Elena Vladimirovna Andrianova

This article presents the results of a study aimed at identifying the factors that shape the essence of managers' activities as actors in the development of creative industries at the regional and municipal levels in the Tyumen Oblast. The subject of the study is the social characteristics and manifestations of subjectivity of managers. The research objective was to determine which of the social parameters accepted in scientific practice that characterise managerial agency are present in their activities amid the existing contradiction between the current classical management model and the manifestations of new, post-bureaucratic management concepts. The authors identify the following parameters for assessing managerial performance: the semantic content of managerial action (the level of development of values and goals), conviction (awareness of the object of managerial action, knowledge of the specifics of the territory as a value, its identity, historical and cultural potential, acceptance of development goals, a vision of key resources and the possibilities for their use); Involvement (readiness for active work, interaction, and building relationships with other subjects); managerial roles/positions (acceptance of responsibility, leadership). The combination and mutual influence of these factors, the synergy characterising the subjectivity of managers, is adopted as a parameter providing an understanding of the hidden, subjective aspects of managers' activities. Another argument in favour of using these parameters is that their consideration allows us to supplement the technological universalism and standardisation of management algorithms and regulations. The study makes an additional contribution to defining the content of the managerial activities of subjects in the development of creative industries in the context of the formation of new management principles. An expert survey has been used as the research method. Thematic analysis was used, that was conducted using manual coding and a combination of two approaches: "Small-q" and "Big-Q". The results of the study showed that experts are ready for the new role of manager – the "networker", but the inertia of the classic "bureaucrat", acting strictly within the framework of formal rules and regulations, remains among the majority of respondents, that confirms the presence in management practice of elements of different models for implementing public administration concepts, and also allows us to emphasise the importance of taking into account the social parameters of the subjectivity of managers in achieving territorial development goals.

В статье проведен анализ эссе, представленных в хэндбуке по экономической социологии XXI в. в редакции Милана Зафировского. Ввиду отсутствия обзоров данного издания на момент написания (март 2026 г.), для авторов статьи большая честь пойти на риск, чтобы заполнить образовавшийся пробел. Постановка исследовательской проблемы, поднимаемой в хэндбуке, заключается в том, что эволюция социально-экономических школ имеет более чем двухвековую историю, и до сих пор существует концептуальный конфликт в базовых взглядах на экономическую и социальную реальности. Более пятидесяти лет назад экономист Абба Лернер выдвинул идею о том, что экономика заняла положение ведущей дисциплины среди социальных наук, поскольку сосредоточилась на анализе уже решённых политических проблем и превратила их в предмет научного исследования. Подобное понимание способствовало утверждению представления о первичности экономики по отношению к социологии. В течение длительного времени отношения между этими дисциплинами практически не изменялись: между экономикой и социологией сохранялся относительно слабый научный диалог, что во многом объяснялось доминирующим положением экономической науки в поле социальных исследований. Выход в свет нового хэндбука по экономической социологии должен был как-то прояснить этот давний спор, и было любопытно, как редактор Милан Зафировский и его научная команда преодолеют конфронтационные отношения между социологией и экономикой, принимая в расчет их достаточно жесткое дисциплинарное разделение. Решение этой исследовательской научной проблемы обнаружилось в том, что в хэндбуке обозначены креативные и изобретательные подходы на пути в попытках возрождения экономической социологии, а именно в рамках скорее экономической науки, чем науки социологической. Авторы статьи в качестве краткой характеристики результатов своих размышлений над книгой считают, что обозначенное дисциплинарное разделение между экономикой и социологией в контексте их векового противостояния всё-таки преувеличено, оно основано на исторически продиктованных притязаниях на монополию мысли у экономистов против социологов из-за политических конъюнктурных моментов, острота их борьбы в целом наносит ущерб обеим предметным областям, а их конструктивное сотрудничество должно усиливать обе эти академические дисциплины. Статья структурирована следующим образом: она состоит из двух частей, в первой проведен анализ шестнадцати эссе хэндбука, во второй — пятнадцати эссе. The article presents an analysis of the essays included in the Handbook of Economic Sociology of the Twenty-First Century, edited by Milan Zafirovski. Given the absence of reviews of this volume at the time of writing (March 2026), the authors of the article consider it a great honor to take the risk of filling this emerging gap. The formulation of the research problem raised in the handbook lies in the fact that the evolution of socioeconomic schools has a history of more than two centuries, and conceptual conflicts in fundamental views on economic and social reality persist. More than fifty years ago, economist Abba Lerner put forward the idea that economics had assumed the position of the leading discipline among the social sciences because it had focused on the analysis of already resolved political problems and transformed them into the subject of scientific inquiry. This understanding contributed to the assertion of the primacy of economics over sociology. For a long time, the relationship between these disciplines remained virtually unchanged: the academic dialogue between economics and sociology remained relatively weak, largely due to the dominant position of economics in the field of social research. The publication of a new handbook on economic sociology was expected to clarify this long-standing dispute in some way, and it was of particular interest how the editor Milan Zafirovski and his...

В статье проведен сравнительный анализ цифровой экономики и цифровой социологии, выявление общего и различного. Цифровые технологии трансформируют социальные и экономические процессы, создавая новые исследовательские вызовы. В процессах исследования, обучения и внедрения алгоритмов и цифровых средств в практику повседневной жизни накапливаются противоречия, актуализируя развитие исследовательского дискурса через цифровую экономику и цифровую социологию, ставя вопрос о способах их решения. Методологические принципы работы опираются на идею о том, что существуют определенные теоретические и эмпирические соответствия в цифровой социологии и цифровой экономике, особенно в социально ориентированных сегментах экономики. Методы включают анализ документов, нарративный и дискурсивный подходы, фрейм-анализ, сравнительный анализ. Научную новизну составила обобщенная модель «сочетания дискурса и реальности с использованием цифровых платформ», присущей цифровым экономике и социологии. Модель идентифицирует различные социальные и экономические термины, понятия и категории, объединенные общностью своего происхождения из цифрового дискурса слов, текстов, контекстов, устойчивых выражений, научных метафор, концептов, используя разноплановый инструментарий их изучения. Сделаны выводы, что цифровизация меняет социальные структуры и экономические модели, цифровая экономика и социология взаимосвязаны через общие цифровые платформы, и существует необходимость интеграции классических теорий с современными цифровыми подходами. This article presents a comparative analysis of the digital economy and digital sociology, aiming to identify their shared features and distinctions. Digital technologies are transforming both social and economic processes, giving rise to new research challenges. As algorithms and digital tools are increasingly integrated into research, education, and everyday life, contradictions emerge — underscoring the need to develop academic discourse through the lenses of digital economy and digital sociology and raising questions about how these contradictions might be addressed. The methodological framework is based on the assumption that there are specific theoretical and empirical correspondences between digital sociology and digital economy, particularly in socially-oriented sectors of the economy. The methods employed include document analysis, narrative and discourse approaches, frame analysis, and comparative analysis. The scientific novelty of the article lies in a generalized model of the “combination of discourse and reality through digital platforms” that is characteristic of both the digital economy and digital sociology. This model identifies various social and economic terms, concepts, and categories that are united by their origin in the digital discourse — emerging from words, texts, contexts, fixed expressions, scientific metaphors, and concepts — and analyzed using a diverse range of methodological tools. The article concludes that digitalization is reshaping social structures and economic models, that the digital economy and digital sociology are interconnected through shared digital platforms, and that there is a growing need to integrate classical theories with contemporary digital approaches.

The study includes a critical analysis of the last 10 chapters exploring the implications of digital technological change, including social, digital, and educational inequalities. These chapters cover a wide range of research from empirical to interpretive approaches and demonstrate a methodological and theoretical mix of different research orientations. Particular emphasis has been placed on the analysis and practices ofadolescents’ use of information and communication technologies at home and at school, social and economic inequalities in children’s digital literacy from primary to secondary school, adolescent mental health in the context of digital inequalities, gender gap in digital skills, and family matters and concerns in digital era. The price of mental health associated with the use of swipes and dating apps, the interrelationship of social media and well-being at work and at home, home-work-digital interrelationships, the characteristics of the digital transition and its implications for labor markets, the skills development issues in the context of digital transformation, and the impact of digital campaigning and media on elections have been considered. The handbook describes sociological and digital academic fields and assumes that both perspectives are equally legitimate, as they reflect the two academic identities of the vast and heterogeneous academic field called digital sociology. This paper is a continuation of the review of the research handbook on digital sociology edited by J. Skopek.

The review of the research handbook on digital sociology, edited by J. Skopek, provides a critical analysis of this field, encompassing studies on digital society, digital life, digital engagement, digital scientific and technological changes, and their consequences, alongside many related pressing issues. The book is both empirically oriented and fundamentally robust, maintaining its analytical and scientific depth. The purpose of the review is to present the key ideas of all 25 chapters of the handbook, which, due to editorial requirements, we must present in two parts. The handbook is structured into 5 sections reflecting key areas of digital sociology: social theory and the internet in everyday life, research of digital society, analysis of digital life and online interactions, digital participation and inequality, and consequences of digital technological changes. Each chapter is supported by extensive academic literature, both classical and modern, mostly published in recent years, which significantly expands the radius of the proposed subject contexts. The first part of this review presents the key ideas of 15 chapters, focusing on the foundational components of social theory and their connections to the internet in daily life, digital technologies for surveys and data processing, the significance of mobile devices, big data, machine learning, agent-based models of social phenomena, inclusive digital focus groups, social networking sites in professional contexts, online dating, partner selection based on digital information, the use of digital approaches in online markets, the application of YouTube in social sciences, and automated image analysis. A distinctive feature of the review is its exploration of the intersection between the digital and social spheres, framed as a contradiction between the proper (computer sciences) and the actual (social sciences), reflecting the search for meaning in communication and action within digital and social spaces.

The relevance of the issue under consideration is determined by at least two circumstances: first, leading representatives of cinematic sociology point to a sharp reduction in the number of empirical studies of films due to the “lack of proper informational and sociological support for the Russian cinema” [3. P. 74; 22. P. 152]; second, the narrative turn continues, “emphasizing the textual nature of all social practices” [24. P. 48] and the temporal characteristics of films. The authors, having conducted surveys of Tyumen moviegoers, which were ordered by the cinema owners in the spring of 2024 (N = 2502), use narrative analysis to explain moviegoers’ practices based on the rhetorical-functionalist theory of narrativity [19] and other relevant scientific approaches. Three groups of respondents were questionned: two target samples structured by gender, age, income and place of residence (582 people in cinemas using personal interviews; 438 people from the cinemas’ customer base using telephone interviews), and 1462 residents of Tyumen, and this sample was stratified by gender and age taking into account the characteristics of the cinemas’ target audience. The comparative historical method of narrative analysis was also used - the collected data were compared with materials on similar issues obtained by E. Altenloh 110 years ago [11; 12]. The article presents some empirical data with the results of analysis which included both formal procedures and those based on systematization of specialized literature and media discourses. The authors make the following conclusions: first, films that refer to famous plots, favorite characters and current narratives become especially popular with the mass audience; second, new interpretations of old stories have become key factors in the development of the contemporary film industry which largely sacrifices the semantic content for new aesthetic technologies.

The central positions of the publication are discussed: “Shubrt, I., & Podvoisky, D. G. (2024). Modern sociological theories: how not to get lost in the conceptual maze? Russian Public Opinion Research Center”. The book describes the state of science in the humanitarian sphere today in terms of “sociological theories”. The review presents an analysis of the main content of this book and outlines the authors’ reflections and conclusions regarding its entry into the professional space of sociologists. The review identifies its key strengths and explicitly highlights critical and debatable points, which boil down to the fact that alongside other books on “modern sociological theories”, the reviewed work stands out because its authors seek to convey their content, essence, and meaning “in their own words”, in the scientific style of a “concise cheat sheet”. Although, as the authors of this book themselves admitted, the logic of selecting the analyzed figures in sociology and the depth of elaboration of their scientific contributions are not entirely clear to them, nevertheless, the merits of their approaches are expressed quite clearly and precisely, based on publications in the high-rated journal “Sociological Studies”. However, it should be noted that there are conceptual errors such as that in Jurgen Habermas’s “latest Russian translation”, the original category is designated as “activity”, although in reality, this internationally recognized definition is “action”, stemming from the scientific tradition of action systems of Talcott Parsons and Max Weber. The review proposes original conceptual resources to clarify the authorial paradigm of I. Shubrt and D. G. Podvoisky for a more precise and concise operationalization of modern sociological theories in the case of the second edition of this book.

We present a study of social participation in Citizen Science. The aim is to identify the problems and opportunities for attracting young people to Citizen Science using an example of genetic research projects held in 2020–2023 in Russia. The paper briefly reviews the development of the understanding and use of Citizen Science, as well as shows its application in genetic research. Empirical data were obtained in the course of qualitative and mass quantitative sociological studies. Scientific, organizational, and social contexts of wide involvement of people in scientific activity are shown. The narratives and motives of interested parties are analyzed. The study revealed limited development of Citizen Science practices in Russia, as well as the underdevelopment of the infrastructure for expanding social participation in scientific research. Moreover, professional scientists in natural sciences show contradictory attitudes and doubts about the involving volunteers in scientific research. We conclude that critical and doubtful attitudes towards Citizen Science decrease as practical experience of interaction is gained. According to data from mass sociological studies, there are significant differences in young people’s assessments of scientific activity and participation in volunteer practices, especially at school age. The necessity to draw public attention to the potential of using Citizen Science in a broad sense has been demonstrated.

This article describes the current state of the sociology of film theory, organically integrated into the current filmmaking expressive means and practices. The focus of research is directed at the formulation and authorial solution of the problem of audience’s existential sensitivity and related practices, which represent a unique value of both their receptivity and vulnerability in connection with their personal experiences of film consumption. Currently, two new processes are going on simultaneously in global and Russian social science: firstly, the broadening subject-matter of film sociology, embedded in the public life; secondly, existential sociology returning to the issues of choosing authentic existence and, thus, obtaining new impetus. The article presents the theoretical deployment of the theory of existence as one of the newest approaches in existential and social research; it reveals the scientific novelty of its theoretical part, based on the interpretation of meetings between cinema and the viewer. Based on a representative survey of visitors to Tyumen cinemas (2,502 people; spring 2024); the authors have identified existential narratives of media and viewers and analyzed groups of similar films listed in the IMDb (Internet Movie Database), the world’s largest movie database, and in Kinopoisk. The article aims to clarify the existential assessments of film audiences’ practices. Th methods include parallel procedures of the sociology of cinema analysis, modern theories of existence, and the empiricists involved. The existential dimension of the meanings and significance of filmmaking marks a conceptual breakthrough in answering the fundamental question: “How exactly does the social construction of modern cinema represent the areas of being and existence of the world and the individual?”. The most popular films are the ones which refer to familiar plots and favorite characters, and which reinterpret old stories by the new film industry, thus, sacrificing the semantic fullness and content of the cinema in favor of new modern aesthetic filmmaking technologies.

The article examines the differences in how the Tyumen Region residents assess the quality of life components. The research base for that are the data obtained during the interregional program The Problems of Sociocultural Evolution of Russia and Its Regions, by N. I. Lapin and L. A. Belyaeva from the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS). Later, 20 more Russian regions were included in the program, which is currently coordinated by the Volga Research Center of the RAS. Ten waves of sociological monitoring in 2006–2023 in the Tyumen Region were studied, using the methods of quantitative analysis including statistical data and sociological surveys results. The literature review presents the state and problems of quality of life research, as well as existing methodological approaches and conceptual frameworks that define quality of life as a complex indicator of socio-economic development. The results show that subjective assessments of the population’s quality of life vary significantly depending on socio-economic conditions, highlighting the importance of these factors in the development of social programs. Multiple comparisons for each of the components in the dynamics over 17 years help in identifying the most pressing problems: the accessibility and quality of healthcare.