CC BY
5
ЕКОНОМ1ЧНА ТЕОР1Я
UDC 330.1:101.1
WORLD VIEW iN ECONOMiC SCIENCE
® 2017 KYZYM M. 0., DORONINA M. S.
UDC 330.1:101.1
Kyzym M. O., Doronina M. S. World View in Economic Science
In the process of updating the economic model of society there arose the problem of eliminating contradictions in the development of economic science that do not allow us to solve problems of practice in proven ways. Although these contradictions and methods for their resolving are partially reflected in many scientific publications, methodological and practical justifications for a comprehensive study of the reserves of the economic science development by combining the provisions of philosophy and disciplines of the humanities are still relevant. The solution of the problem of unpredictability of functioning and development of the economy using such a combination of scientific disciplines can be ensured by applying the world view models that enable justifying the vector of attention of scientists in the subject area of the problem. The constructiveness of the interaction of scientists representing different ontological views of the world depends on improving of the conceptual and categorical support of their dialogue. A scientific world view in such a composition creates a basis, firstly, for a fruitful discussion of representatives of various disciplines having a common subject of research, and, secondly, for overcoming the institutional and cognitive barriers to professional mobility of scientists. It can also serve to develop the mobility of representatives of professional communities of researchers. Keywords: economic science, contradictions, world view, conceptual and categorical support, mobility of scientists. Fig.: 2. Bibl.: 16.
Kyzym Mykola O. - Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Professor, Corresponding Member of NAS of Ukraine, Director, Research Centre of Industrial Problems of Development of NAS of Ukraine (2 floor 1a Inzhenernyi Ln., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine) E-mail: ndc_ipr@ukr.net
Doronina Maya S. - Doctor of Sciences (Economics), Professor, Chief research scientist, Research Centre of Industrial Problems of Development of NAS of Ukraine (2 floor 1a Inzhenernyi Ln., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine) E-mail: doroninams@mail.ru
УДК 330.1:101.1
Кизим М. О., Доронша М. С.
Картина CBimy в eKOHOMi4Hiü науц
У процесi оновлення економ/чно1 модел/ сусп/льства виникла проблема зняття протир/чурозвиткуеконом/чно!науки, що недозволяють перев/реними способами вир/шувати проблеми практики. Хоча ц про-тир'тя i способи ¡х вир/шення частково знайшли в/дображення у бага-тьох публ/кац/ях учених, все ще залишаються актуальними методо-лог/чн/ та практичн/ об(рунтування комплексного вивчення резерв/в розвитку економ/чно1 науки шляхом комб/нування положень ф/лософи i дисципл/н гуман/тарного циклу. Ршення проблеми непередбачуванос-т/ функц/онування / розвитку економ/ки з використанням тако'( комб/-нацп наукових дисципл/н можна забезпечити, використовуючи модел/ картини св/ту, що дозволяють дати об(рунтування вектору уваги вчених у предметн/й галуз/ проблеми. Конструктивн/сть взаемоди учених, як/ представляють р/зн/ онтолог/чн/ картини св/ту, залежить в/д впорядкування понят/йно-категор/ального забезпечення ¡х д/алогу. Наукова картина св/ту в так/й композицИ створюе основу, по-перше, для пл/дно1 дискуси представник/в р/зних дисципл/н, що мають загаль-ний предмет досл/дження, по-друге, - для подолання /нституц/йних / когн/тивних бар'ер/в профес/йно1 моб/льност/ вчених. Вона ж може послужити розвитку моб/льност/ представник/в профес/йних сп/ль-нот науковц/в.
Ключов'! слова: економ/чна наука, протир/ччя, картина св/ту, поня-т/йно-категор/альне забезпечення, моб/льн/сть учених. Рис.: 2. Ббл.: 16.
Кизим Микола Олександрович - доктор економ/чних наук, професор, член-кореспондент НАН Укра/'ни, директор, Науково-досл/дний центр /ндустр/альних проблем розвитку НАН Укра/'ни (пров. 1нженерний, 1а, 2 пов., Харк/в, 61166, Укра/'на) E-mail: ndc_ipr@ukr.net
Доронша Майя Степанiвна - доктор економ/чних наук, професор, головний науковий сп/вроб/тник, Науково-досл/дний центр /ндустр/-
УДК 330.1:101.1
Кизим Н. А., Доронина М. С.
Картина мира в экономической науке
В процессе обновления экономической модели общества возникла проблема снятия противоречий в развитии экономической науки, не позволяющих проверенными способами решать проблемы практики. Хотя эти противоречия и способы их решения частично нашли отражение во многих публикациях ученых, все еще остаются актуальными методологические и практические обоснования комплексного изучения резервов развития экономической науки путем комбинирования положений философии и дисциплин гуманитарного цикла. Решение проблемы непредсказуемости функционирования и развития экономики с использованием такой комбинации научных дисциплин можно обеспечить, используя модели картины мира, позволяющие дать обоснование вектору внимания ученых в предметной области проблемы. Конструктивность взаимодействия ученых, представляющих различные онтологические картины мира, зависит от упорядочения понятийно-категориального обеспечения их диалога. Научная картина мира в такой композиции создает основу, во-первых, для плодотворной дискуссии представителей различных дисциплин, имеющих общий предмет исследования, во-вторых, - для преодоления институциональных и когнитивных барьеров профессиональной мобильности ученых. Она же может послужить развитию мобильности представителей профессиональных сообществ научных сотрудников. Ключевые слова: экономическая наука, противоречия, картина мира, понятийно-категориальное обеспечение, мобильность ученых. Рис.: 2. Библ.: 16.
Кизим Николай Александрович - доктор экономических наук, профессор, член-корреспондент НАН Украины, директор, Научно-исследовательский центр индустриальных проблем развития НАН Украины (пер. Инженерный, 1а, 2 эт., Харьков, 61166, Украина) E-mail: ndc_ipr@ukr.net
EK0H0MÍ4Ha Teopiq
альних проблем розвитку НАН Украши (пров. Шженерний, 1а, 2 пов., Хармв, 61166, Украша) E-mail: doroninams@mail.ru
Доронина Майя Степановна - доктор экономических наук, профессор, главный научный сотрудник, Научно-исследовательский центр индустриальных проблем развития НАН Украины (пер. Инженерный, 1а, 2 эт., Харьков, 61166, Украина) E-mail: doroninams@mail.ru
Problem statement. The ultimate strategic goal of science is to provide such positioning of man in a certain subject area of his life activity that he could effectively solve the problems arising in it. To achieve this goal, science provides answers to two questions: how to study an incomprehensible situation and how to influence it practically.
The world is continuously developing, the subject area of science is becoming more complicated. This thesis can be fully attributed to economic science. World experience shows that the emerging new economic model of society fundamentally differs from its previous versions not only in lots of components, parameters and factors. The very philosophy of economic development is changing: new factors that until now were in the field of attention of sociology, psychology, social psychology and other human sciences are added to the ones that have already become traditional for it [1, p. 94]. In this connection, there arises the task of updating the ways of developing economic science itself, removing its contradictions, which do not allow solving the problems of the subject area in a proven way. There arises the task of determining the way of developing the science. Traditionally, in searching for this method there is an appeal to another related science, which is at a higher level of abstraction, most often to philosophy. Sometimes it is perceived as the «science of science». But, in fact, philosophy is not lacking in internal contradictions, although, despite this, it realizes its mission of creating a platform for development of scientific disciplines.
Analysis of recent researches and publications. An authoritative specialist in the field of science studies A. Stepin states that in the philosophical and methodological literature of recent decades, the fundamental ideas, notions, and concepts that form relatively stable bases for the development of specific empirical knowledge and the theories explaining them are increasingly becoming the subject of research. As the most important components forming the foundations of science the author singles out scientific world view, ideals and norms of scientific knowledge, philosophical foundations of science [2; 3]. Since such elements of science as «world view» and «sci-entific world view», on the one hand, do not have a universally accepted interpretation, and, on the other hand, are increasingly mentioned by experts as a system-forming component of building new scientific theories, it is they that are determined as the subject of this article.
The aim of the article is not in formulating the only and final version of the world view of economic science (as a special component of knowledge), but in determining the possibility of its development and application in different situations arising in science and practice. At the same time, such a development involves the use of philosophical analysis, economic theory, provisions of disciplines of the humanities to justify solutions of non-standard problems arising in the work.
Presentation of basic material of the research. The
source material that serves the basis of the article is characterized by significant contradictions and discussion points, so it makes sense to provide interpretations of the content and essence of the basic concepts and categories used to convey ideas in the text. The structure of philosophical knowledge in this article is represented by its following components: epistemology, gnoseology, ontology, phenomenology, axiology. The analysis of dictionaries, textbooks and monographs made possible the following options for defining these components.
Epistemology is a philosophical and methodological discipline in which the available knowledge as such, its organization, structure, functioning, and development are studied. Gnoseolology is a branch of philosophy that solves the problems of determining the necessary and sufficient conditions for human cognition; the possibility of creating a variant of knowledge acceptable to the scientific community; the purpose and content of everyday, religious, scientific philosophical knowledge. Ontology is the study of being as a whole, the realities of the world surrounding man, the basic properties and structure of this world. Disciplinary ontology is a system of ideal images of the real world (subject area) represented in the theory of a certain scientific discipline. Phenomenology is the study about unconditional (i.e., without using recommendations of traditional cognitive technologies) description of the experience of cognitive consciousness and identification in the experience of essential features that can become the basis of a new scientific theory of cognition. Axiology is the study of the importance for man of the truth stated by science to satisfy his needs, the study of perception by man of new knowledge as valuable for him.
Since the subject of this article is the concepts of «world view» and «scientific world view», in substantiating the terminological support for the study, let us dwell on their analysis in more detail.
The generalization of the relevant literature [4-6] allowed to conclude that the content of the concept of «world view» is stated by scientists in the triune essence: as a result of the development of knowledge; as a prerequisite for development of a certain area of specific scientific disciplines; as a link in knowledge, uniting philosophy and theory of science. In publications, this concept is most often analyzed in the context of its evolutionary development accompanying the development of civilizations.
In the scientific world, it is generally accepted that the world view, like any cognitive image, simplifies and schematizes reality. The world, as an infinitely complex, developing reality, is always much richer than the ideas about it that developed at a certain stage of social and historical practice. The world view singles out in the infinite variety of the real world precisely those of its essential connections the knowledge of which
EKOHOMNHa Teopia
constitutes the main goal of science at a particular stage of its historical development.
The social significance of world view lies in the fact that it largely shapes people's behavior and their interaction with the world. It serves as a program of behavior for the individual and collective defining the set of operations used by people to influence the world, the rules for their use in activities and the motivation for this activity.
A world view is not a simple set of «photos» of objects, processes, properties, etc. It includes not only the reflected objects but also the position of the reflecting subject, his/her attitude to these objects. And the position of the subject in the world view is as real as the objects themselves. Moreover, since the reflection of the world by man is not passive, but active, his relation to objects is not only generated by these objects but also capable of changing them (through activity).
Currently fundamental concepts and ideas forming the bases for development of specific sciences are increasingly becoming a subject of scientific and methodological researches. The scientific knowledge underlying the analysis presents a holistic developing system called «scientific world view». A scientific view of the world singles out in its infinite variety those essential connections the cognition of which constitutes the main goal of science at this stage of its development. It acts as a specific form of systematization of scientific knowledge and at the same time is a reflection of a certain philosophical world view [2, p. 188]. A scientific world view is usually considered as the most general reflection of reality, in which all the scientific theories admitting mutual agreement are brought together in a systemic unity. In other words, a world view is a holistic system of ideas about the general principles and laws of life. A scientific world view gives man not only the knowledge but also understanding of how the world works, what laws it is governed by, what lies at its basis and what place man himself occupies in the universe. During revolutionary transformations of human society these ideas radically change [7, p. 34].
Being a holistic system of ideas about the general properties and laws of the objective world, a scientific world view is a complex structure that includes as its components the general scientific world view and scientific world views of individual sciences (disciplinary ontologies).
The scientific world view of disciplinary ontologies has a paradigmatic character. In the role of a paradigm it reflects the identity of beliefs, values, ethical rules and norms accepted by a certain part of the scientific community and ensuring the existence of a scientific tradition. These characteristics are built into the structure of a scientific world view and for a fairly long period define a stable system of knowledge that is disseminated using the mechanisms of learning, educating, upbringing, and popularization of scientific ideas.
To clarify the role and functions of a paradigm, T. Kuhn in his time introduced the scientific concept of «disciplinary matrix». Its analysis involves defining a group of scientists related to conducting a case study. In addition to general rules of scientific activity of this group of scientists, it is mandatory for it to have an analogous interpretation of the basic concepts used in science. Such a process provides a constructive exchange of views and recommendations in resolving the contradictions
that arise in the subject area of science and technologies of its research.
Many scientists are paying attention to the necessity of a permanent conceptual and categorical updating of the scientific world view. For example, V. Stepin writes, «Any cognition of the world, including the scientific, in each historical epoch is carried out in accordance with a certain «grid» of categories that fix a certain way of dividing the world and synthesizing its objects» [2, p. 261].
Today the compliance with this requirement is very important, since the nonlinear thinking used in the emerging post-nonclassical world view is saturated with specific terms. This complicates the spread of constructive technology solutions of problems of science and practice. As a result of studying various complex systems that are capable of self-organization, new nonlinear thinking develops, such characteristics as instability, irreversibility, and non-equilibrium come to the fore. These processes form not only a new world view but also a new language addressed to the problem of this new conceptual view within the framework of the problem under investigation [3, p. 5-17].
The visibility of the representations of scientific world views, the filling of them with a constructive terminological basis ensures their understanding not only by specialists in this field of knowledge but also by scientists specializing in other sciences and even by well-educated people who are not directly engaged in scientific activity.
As regards economics, this requirement is categorical. The point is that the behavioral model of economic theory that is being formed in the applied plane, though already has a history of development, but, firstly, is still not provided with the generally accepted methodological tools, and, secondly, it is built using the ideas, principles, technologies of various scientific disciplines of the humanities. This is said and written by many scientists related to various sections and hierarchical levels of this science (for example, [8-11], and others).
The disciplinary ontology of economic science should be built on basic categories, which, in turn, form the structures of concepts and theories of those disciplines that are attracted in order to more fully reflect the reality of economic phenomena and processes. The renewed (to be more exact, created) scientific world view of economic science from the point of view of philosophy is at the phenomenological stage. The qualitative realization of this stage will create prerequisites for the formation of a new paradigmatic basis of economic theory. The study of economic ontologies allows scientists: a) revising the categorical «dictionary» of the science, creating new (sometimes interdisciplinary) categories reflecting the current state of practice and science as well as their actual problems; b) carrying out an original purge of the scientific language, eliminating ambiguities and clarifying concepts; c) defining and formulating the world view and methodological prerequisites of economic theories, showing the interrelation of the latter with theoretical and practical achievements and problems of other sciences.
Certain ideas for updating the economic scientific world view can be found in the works of famous scientists and practicing businessmen. For example, the Ukrainian scientist
EKOHOMNHa Teoprn
A. Chukhno defines the direction of changing the accents of economic science, «Material wealth, which for centuries was the dominant form of wealth, at the highest level of civilization is inferior to the wealth of the human person. It becomes the main, dominant form of social wealth... Man cannot consume more than he needs. A different matter is socio-cultural and spiritual needs. There is no limit to their consumption. For there are no limits to the development of man, his abilities» [8, p. 45]. Another Ukrainian scientist, A. Gritsenko, in his article «The fundamental and current reasons for the renewal of classical political economy» writes, «The modern global crisis, which engulfed the whole society, has revealed contradictions and disproportions not only in the development of economy and finance but also in economic theory itself. The economic theory presented by the mainstream was not able to provide answers to the problems set by the time, explain the essence of the processes occurring in society and predict the main trends of development» [9, p. 45].
The Russian scientist Yu. Shvetsov believes that the laws of economics cannot be ethically emasculated; they must be inextricably linked with the inner world of a person and his/her spiritual and moral guidelines. Therefore, economic theory in its current form, with its complete rejection of the latter, has outlived itself and needs not just a revision of its individual elements but a complete rethinking of all methodological principles. «Modern economics, for which since time immemorial has been prepared the fate of tracing paper fixing the movement of material wealth in the communicating vessels of society entangled in the net of the market that is driven by it to a standstill, became a veritable theater of the absurd», writes the author [10, p. 53]. Further, he sets out his attitude to the opinion of other scientists. Nobel Laureate Robert Lucas, in no way embarrassed by his position, directly states the goal he pursues in his studies, «The construction of a mechanical, artificial world, populated by the interacting robots that economics typically studies...». Economic theory, in his opinion, is «something that can be put on a computer and run». Therefore, J. Kay is a thousand times right when he makes a deadly verdict, «The modern economist is the clinician with no patients, the engineer with no projects. And since these economists do not appear to engage with the issues that confront real businesses and actual households, the clients do not come» [10, p. 54].
The specialist in management O. Vihansky notes, «The market is dynamic and constantly changing. Entrepreneurs have to face unprecedented in scale and depth changes occurring today in both the national and global economy» [11, p. 20]. Management in its classical sense has died, as it teaches to operate the organization under rules. Now we need a nonstandard approach. One should manage differently and by all means better than his competitors. Then there is a chance to win. And it is necessary to rely on intellect, professional sense, analysis of the situation, strategic forecast. This is creativity [11, p. 22]. In the monograph «Business at the speed of thought»
B. Gates, one of the founders of the Microsoft empire, advises to use fundamentally new methods of business management and personnel management to succeed. His main recommendations are as follows: a) stop perceiving workers as cogs of
a complex machine, switch them to intellectual activity; b) increase the speed of adapting to changing situations, for it is it that the life and death of a corporation depends on; c) learn to turn bad news into the possibility of making non-standard decisions; d) constantly work to increase the total corporate IQ of the staff. It was through the use of non-traditional levers of influence on the staff that Bill Gates began to earn more than 6 thousand dollars per minute [12].
The content and changes in the world view of these people are not presented clearly in the scientific style by publications. But the analysis of the relevant literature showed that practical recommendations for building a scientific world view that are practically acceptable to be used in science are presented in the textbook on philosophy by P. Alekseev, A. Panin [13, p. 17]. The models of scientific world views, on the basis of which well-known scientific theories were built, are presented in Fig. 1.
Reason
■ Consequence
Necessity a)
Time
Matter
6)
Space
Motion
Fig. 1. Philosophical coordinates of a scientific world view
a) classical mechanics; b) the theory of relativity
P. Alekseev, A. Panin give an explanation of features of the relationship between the philosophical model of a world view and similar models of specific scientific disciplines, «We should pay attention to the following point: the impact of philosophy on the construction of individual theories is not integral but fragmentary, local. Only certain ideas, concepts (or their groups), separate philosophical principles possess the «penetrating» power. Particular scientific knowledge turns out to be selective not only in relation to various philosophical concepts but also in relation to various categories and principles within this philosophical system of categories» [13, p. 18]. Practice [14; 15] showed the expediency of transforming the system of its philosophical coordinates into the system of categories that determine the vector of attention of scientists in the subject area of the problem. A variant of the on-tognosiological scheme of such a modeling of a world view is shown in Fig. 2.
The presented model ensures studying the reserves of development of synergetic opportunities of the open system of economic and social processes at an enterprise that functions under conditions of increasing instability, non-equilibrium, nonlinearity of internal and external environment. On its basis it is possible to build models of organization of the processes, maintaining order in them or moving to a new order in the spiral of development. Based on the information in Fig. 2, it is possible to build a system and synergetic behavioral model of an enterprise, provide substantiation of the corresponding
EK0H0MÍ4Ha Teopiq
concept, its terminological support, principles and methods of research and transformation of the subject area, its qualitative and quantitative analysis.
A scientific world view in such a composition creates a basis, firstly, for a fruitful discussion of representatives of different disciplines having a common subject of research, and, secondly, for overcoming the institutional and cognitive barriers to professional mobility of scientists. It can also serve to promote the mobility of representatives of professional communities of research workers. An example of the realization of the latter role of a scientific world view is presented in the publication by A. Rodny [16].
а)
c)
Fig. 2. General scientific world view and coordinates of studying the socio-economic potential of the organization and the employee
a) epistemological world view; b) ontological coordinates of studying the potential of the organization; c) ontological coordinates of studying the potential of the employee
Conclusion
In general, the following conclusions can be drawn from the above materials. The speed of changes in life and their radical nature creates significant problems for mankind in conducting the timely investigation and transformation of the economic reality. Science is forced to look for new ways of studying crisis situations and developing recommendations for decision-making. The completeness of the study of complex critical situations is ensured by combining techniques and technologies of various disciplines of the humanities. The constructiveness of the interaction of scientists representing different ontological views of the world depends on improving the conceptual and categorical support of their dialogue. It is expedient to select as the next object of attention the study of possibilities for using the provisions of cognomics, case study, culturedigma, chaos, the «golden section», spiral dynamics of
consciousness, still timidly offering themselves for the «kitchen» of the academic economist when constructing a scientific world view.
LITERATURE
1. Колот А. M. 1нновацшна праця та Ытелектуальний каптал у систем^ фактсрв формування економти знань // Глобальна економта XXI столптя: людський вимiр: монографiя/Д. Г. Лук'яненко, A. M. Поручник, A. M. Колот, Я. M. Столярчук та ш. КиТв: КНЕУ, 2008. С. 93-104.
2. Степин В. С. Теоретическое знание: структура, историческая эволюция. M.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2000. 743 с.
3. Степин В. С. Саморазвивающиеся системы и постне-классическая рациональность. Вопросы философии. 2003. № 8. С. 5-17.
4. Бех В. П. Соц1альний мехаызм краТни. Запорiжжя: ЗДУ, 1996. 306 с.
5. Андрущенко В. П., Mихальченко M. I. Сучасна со^альна фiлософiя: курс лекцш. КиТв: Генеза, 1996. 368 с.
6. 1вакш О. А. Фiлософiя: навч.-метод. поаб. для учыв юрид. училища. Одеса: Астропринт, 2000. 128 с.
7. Опанасюк А. С. Наукова картина свггу: на порозi змши парадигми. Сучасна картина св'ту: 'нтеграця наукового та позанауковогознання. 2004. Вип. 3. С. 34-46.
8. Чухно А. Постиндустриальная экономика: теория, практика и их значение для Украины. Экономика Украины. 2001. № 11. С. 14-16; № 12. С. 42-49.
9. Гриценко А. А. Фундаментальные и актуальные основания обновления классической политической экономии. Горизонтыэкономики. 2012. № 2. С. 45-57.
10. Швецов Ю. Г. Научная несостоятельность современной экономической теории. Проблемы современной экономики. 2015. № 2. С. 53-57.
11. Виханский О. С. Эффективный менеджмент: красиво, но абсурдно // Mенеджмент. Век ХХ - век ХХ1: сборник статей. M.: Экономистъ, 2003. С. 20-29.
12. Гейтс Б. Бизнес со скоростью мысли. M.: ЭК^О, 2007.
480 с.
13. Алексеев П. В., Панин А. В. Философия: учебник. M.: Проспект, 1998. 568 с.
14. Doronina M. S. Behavioral Economics. The Research Methodology Background. Проблеми економiки. 2015. № 3. C. 237-243.
15. Doronina M. Ontognosiological backgrounds for studying enterprise socio-economic potential. The Advanced Science Journal: Multi-Disciplinary Open Access Journal. 2013. No. 12. P. 26-31.
16. Родный А. Н. Институциональные и когнитивные барьеры профессиональной мобильности ученых. Социология науки и техники. 2014. Том 5. № 4. С. 46-60.
REFERENCES
Andrushchenko, V. P., and Mykhalchenko, M. I. Suchasna sot-sialna filosofiia [Modern social philosophy]. Kyiv: Heneza, 1996.
Alekseyev, P. V., and Panin, A. V. Filosofiya [Philosophy]. Moscow: Prospekt, 1998.
Bekh, V. P. Sotsialnyi mekhanizm krainy [Social mechanism of the country]. Zaporizhzhia: ZDU, 1996.
EKOHOMÎHHa Teopia
Chukhno, A. «Postindustrialnaya ekonomika: teoriya, praktika i ikh znacheniye dlya Ukrainy« [Post-industrial economy: theory, practice and their significance for Ukraine]. Ekonomika Ukrainy, no. 11 (2001): 14-16; no. 12 (2001): 42-49.
Doronina, M. S. «Behavioral Economics. The Research Methodology Background«. Problemy ekonomiky, no. 3 (2015): 237-243.
Doronina, M. «Ontognosiological backgrounds for studying enterprise socio-economic potential« The Advanced Science Journal: Multi-Disciplinary Open Access Journal, no. 12 (2013): 26-31.
Gritsenko, A. A. «Fundamentalnyye i aktualnyye osnovaniya obnovleniya klassicheskoy politicheskoy ekonomii« [Fundamental and actual grounds for the renewal of classical political economy]. Gorizonty ekonomiki, no. 2 (2012): 45-57.
Geyts, B. Biznes so skorostyu mysli [Business with the speed of thought]. Moscow: EKSMO, 2007.
Ivakin, O. A. Filosofiia [Philosophy]. Odesa: Astroprynt, 2000.
Kolot, A. M. «Innovatsiina pratsia ta intelektualnyi kapital u systemi faktoriv formuvannia ekonomiky znan« [Innovative work and intellectual capital in the system of factors of formation of knowledge economy]. In Hlobalna ekonomika XXI stolittia: liudskyi vymir, 93-104. Kyiv: KNEU, 2008.
Opanasiuk, A. S. «Naukova kartyna svitu: na porozi zminy paradyhmy« [Scientific picture of the world: on the threshold of the paradigm shift]. Suchasna kartyna svitu: intehratsiia naukovoho tapozanaukovohoznannia, no. 3 (2004): 34-46.
Rodnyy, A. N. «Institutsionalnyye i kognitivnyye baryery professionalnoy mobilnosti uchenykh« [Institutional and cognitive barriers to professional mobility of scientists]. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhniki vol. 5, no. 4 (2014): 46-60.
Stepin, V. S. Teoreticheskoye znaniye: struktura, istoricheskaya evolyutsiya [Theoretical knowledge: structure, historical evolution]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2000.
Shvetsov, Yu. G. «Nauchnaya nesostoyatelnost sovremennoy ekonomicheskoy teorii« [Scientific insolvency of modern economic theory]. Problemy sovremennoy ekonomiki, no. 2 (2015): 53-57.
Stepin, V. S. «Samorazvivayushchiesya sistemy i postneklas-sicheskaya ratsionalnost« [Self-developing systems and post-non-classical rationality]. Voprosy filosofii, no. 8 (2003): 5-17.
Vikhanskiy, O. S. «Effektyvnyy menedzhment: krasivo, no ab-surdno« [Effective management: beautiful, but absurd]. In Menedzhment. VekXX- vekXXI, 20-29. Moscow: Ekonomist, 2003.
