On the Perspectives of the Scientific Precariat

Authors

  • Svetlana V. Shibarshina Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259340

Keywords:

creativity of science, scientific precariat, freelance scientist, institutionalization of science, Guy Standing

Abstract

This paper is a part of the discussion about creativity and the scientific precariat, initiated by I.T. Kasavin’s article. Proceeding from his proposal to revise the ideology of creativity in science through the desire of certain precariat groups for independence and freedom, the author questions the nowadays perspectives for the scientific precariat. This paper discusses the varieties of the precariat (or related to it phenomena), such as freelancing and digital nomadism. The author considers a number of advantages (independence, freedom) and disadvantages of precarization (lack of stability, uncertainty, lack of social guarantees, etc.). The author questions whether scientists can be seriously considered as candidates for the precariat and how widespread the scientific precariat is in contemporary society. It is pointed out that the collective nature of modern science and its institutionalization impose certain obligations on scientists, which sometimes confront their individual internal aspirations, including the desire for freedom. The tension between the institutional conditions for the existence of science and the personal motives of scientists, noted once by M. Weber, lead to a decrease in personal autonomy, the emergence of a “world of specialists” and make it difficult to realize scientists’ aspirations for independence and freedom. On the one hand, a number of current trends (such as academic mobility) can be viewed as a kind of precarization in science. On the other hand, the status of an independent researcher without research and educational affiliation hinders scientists’ social recognition and financial returns. The author admits that representatives of “garage science”, some public intellectuals, science, communicators, etc. can be attributed to the scientific precariat; however, in general, the scientific precariat is not a common trend. At the same time, modern post-science and post-normal science potentially make this phenomenon quite legitimate.

Published

2022-10-25

How to Cite

[1]
2022. On the Perspectives of the Scientific Precariat. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 59, 3 (Oct. 2022), 55–60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202259340.