@ARTICLE{27043461_28121865_2001, 
	author = {Leonid Blyaher}, 
	keywords = {, political science, province, community, communication, sample, methodology, reflexivityschool},
	title = {Paradoxes of the provincial political science},
	journal = {The Russian Sociological Review},
	year = {2001},
	volume = {1},
	number = {1},
	pages = {50-80},
	url = {https://sociologica.hse.ru/en/2001-1-1/28121865.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The article analyzes the phenomenon of the provincial political science emerged in Russia after the collapse of communications, linking Soviet science. This process forms the center, possesses all the required formal attributes to feel "schools" or, more precisely, separate "tables" for which are extremely reluctant to let outsiders. Lack of a common communication space leads to a "methodological fork." In one case, the researchers carefully examined data and strongly distanced themselves from a methodological reflection. They quickly built up something like a theory combining the empirical materials and the conspiracy theory. This position gives the knowledge of the place, but can neither be compared with anything, nor generalized. The second position is associated with hard work borrowing theories born in other circumstances and other communications. As a result, the scholars study those phenomena which we do not have in our country e.g. democracy, civil society, etc.. The answer to the question: "What do we have?" is not given, as this conceptual system makes it impossible. The author tries to find mechanisms to overcome the duality.},
	annote = {The article analyzes the phenomenon of the provincial political science emerged in Russia after the collapse of communications, linking Soviet science. This process forms the center, possesses all the required formal attributes to feel "schools" or, more precisely, separate "tables" for which are extremely reluctant to let outsiders. Lack of a common communication space leads to a "methodological fork." In one case, the researchers carefully examined data and strongly distanced themselves from a methodological reflection. They quickly built up something like a theory combining the empirical materials and the conspiracy theory. This position gives the knowledge of the place, but can neither be compared with anything, nor generalized. The second position is associated with hard work borrowing theories born in other circumstances and other communications. As a result, the scholars study those phenomena which we do not have in our country e.g. democracy, civil society, etc.. The answer to the question: "What do we have?" is not given, as this conceptual system makes it impossible. The author tries to find mechanisms to overcome the duality.}
}