ‘schools’ played a key role in bringing essential academic legitimacy to the daily work of the laboratories for Soviet industry by transforming it into an inherent part of the development of the ‘schools’. The commemoration of the Leningrad and Perm ‘schools’ in the twenty-first century forms an enduring connection to the research institutes established in the 1960s and their work for industrial enterprises.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbott, A., 1999, Department and Discipline. Chicago Sociology at One Hundred, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Batygin, G. (ed.), 1999, Rossiiskaia sotsiologiia shestidesiatykh godov v vospominaniiakh i dokumentakh, Saint Petersburg, Izd. Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta.

Beliaev, E. et al., 1966, “Vsesoiuznyi simpozium sotsiologov”, Voprosy filosofii, 10, p. 156-165.

Boronoev, A. et al. (eds.), 2008, Sotsiologiia v Leningrade – Sankt-Peterburge vo vtoroi polovine xx veka, Saint Petersburg, Izd. S.-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta.

Burawoy, M., 2005, “2004 ASA Presidential Address. For Public Sociology”, American Sociological Review, 70 (1), p. 4-28.

Changli, I., 1973, Trud. Sotsiologicheskie aspekty teorii i metodologii issledovaniia, Moscow, Nauka.

Demidova, A., 1978, “Professional’naia podgotovka sotsiologicheskikh kadrov”, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 3, p. 201-205.

Firsov, B., 2012, Istoriia sovetskoi sotsiologii. 1950-1980-e gody. Ocherki, Saint Petersburg, Izd. Evropeiskogo universiteta.

Fitzpatrick, S., 1978, “Cultural Revolution as Class War”, in Fitzpatrick, S. (ed.), Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, p. 8-40.

Gerring, J., Mahoney, J., Elman, C., 2020, “Introduction”, in Elman, C., Gerring, J., Mahoney, J. (eds.), The Production of Knowledge. Enhancing Progress in Social Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 1-13.

Gosplan SSSR, 1970, Tipovaia metodika razrabotki piatiletnego plana promyshlennogo predpriiatiia na 1971-1975 gg., Moscow.

Gromov, I., Maksimov, B., Iushchenko, A., 1972, Sotsiologicheskaia laboratoriia na predpriiatii, Leningrad, Lenizdat.

Himmelstrand, U., 2000, “Interview with Vladimir Yadov”, International Review of Sociology, 10, p. 275-288.

Iadov, V., 1972, Sotsiologicheskoe issledovanie. Metodologiia, programma, metody, Moscow, Nauka.

Iadov, V., 1998, in Kostiushev, V. et al. (eds.), Leningradskaia sotsiologicheskaia shkola (1960-e-1980-e gody). Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, Sankt-Peterburg, 23-25 sentiabria 1994 g., Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskaia assotsiatsiia sotsiologov, p. 11-19.

Iadov, V., 1999, “‘My vse – samouchki v sotsiologii’”, in Batygin, G. (ed.), Rossiiskaia sotsiologiia shestidesiatykh godov v vospominaniiakh i dokumentakh, Saint Petersburg, Izd. Russkogo Khristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, p. 42-63.

Iadov, V., 2005, “Nado po vozmozhnosti vliiat’ na dvizhenie sotsial’nykh planet”, Interview by Doktorov, B.

Kapeliush, Ia., 1967, “Ne tol’ko ankety… V poiskakh nauchnykh metodov raboty v komsomole”, Komsomol’skaia pravda, 11 May 1967, p. 2.

Klopov, E., 1985, Rabochii klass SSSR. Tendentsii razvitiia v 60-70-e gody, Moscow, Mysl’.

Kostiushev, V. et al. (eds.), 1998, Leningradskaia sotsiologicheskaia shkola (1960-e-1980-e gody). Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, Sankt-Peterburg, 23-25 sentiabria 1994 g., Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskaia assotsiatsiia sotsiologov.

Kozlova, G., Fainburg, Z., 1963, “Izmenenie kharaktera truda i vsestoronnee razvitie cheloveka”, Voprosy filosofii, 3, p. 55-62.

Kozulin, A., 1984, Psychology in Utopia. Toward a Social History of Soviet Psychology, Cambridge, MIT Press.

Kravchenko, A., 2005, Istoriia otechestvennoi sotsiologii, Moscow, Akademicheskii proekt.

Lieberstein, S., 1975, “Technology, Work, and Sociology in the USSR. The NOT Movement”, Technology and Culture, 16 (1), p. 48-66.

Mespoulet, M., 2007, “La ‘Renaissance’ de la Sociologie en URSS (1958-1972). Une voie étroite entre matérialisme historique et ‘recherches sociologiques concrètes’”, Revue d’historie des sciences humaines, 16, p. 57-86.

Moser, C., 1958, Survey Methods in Social Investigation, London, Heinemann.

Nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut kompleksnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1966, “Predislovie”, Chelovek i obshchestvo, 1, p. 3-4.

Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii et al., 1968, Informatsionnyi biulleten’, Moscow.

Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii et al., 1969, Informatsionnyi biulleten’, Moscow.

Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii et al., 1970, Informatsionnyi biulleten’, Moscow.

Orain, O., Marcel, J.-C. (eds.), 2018, special issue “Schools of Thought”, Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines, 32.

Osipov, G. (ed.), 1966, Industry and Labour in the USSR, London, Tavistock Publications.

Osipov, G. et al., 1976, Rabochaia kniga sotsiologa, Moscow, Nauka.

Ostrovskii, E., Rusalinova, A., 1975, “O sotsial’nykh issledovaniiakh v Leningradskom proizvodstvennom ob’’edinenii Svetlana”, Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 2, p. 123-126.

Partkom Permskogo telefonnogo zavoda et al., 1970, “Nagrady VDNKh – zavodskim sotsiologam”, Za kommunisticheskii trud, 16 January 1970, p. 1.

Peter, J., Olson, J., 1983, “Is Science Marketing?”, Journal of Marketing, 47 (4), p. 111-125.

Polozova, M., 1976, “Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskie problemy upravleniia dvizheniem rabochikh na predpriiatii”, Chelovek i obshchestvo, 14, p. 53-66.

Pugacheva, M., 2011, “Vtoraia nauka ili ‘igra v biser’. Seminarskoe dvizhenie v sotsiologii 1960-1970-kh godov”, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 111, p. 67-75.

Ruble, B., 1990, Leningrad. Shaping a Soviet City, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Rusalinova, A., 1998, in Kostiushev, V. et al. (eds.), Leningradskaia sotsiologicheskaia shkola (1960-e-1980-e gody). Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, Sankt-Peterburg, 23-25 sentiabria 1994 g., Saint Petersburg, Sankt-Peterburgskaia assotsiatsiia sotsiologov, p. 38-46.

Rusalinova, A., 2008, “Leningradskaia sotsiologicheskaia shkola v 60-80 gody xx veka i empiriko-prikladnye issledovaniia na promyshlennykh predpriiatiiakh”, in Boronoev, A. et al. (eds.), Sotsiologiia v Leningrade – Sankt-Peterburge vo vtoroi polovine xx veka, Saint Petersburg, Izd. S.-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, p. 59-87.

Sandle, M., 2002, “A Triumph of Ideological Hairdressing? Intellectual Life in the Brezhnev Era Reconsidered”, in Bacon E., Sandle M. (eds.), Brezhnev Reconsidered, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, p. 135-164.

Sharov, A., 2008, “Zametki po istorii laboratorii sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii NIIKSI”, in Boronoev, A. et al. (eds.), Sotsiologiia v Leningrade – Sankt-Peterburge vo vtoroi polovine xx veka, Saint Petersburg, Izd. S.-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, p. 337-347.

Shlapentokh, V., 1987, The Politics of Sociology in the Soviet Union, Boulder, Westview.

Siegelbaum, L., 1988, Stakhanovism and the Politics of Productivity in the USSR, 1935-1941, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Siegelbaum, L., 1990, “Okhrana Truda. Industrial Hygiene, Psychotechnics, and Industrialization in the USSR”, in Gross Solomon, S., Hutchinson, J. (eds.), Health and Society in Revolutionary Russia, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, p. 224-245.

Slepenkov, I., 1974, Metodologicheskie printsipy i metodika konkretno-sotsiologicheskogo issledovaniia v nauchnom kommunizme, Moscow, Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta.

Sokolov, M., 2017, “Famous and Forgotten. Soviet Sociology and the Nature of Intellectual Achievement under Totalitarianism”, Serendipities, 2, p. 183-212.

Starbuck, W., 2006, The Production of Knowledge. The Challenge of Social Science Research, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Tiagushev, A., Fedotova, A., 1985, Sotsiologicheskaia sluzhba, Leningrad, Lenizdat.

Titarenko, L., Zdravomyslova, E., 2017, Sociology in Russia. A Brief History, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan.

Tsentral’nyi komitet Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1967, “Postanovlenie TsK KPSS o merakh po dal’neishemu razvitiiu obshchestvennykh nauk i povysheniiu ikh roli v kommunisticheskom stroitel’stve”, Voprosy istorii, 9, p. 3-11.

Vail’, P., Genis, A., 1998, 60-e. Mir sovetskogo cheloveka, Moscow, Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie.

Weinberg, E., 2004, Sociology in the Soviet Union and Beyond. Social Enquiry and Social Change, Aldershot, Ashgate.

Zdravomyslov, A., Rozhin, V., Iadov, V., 1967, Chelovek i ego rabota. Sotsiologicheskoe issledovanie, Moscow, Mysl’.

Zdravomyslov, A., Rozhin, V., Iadov, V., 1970, Man and His Work, translated and edited by Dunn, S., White Plains, International Arts and Sciences Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Tsentral’nyi komitet Kommunisticheskoi partii Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1967, 6.

2 Using Michael Burawoy’s schema of sociological knowledge, the scientific research work would be closest to Professional Sociology, whereby knowledge, methods, and conceptual frameworks were accumulated. The projects commissioned by enterprises would be similar to Policy Sociology, in which sociology formulates solutions to problems presented by clients. Burawoy, 2005, 9-10.

3 For example, Shlapentokh, 1987; Weinberg, 2004; Mespoulet, 2007; Firsov, 2012; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017.

4 The archives consulted for this project were located in Saint Petersburg and Perm and related to academic institutions, factories, and key individuals. The informants were interviewed in confidence for this project and are referred to by the following codes: for Perm, Px; and for Saint Petersburg/Leningrad (1924-1991), SPx.

5 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 15-31.

6 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 35-36.

7 Lieberstein, 1975; Kozulin, 1984, 11-25, 49-61; Siegelbaum, 1990, 226-233.

8 Siegelbaum, 1988, 16-23.

9 Siegelbaum, 1988, 40-53.

10 Fitzpatrick, 1978, 8.

11 Weinberg, 2004, 1-10; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 33-41.

12 Lieberstein, 1975, 53-55; Siegelbaum, 1990, 233-240.

13 Mespoulet, 2007, 81-82; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 43-53.

14 For surveys of the field, see Osipov, 1966; Kravchenko, 2005, 76-358.

15 SP3.

16 Three of the forty specialist areas listed were clearly within the remit of industrial sociology: sociological problems of work and of the labour collective, and sociological aspects of the rational distribution and use of labour resources. Institutional members often selected several specialist areas, whereas almost all individuals chose only one. Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1970, 37.

17 Demidova, 1978, 201.

18 Undergraduate degrees in sociology were not approved until the mid-1980s.

19 Himmelstrand, 2000, 276-277.

20 Shlapentokh, 1987, 21; Kravchenko, 2005, 301. A number of prominent American sociologists, including Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton, visited the USSR in the mid-1960s.

21 Iadov, 1999, 45.

22 Himmelstrand, 2000, 277-278.

23 Weinberg, 2004, 32.

24 Sokolov, 2017, 184.

25 Rusalinova, 2008, 62-63; Weinberg, 2004, 36.

26 Anan’ev’s conception for NIIKSI, with the connection between the biological and the social, and the insistence on a multipronged study of humanity, can be seen as broadly in keeping with the ideas of Vladimir Bekhterev (1857-1927).

27 Sharov, 2008, 337.

28 Nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut kompleksnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1966.

29 Scientific communism was a new discipline which emerged in the 1960s. Shlapentokh, 1987, 18-21, 28.

30 P2.

31 P4.

32 P2; P9.

33 P2; P9.

34 P9; SP2.

35 Iadov, 1999, 42.

36 Demidova, 1978, 202.

37 Shlapentokh, 1987, 34-36; P2.

38 SP1.

39 P2; P7.

40 P2.

41 The city authorities needed to approve the research proposal for this project. Ruble, 1990, 156-157.

42 Iadov, 2005, 4, 6-7.

43 Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1967. The missing chapter was published in an updated edition in 2003.

44 For example, Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1970.

45 Rusalinova, 2008, 62.

46 These contracts were referred to as economic contracts (khoziaistvennye dogovory) and the institutes were paid a fee for their work. The institutes’ staff received only their usual salary. SP1.

47 P7.

48 Gosplan SSSR, 1970, 128.

49 Tiagushev and Fedotova, 1985, 3-5.

50 Rusalinova, 1998, 44; Rusalinova, 2008, 76. Alla Rusalinova was the project leader and scientific director for many of NIIKSI’s projects at Svetlana over a twenty-year period.

51 Rusalinova, 1998, 40-42.

52 P5.

53 Partkom Permskogo telefonnogo zavoda, 1970.

54 P4; P7.

55 Based on the reports from six projects in 1966-1972. State Archive of the Perm Krai (Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv permskogo kraia, GAPK), f. R-1622, op. 3, dd. 1848, 1849, 1850, 2268, 2269, 3079.

56 Kapeliush, 1967.

57 Gromov, Maksimov and Iushchenko, 1972, 65; Slepenkov, 1974, 76.

58 The questionnaires themselves tended to be sizeable: a single questionnaire could take an hour or even two to complete. The sample sizes in the six LSI projects rose over time: in the 1966 projects, the numbers were relatively modest (196 in one and 445 in another), but a 1970 project surveyed 800 people and one in 1971 had 1,696 respondents. GAPK, f. R-1622, op. 3, d. 1850, l. 165; GAPK, f. R-1622, op. 3, d. 2268, l. 24, 33, 37; GAPK, f. R-1622, op. 3, d. 2269, l. 30, 34; GAPK, f. R-1622, op. 3, d. 3079, l. 144.

59 Rusalinova, 2008, 82.

60 P3.

61 P4.

62 P4. P2 and SP2 quoted similar examples.

63 Gerring, Mahoney and Elman, 2020.

64 Peter and Olson, 1983, 114-115; Starbuck, 2006, 164-168.

65 Kozlova and Fainburg, 1963.

66 Zdravomyslov, Rozhin and Iadov, 1967; Shlapentokh, 1987, 141.

67 Beliaev, 1966, 156; Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1968, 8, 9; Shlapentokh, 1987, 34-35.

68 Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1968, 8-12; 1969, 16-18.

69 Moser, 1958. Claus Moser was Professor of Social Statistics at the London School of Economics when Vladimir Iadov studied there in 1963-1964.

70 Sandle, 2002.

71 Nauchnyi sovet AN SSSR po problemam konkretnykh sotsial’nykh issledovanii, 1969, 5, 6. Levada was accused of not adopting a class-oriented approach, not criticising ‘bourgeois’ sociology and other ideological transgressions. Shlapentokh, 1987, 43-45; Mespoulet, 2007, 75-77.

72 Shlapentokh, 1987, 45-48.

73 Shlapentokh, 1987, 47, 139-149. For example, Changli, 1973.

74 Rusalinova, 2008, 82.

75 P1; P4.

76 Rusalinova, 1998, 43. For example, Ostrovskii and Rusalinova, 1975; Polozova, 1976.

77 P1.

78 Klopov’s 1985 book on the working class and its development attempted to use research results from in the 1960s and 1970s in a comparative way. This reveals the difficulties of using the results of separate projects carried out for local purposes, rather than a single coordinated research project. For example, Klopov, 1985, 249.

79 Iadov, 1972; Osipov, 1976.

80 See, for example, Kostiushev, 1998; Kravchenko, 2005, 336-337; Sokolov, 2017, 185. Similar ‘schools’ were found in other academic fields in the USSR, such as the ‘Tartu-Moscow school’ of semiotics. In sociology, an exemplar would be the ‘Chicago school’ of the 1920s and early 1930s. The conception of a ‘school’ has been both promulgated and contested. For example, Abbott, 1999; Orain and Marcel, 2018.

81 Iadov, 1998, 18-19.

82 Other examples were Tatiana Zaslavskaia and Rozalina Ryvkina in Novosibirsk and Lev Kogan in Sverdlovsk. Kostiushev, 1998, 5.

83 Kostiushev, 1998, 5; Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 58.

84 Pugacheva, 2011, 69.

85 Vail’ and Genis, 1998, 109-38.

86 Batygin, 1999.

87 Kostiushev, 1998; Boronoev, 2008.

88 Sokolov, 2017, 204.

89 Titarenko and Zdravomyslova, 2017, 6.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Sheila Pattle, « Soviet Industrial Sociology, 1960s-1970s »Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines, 40 | 2022, 111-132.

Référence électronique

Sheila Pattle, « Soviet Industrial Sociology, 1960s-1970s »Revue d’histoire des sciences humaines [En ligne], 40 | 2022, mis en ligne le 20 juin 2022, consulté le 06 février 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rhsh/6898 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rhsh.6898

Haut de page

Auteur

Sheila Pattle

School of Modern Languages and Cultures, Durham University

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution 4.0 International - CC BY 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search