This article critically introduces the sociology of rural areas through rethinking and reinterpreting contemporary world contexts of rural sociology and factual representation of the Russian rural life, applying qualitative methods of analyzing in-depth interviews with Tyumen Region’s south residents. The authors employ theoretical and methodological approaches, mainly used in classical and modern academic literature on rural realities. The scientific approach of this article, alternative to the popular perspectives of political economy and sociology of postmodernism, is based on compounding the interactionist theory and social constructionism with economic sociology, and relies on the growing status of qualitative methods used not only in rural sociology, but also in social geography. The case studies on contemporary rural life problems provide the foundation for discussion and criticism. This article also presents the first results of 2020 field research within the framework of a project aimed at studying institutional factors and forms of Tyumen Region south rural areas development. The authors prove the importance of assessing current problems and functioning prospects of the two most important Russian countryside social institutions — the local (municipal) government and business/entrepreneurship, which are considered through the dominant scenarios of their interests’ interaction with reproduction, preservation, and sustainability of rural areas. The authors’ conclusions are drawn from theoretical and empirical results of generalization and conceptualization of rural life peculiarities, considered through the prism of sociological theories of the countryside and world contexts of this scientific field. This article focuses on illustrating rural areas adaptability and versatility to many external shocks, as well as on contributing to the discussion of the current challenges, problems and opportunities that are opening for rural sociology in the realities of modern Russian rural life. Recommendations, stemming from the current world agenda of rural sociology, propose a relatively new concept of rural politics, displaying the “placed-based” paradigm. The paradigm is to reduce the inequality and inefficiency in agricultural production by removing barriers and seeking opportunities in given locations (villages and small towns), especially those which lag behind more dynamic territories in key resources. In other words, these are the “territories of growth” (an increase in population density and yield, expansion or small reduction of farmland); “territories of stagnation” (a decrease in population density, farmland and yield); and “territories of contraction” (a decrease in population with a significant reduction in farmland and yield). However, even for these highly generalized socio-spatial characteristics, there is only approximate information that does not allow classifying the scenarios of rural regions reproduction. Spatial dimension indicates the diversity principle of economic change and development. Adaptation of programs to eliminate disadvantages and enhance strengths of territories is likely to help achieving a high return on investment in rural policy through grants, loans, subsidies, subventions (State Program 2020-2025). Placed-based policies should have the greatest impact on lagging regions, reducing regional inequalities, facilitating regional convergence of rural areas. The concept of “territories of growth — stagnation — contraction” is not yet verified by large studies. Theoretical grounding of placed-based policies, originates from economic concepts, broadening them with spatial, cultural, social and institutional dimensions. There is evidence that the placed-based strategy will advance lagging regions and boost the country’s economy. A social policy based on this concept can be a tool for rural areas development, ensuring the complementarity between efficiency and equity. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the development of a conceptual-categorical scheme that demonstrates the interaction of various branches of government, agricultural actors of different levels and entrepreneurs as a result of their interests coordination. The interaction is presented in a form of impact that macro-actors have on micro- and meso- subjects at the local level, which is very important for tracking the formal-informal ratio in rural residents’ lives.

This article approbates the Russian-language version of an interdisciplinary toolkit for human capital resources research. The Russian-language toolkit for measuring systematically organized human resources, which are consistent with social capital theory and intensively developing typology of psychological capital resources in the version of A. Moses, F. Lutens and V. Avoglio, is verified for the first time, determining the article’s scientific novelty. The toolkit has a two-level structure: general (external to the organization) and specific (internal) resources. Contemporary human capital theory assumes that people have different knowledge, skills, and abilities that can be successfully applied in solving work problems. The definition of social capital includes the concepts of trust, embeddedness, social support, and social exchange. The definition of psychological capital integrates four sub-indices: efficiency (based on trust and confidence), hope, optimism, and resilience. The empirical basis of the study includes the results of a mass sociological survey (N = 1 261). The sample represents the working population of the Tyumen Region 18 over years old (as of 2020). This has required using the methods of correlation and factor analysis. The results show the interrelationships and latent factors of the multidimensional construction of human, social and psychological capital in connection with concepts of trust and social well-being. The authors have identified the features of the Russian structure of human capital. The confidence in self-efficiency, as well as self-reliance, resilience, optimism, and belief in being in demand at work most strongly explain the variations in human capital in the Russian case. Thus, psychological capital is built into the concept of labor motivation, since it reflects willingness to work systematically, as well as employees’ perception of their socio-psychological characteristics, optimal to perform current and strategic work tasks. The social capital builds up in a multidimensional structure, when generalized trust and the strength of social contacts at work are almost orthogonal to each other.

This article examines the role played by institutions in the post-Soviet transformation of rural areas of Russia and the development of agriculture. It is shown that the main goal of transformations—the transition to market relations—has been achieved. The relevance of the article lies in the analysis of the process of incomplete institutional transfer, unique on a global scale: the transition from full state ownership and state regulation to market relations was replaced by the dominance of large forms of business organization with prevailing governmental control. The article aims to study the impact of institutional reforms on the structure and dynamics of market agents in rural areas of Russia from 1990 to 2020. Institutional, statistical and sociological methods were applied. Materials from 59 expert interviews were used. The informants represented the categories “public” and “business” of three different agricultural territories. Statistical data and official reports of agricultural holdings were analyzed. Changes in the structure of land ownership and other production factors were considered. The historical stages of the institutional dynamics of agriculture are shown. It is proved that the emergence of a class of owners in agriculture was the main result of institutional changes in Russia; the formation of many institutions for the support and development of agriculture and rural areas is also significant. The observed obstacles to the growth of the segment of small and medium-sized businesses are due to the incomplete legitimacy of the ongoing processes, the strong volatility of the regulatory framework and insufficient transparency of state support. In Russia, after 1990, the total area of agricultural land decreased and was consolidated by large owners—Agricultural holdings. By 2020, the estimated share of agricultural holdings in revenue was 31% for crop production, 37% for livestock, and 70% for meat. Experts noted the excessive dependence of market actors on state support and the deepening of social inequality.

Предпосылки научных дискуссий первого десятилетия XXI в. состояли в следующем: российскую экономику разрушила деиндустриализация, и возрождение ее возможно посредством реиндустриализации. Именно эти процессы должны лечь в основу экономической политики, определяя набор конкретных мероприятий, направленных на восстановление роли и места промышленности в качестве базовой компоненты экономики. В статье представлены результаты анализа теоретических подходов и методологий исследования процессов реиндустриализации и сопряженного с ними социокультурного пространства. Рассмотрены определения и генезис новой индустриализации. Авторами обосновывается фундаментальная разница смыслов и содержаний терминов «реиндустриализация» и «новая индустриализация», описаны сопровождающие их экономические процессы, происходящие в высокоразвитых странах и в России. Инновационная деятельность рассмотрена с точки зрения курса на новую индустриализацию, институциональных изменений в условиях падающей отдачи. Обозначая сущность «новой индустриализации» как процесса диверсификации отраслевой структуры промышленности на основе масштабного внедрения новых технологий, подчеркивается, что такой фокус позволяет рассматривать процесс в разрезе аспектов: макро-, мезо- и микроэкономического, институционального, функционального, структурного, технологического, ресурсного, регионального, социокультурного. Определяя отраслевые аспекты приоритетного развития на основе суждений, представленных в отечественной научной литературе, делается вывод о делении отраслей на кластеры: «старые» отрасли — источники занятости; отрасли «текущей волны» новой индустриализации, обеспечивающие экономику в краткосрочном периоде; отрасли «перспективной волны» новой индустриализации — гаранты экономического роста и социального развития в долгосрочном периоде. Говоря о неоиндустриализации (новой индустриализации) и реиндустриализации, необходимо понимать фундаментальную разницу смыслов и содержаний обозначенных терминов и процессов, происходящих в высокоразвитых странах и в России.

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.