It is necessary to clearly understand that in this case, significance acts as a separate characteristic of the study and relates to its results. This means that it is possible to give a final answer about the significance, so to speak, by filling out the appropriate section only after the scientific work is completed. However, this does not mean that the researcher remembers significance only at the end of the journey and does not think about it at the beginning. On the contrary, the entire course of research is subordinated to the need to obtain new knowledge; all other methodological characteristics are oriented towards it. Actually, in a broad sense, this is the purpose and meaning of scientific work - to obtain such knowledge. To a first approximation, the question of significance arose at the stage of justifying the relevance and defining the subject. Then it was necessary to indicate what new knowledge should be obtained. New knowledge in the form of assumptions was put forward in a hypothesis and in defended provisions. But now the work is completed. Now, when comprehending and evaluating its results, it is necessary to give a specific answer to the question of its significance: what has been done that has not been done by others, what results have been obtained for the first time? If there is no convincing answer to this question, serious doubt may arise about the meaning and value of the entire work.

At this stage, the correlation of the main methodological characteristics is manifested: the more specifically the problem is formulated and the subject of the research is highlighted, the practical and scientific relevance of the topic is shown, the clearer it is to the researcher himself what exactly he did for the first time, what his specific contribution to the research is. In the case when each of the characteristics included in the system mutually reinforces and complements the other, this system acts as an integral indicator of the quality of the research conducted. It is clear that such an indicator is not the only and final criterion for evaluating scientific work.

How is the significance of the results indicated in the practice of scientific research? Recently, there have been fewer purely formal “unsubscribes” on this matter, when the “new” actually turned out to be not new, and sometimes not even “well-forgotten old,” but simply old.

The description (mention) of significance turns out to be insufficient because it is difficult to judge from it whether the work has actually been carried out and what its results are in essence. A meaningful assessment of the quality of research work requires a meaningful presentation of significant results. A clear understanding of what they are is necessary. It would be unreasonable to expect each author to fully present the results of the study within the framework of this methodological characteristic. For this there are other forms of presentation and other sections of the work.

A description of significance seems legitimate in cases where the full statement of the results is given in another section of the scientific text. And yet you should not deviate from the general rule - if possible, specify all the provisions developed by the researcher. Compliance with this rule will facilitate the assessment and self-assessment of the student's work and will, to some extent, ensure that nothing significant in the work will be missed. Why is new knowledge needed? This is not a rhetorical question. The new knowledge gained as a result of the research is most likely really needed. But where and for what can it be useful? In relation to a specific, individual study, the question is formulated as follows: what is the significance of its results for science and for practice?

The two remaining characteristics of research - its significance for theory (science) and for practice - have to be addressed at least twice, at the beginning and at the end of the path. At the first stage of the research, the significance for science and practice of its intended results is determined in general terms, and this is done not specifically, not separately, but in connection with the distinction between a practical task and a problem in determining the topic and purpose of the work.

At this stage, it is illogical to identify such preliminary ideas explicitly as separate characteristics and assign special headings for them. This should be done at the final stage, when new results have already been obtained and you need to think about how they can now be used. Here the definition must be explicit, meaningful and specific. It is necessary to show for which area of ​​science and practice the result obtained is significant, and in what respect new knowledge improves this area.

The significance of the results obtained for the theory is determined by the problems, concepts, and branches of knowledge in which changes are made aimed at the development of science, replenishing its content. It is important to keep in mind one significant difference between two methodological characteristics: on the one hand, novelty, on the other, the significance for science of the results obtained. By characterizing the novelty of the results, the researcher remains within the framework of the tasks he has set and shows what new knowledge he has gained by solving them. The significance of the new knowledge acquired is revealed in relation to other areas of knowledge, to scientific work that is yet to come in the future.

Determining the scientific significance of a study is critical to its evaluation. Let's imagine that our work has no significance for science. Then it cannot be called scientific. Meanwhile, precisely this very important area of ​​methodological reflection is often approached formally, without distinguishing between methodological characteristics that determine different directions of thought: on the one hand, novelty, on the other, significance for science. We will have to dwell specifically on this pressing problem.

The problem is relevant because the authors of many works, without thinking that what is new is not necessarily the best and most useful, believe that the novelty of the results and their significance for science are one and the same. The author needs and values ​​results. Of course, they are, as they say, personally significant for him. But what significance they have for science in general and for solving specific scientific problems in particular can be useful - authors do not always think about this. They often combine multidirectional characteristics as if they were one and the same thing: the novelty and significance of the results obtained for science. Naturally, the substantive definition of scientific significance corresponds to the same definition of the significance of the work for practice.

The listed characteristics constitute a system, all elements of which should ideally correspond to each other and complement each other. By the degree of their consistency one can judge the quality of the scientific work itself. In this case, the system of methodological characteristics will act as a general indicator of its quality. It should not be forgotten, however, that the presence of all the listed signs and characteristics does not provide an absolute guarantee of the quality and effectiveness of research work. Much depends on the attitude towards the matter. If the parameters outlined here for determining the quality of a study based on its methodological characteristics do not become personally significant for the researcher, and the requirements are perceived by him as formal, they will bring little benefit to him. But for opponents, their formal nature will be in itself an indicator useful for assessing quality.

Thus, in the subsection of the introduction “Theoretical and practical significance of the research” it is noted that the author managed to achieve something new in comparison with what was known in theory and practice in the process of his research activities. This section teaches the student to see and highlight what he managed to obtain new through his research activities in comparison with what was previously known.

Considering that we are talking about a student’s scientific work, the requirements for novelty are not high compared to, for example, a dissertation work. When opening this section, the following wording is used: in a scientific work (during the research process), ______ is clarified,... is supplemented, the influence (manifestation) of _________ is identified, __________ is described, etc.

Thus, the scientific and practical significance of the problem under study shows what significance the results obtained by the student during the research can have and where they may be used or are already being used in practice. In other words, it shows who needs what the student has done and why.

Successful defense of a master's thesis is the basis for awarding an academic master's degree, indicating the level of education of a graduate of an educational institution. A master's thesis differs from a bachelor's final qualifying work in the most thorough theoretical and practical analysis of the issues under study, as well as the scientific novelty of the research.

The significance of novelty can hardly be overestimated - in his project, the master’s student not only analyzes the existing practice and development of the issue being studied, but also brings up for discussion existing theoretical and practical problems of the current state of the topic being studied

However, in order for a master’s student’s project to receive a positive assessment, it is necessary to distinguish the elements of scientific novelty of the research.

What is the scientific novelty of research

The definition of the novelty of research results was formulated by scientists on the basis of certain characteristics that should be characteristic of a final qualifying work written in the form of a master's thesis.

The master's project must be innovative in the topic under study; the author analyzes and summarizes existing phenomena and trends in the issue under consideration, puts forward well-founded hypotheses and provisions, substantiates the need to use new or modify existing methods of management, forecasting, planning, and brings up new definitions for discussion.

Scientists have also identified levels of novelty, which consist of three definitions - specification, addition, transformation.

When choosing a topic, it is necessary to remember that in order to write a work, the purpose of which is to formulate innovative provisions, it is necessary to study theoretical and practical issues that are of research interest, are not sufficiently covered in science or have problems of application in practice. We also must not forget about the relevance of the chosen topic.

Thus, in a global sense, the goal of almost any research and development work is to find new ways to solve socio-economic problems, which consist in the application of new or existing optimized techniques and methodologies for achieving set goals in production and non-production areas of activity that are important for the successful development of society .

These are the necessary elements of scientific novelty of a master's thesis that a master's thesis project should have.

Scientific novelty of the master's thesis. Peculiarities. Examples

The author will be able to prove the scientific novelty of the results of his research if, at the defense of the research project, he convincingly and consistently reveals the scientific value of his project in theory, as well as the real need to apply the research findings in practice.

Important! It should be noted that the most significant argument in favor of the research value presented to defend the master's hypotheses is a patent or copyright certificate for short stories in the subject under consideration, which the author received on the basis of his personal research.

Such evidence of novelty is considered a priori indisputable and has a certain significance in the context of the need to successfully defend a dissertation.

But even in the absence of such serious support in the work, it is possible to limit ourselves to a clear and serious argumentation of the novelty of the results and their practical significance.

As a rule, in master's theses the number of signs of scientific novelty should be at least two. These include:

• previously unstudied research object; what is new?
• application of previously used methods to a new research object;
• application of a new method to a previously studied object of study;
• formulation of already studied problems or tasks in new conditions;
• new consequences from previously studied facts in new conditions;
• new or improved methodologies, solution methods, techniques, tools.

An example of justification for scientific novelty is given in the following table.

Table 1.

Research methods in master's thesis

The choice of research methods should be written separately. Often, the wrong choice of research methods leads to a low assessment of the quality of the results obtained. It must be remembered that research methods can be general scientific, characteristic of any branch of science (analysis, synthesis, deduction, etc.) or special, used in specific areas (for example, in economics - modeling).

An example of a qualitative study of a chosen topic is the use of several methods in combination. Various forms of obtaining data are also welcome

For example, in psychology or economics a combination of testing and modeling is practiced. The results of such forms applied within one study need to be studied and explored in conjunction. The data obtained should not contradict each other. In the course of research, the author receives intermediate results, which should complement and connect each other in a logical sequence, confirm the author’s hypothesis and lead to the final overall result of the master’s student’s work.

A kind of “insurance” against a low assessment of the quality of work is a visual presentation of the results obtained in the form of slide shows, edited videos, built on interactive boards of graphs and diagrams.

Advice!Such demonstrations should be colorful, as well as the clarity of the conclusions of the final qualifying work.

Advice!For ease of perception, you should not write a large amount of text on a slide or mounted video frames.

Remember that the presentation is only a supplement to the scientifically based formulations and definitions disclosed in the work.

Scientific significance and scientific novelty of the problem under study

The scientific significance of the work means that the master’s student’s opinion on the topic under study concerns issues that have not previously been considered or have been insufficiently studied. To analyze the degree of knowledge, the author must turn to the works of scientists and specialists. In practice, if a candidate for a master's degree limited himself to studying only a single point of view on an issue (for example, the one held by the majority of scientists), but did not write about alternative opinions, this is grounds for deeming the quality of the research low.

The chosen topic, if possible, should be covered from different points of view of recognized authorities in the field of science, but the author must present new arguments, which consist of the obtained research data, as well as in the conditions of modern realities (for example, in economics - the introduction of economic sanctions against Russia)

To justify the significance of the project, a master’s student can cite definitions that were first formulated and scientifically proven; methods and methodologies, the application of which can achieve new, improved results.

Many experts distinguish the identification of new trends, patterns of development of various branches of science as signs of the novelty of a scientific result.

Also, if a researcher in his work wrote and, accordingly, proved that the study of the chosen topic is based on theoretical formulations and definitions that deepen the understanding of the essence of phenomena and processes, mechanisms of interaction, then he may well lay claim to scientific and practical novelty.

When defending the work, it is necessary to remember that the formulation of elements of novelty is optimally carried out using the example of the following scheme:

Relevance of the master's thesis and practical significance

The relevance and practical significance of the work are related to the definition of the research topic, which is not just the title of the work, but a precisely result-oriented choice of the segment of the scientific field that should be written about in the project. The author must obtain, examine and connect the data obtained, and also have a vision of the situation as a whole - an awareness of the final result of the work.

The formulation of the relevance of the project is the result of a master’s student’s research, aimed at solving a problem in the field of social activity or relations in society in modern conditions.

Important! It should be noted that it is necessary to write not only about the positive data obtained as a result of the research, but also to include in the work negative experience, which is no less valuable practical material. The scientific novelty and practical significance of the project directly depends on the availability of the totality of new data obtained.

What is the difference between scientific novelty and provisions submitted for defense?

The scientific novelty of the dissertation is, rather, a characterizing component of the research conducted, which determines the innovative nature of the data obtained during the writing of the work.

The provisions submitted for defense are, in fact, those new, reliably established facts or knowledge obtained in the course of research conducted as part of the dissertation, previously unknown to science.

The master's thesis is the student's first step into the world of discoveries in the field of science, the next most important work is the candidate's thesis.

As already noted, the purpose of the research is to obtain new knowledge for society.

Theoretical significance- this is a sign, the presence of which gives the author the right to use the concept “for the first time” when characterizing the results he obtained and the research conducted as a whole. Most often, the theoretical significance comes down to the so-called element of novelty. Elements of novelty can be present both in theoretical provisions (regularity, principle, concept, hypothesis, etc.) and in practical results (rules, recommendations, tools, methods, requirements, etc.) and reflects possible prospects for using the obtained results for further work to solve other problems.

It should be noted that when it comes to coursework or thesis, this requirement remains, but is not so categorical. For these scientific works, the novelty of the results may be subjective and determined not in relation to society, but in relation to the researcher. In this case, the work performed may represent a simulation of solutions known in science (society).

When it comes to a candidate's dissertation, the requirement to obtain new knowledge for society is mandatory.

What can constitute the novelty of a diploma or course research?

1. Studying a phenomenon known to everyone at the level of common sense using special scientific methods and thereby turning it into a scientifically established fact. For example, the phenomenon of Rosa Kuleshova and A.N. Leontiev’s experiment on the formation of nonspecific color sensitivity. The phenomenon of Rosa Kuleshova lies in the fact that, according to eyewitnesses, she could read printed text with her fingers. A.N. Leontyev decided to test this evidence experimentally.

2. Study of a phenomenon already known in science using new experimental material. In this case, new knowledge is obtained due to the characteristics of the experimental sample of subjects on which the study of characteristics is carried out, for example, ethnic, sociocultural, professional, age.

3. Transition from a qualitative description of facts known in science to their precisely defined quantitative characteristics.

4. Study of a psychic phenomenon known in science using more advanced methods. For example, moving from one tenth to one hundredth of a second when measuring reaction time is beneficial for obtaining new results.

5. Comparison, comparative analysis of the course of mental processes. For example, involuntary, voluntary attention, memory in normal and mentally ill people, volitional processes in drug addicts and alcoholics.

6. Changed conditions for the occurrence of the mental process. For example, thinking in zero gravity and normal conditions.

1. The theoretical significance of the study “Research training of gifted adolescents” is defined as follows: “The results obtained expand the understanding of the processes of organizing the educational activities of gifted children.”

2. The theoretical significance of the study “Features of the emotional states of creative children” is determined as follows:

The theoretical significance of the study is as follows:

A correspondence has been established between classes of emotional phenomena and the sphere of individual needs.

The criteria for constructing a diagnostic methodology for the state of the emotional sphere for children of the first and second periods of childhood have been identified.

The features of the emotional sphere of children with different levels of creativity have been identified."

Practical significance research - justification of where and how the materials of the work can be used: in solving one or another practical problem on their basis; in conducting further scientific research; in the use of the obtained data in the process of training certain specialists, in school practice....

The practical significance of the work may consist in the development of a system of correctional work, a program for the formation of any quality, methods for diagnosing individual qualities, properties, conditions, the development of psychological and pedagogical recommendations, etc.

When describing the practical significance of the research, it is necessary to identify a section of practical activity in which it is useful to apply the research result to correct a specific shortcoming.

For example,

“The developed and tested program for the development of students’ general academic skills can be used by teachers of secondary schools to correct the underachievement of younger schoolchildren.”

The practical significance of the study is determined by the possibility of applying its results in the practice of secondary schools."

The practical significance of research results depends on

· the number and composition of users interested in the results of the work; scale of implementation (district, region, country);

· degree of readiness of results for implementation (initial, main, final);

· expected socio-economic effect from implementation.

It can be classified by levels:

1. The practical significance of the study is very high:

a) the results of the study are important for the entire field of didactics, theory and education, school science and other areas;

b) a very wide range of consumers are interested in the results of the study;

c) the scale of implementation is nationwide;

d) implementation of the results obtained in practice is economically feasible;

e) the research results are ready for implementation; regulatory materials, programs, textbooks, and instructions for teacher activities have been developed.

2. The practical significance of the study is low:

a) the results of the study are important for solving secondary particular methodological issues;

b) the research results are not of interest to most users;

c) scale of implementation - individual schools, classes;

d) implementation of the results obtained in practice is not economically feasible;

e) the research results are not ready for implementation.

Formulation of the problem

The historian can study two kinds of historical possibilities. The first type is possibility as an assumption about events of the historical past unknown to us. Reality here does not take into account our guesses. On the contrary, our guesses and alternative models for filling in the “blank spots” of history must be consistent with reality. The second type of possibility implies a situation when a reality that has not yet come to fruition is thought of as the realization of one of the alternatives (from the Latin alter - one or the other of two - the possibility or necessity of something different in relation to the given), and the possibility is thought of as properties of an existing historical situation, causing a change in this situation.

Our study is devoted to the second type of possibilities, its study in historical science and its properties as a phenomenon of historical consciousness and as a phenomenon of the historical past. The choice of topic is determined by the formulation of the following initial problems: 1) What is the place and role of the idea of ​​alternative historical development in Russian historical science? 2) Is the alternative development in the historical past only a useful applied analytical train of thought and is related only to intellectual historical reflection, or does it also have a self-pressing theoretical meaning and special concrete historical content? This formulation of problems determines the presence of two interrelated and complementary components of the work - historiographical and methodological.

The alternative nature of historical development is one of the most functional phenomena of historical consciousness. Awareness or denial of the possibility of a different course of events is often the main reason for turning to the past. When does the awareness of alternative historical development arise? Probably when historians begin to explain the course of events not by the will of the gods, but by the will of man. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli’s already famous book “The Prince” (“The Prince”) is filled with reasoning in the subjunctive mood. However, the search for the original historiographical sources of the theme of alternativeness is not part of our tasks. The work is devoted only to the period when the alternative nature of historical development is recognized as a special methodological problem requiring special study.

Two fundamental opposing approaches can be identified in the study of the alternative nature of the past. In the first case, the historian does not go beyond the past; he considers the possibilities actually contained in the past. Moreover, when answering the question “could it have been different?”, different historians can give radically opposite answers in relation to the same historical situation. There is a different approach to understanding the alternative nature of historical development, which involves going beyond the boundaries of past history and counterfactual modeling of events. In this case, the historian may be guided by opposing goals. The first purpose of appealing to failed history is to prove that only what happened could have happened. The second goal is to prove that everything could have been different, and an option opposite to the actual past could have been realized.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the above approaches? How can they be applied in the practice of historical research? What problems that cannot be solved with other approaches can be productively solved through the study of alternative historical development? What theoretical directions exist in understanding the multivariate nature of history in Russian historiography? How did these areas develop? What are the relationships and contradictions between them? What gaps exist in understanding the problem of alternativeness and how can they be filled? These are the main questions that the dissertation is devoted to.

Object and subject of research

The object of the historiographical part of the study is the work of domestic scientists devoted to the problem of alternative historical development. The subject of research here is the historiographical, theoretical, methodological and discursive characteristics of the development of the idea of ​​alternativeness in Russian historical science

The object of the methodological part of the study is the alternative nature of historical development as a phenomenon of historical consciousness and as a phenomenon of the historical past. Subject of study in this case - metaphysical, logical, socio-psychological foundations and empirical methods for studying the alternative nature of historical development.

Goals and objectives of the study

The study has two main objectives.

The first goal: to trace the development of the study of the problem of alternativeness in domestic historical science and to characterize the experience accumulated in these studies. Within the framework of this goal, the following tasks are set: 1. Identify the stages of development and theoretical directions in the study of the problem of alternativeness. 2. Summarize and evaluate the contribution of each stage to the study of the problem. 3. Conduct a critical analysis of theoretical directions using methods of discourse analysis and system analysis. 4. Highlight insufficiently studied aspects of the alternative nature of historical development.

The second goal: to conduct a methodological analysis of insufficiently studied aspects in the study of alternative historical development and try to fill the gaps in this area. Within the framework of the second goal, the following tasks are set: 1. To establish the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of the phenomenon of alternative historical development. 2. Systematize the categorical, terminological and methodological apparatus used in the study of alternativeness. 3. Develop new methods for studying alternative historical situations.

Methodological grounds

Based on previous experience in studying the problem of alternative historical development, an attempt will be made to develop a new approach to understanding this problem. On this path, preference is given not to declaring final answers to questions, but to establishing criteria for the correct formulation of questions and answers. The complexity and multidimensionality of the problem required a comprehensive interdisciplinary consideration, but comprehensiveness should not destroy integrity and give rise to eclecticism. Therefore, the dominant methodological principle will be the search for a synthesis of various concepts used in comprehending the alternative nature of historical development.

The appeal in the work to the ideas of metaphysics in the works of classical philosophers is justified by the fact that the category of free will has a fundamental role for the concept of alternative historical development. The problem of free will belongs to those fundamental problems that outside of metaphysics cannot not only be solved, but also posed. Since history, unlike philosophy, studies not meanings in general, but meanings “documented in time,” special attention will be paid to the connection of metaphysical foundations with empirical methods.

Research methods

The problem of alternative historical development was studied from the point of view of its socio-psychological origins, the continuity of original schools, the formation and transformation of new approaches, therefore the main principle of the study will be historicism.

Since the development of a certain topic and idea is being studied, it is considered necessary to use the method of analyzing discursive practices (M. Foucault).

When studying an alternative situation, the historian deals primarily with information about the system of events. Therefore, systems analysis methods will be used ( F. I. Peregudov, F. P. Tarasenko, V. N Kostyuk).

One of the directions in the study of historical alternatives is the use of quantitative methods, therefore, when analyzing these directions, some principles of methods of higher mathematics will be used. The works of A. N. Kolmogorov, S. A. Aivazyan, N. N. Moiseev are used as support for competent specialists.

Scientific significance of the topic

A non-alternative understanding of development at the conceptual level provides the researcher with a convenient basis for selecting facts that confirm his theory and ignoring facts that diverge from it. Sometimes this can lead to the disappearance of motives for searching for new facts and new explanations for known facts. There are historical phenomena that, with no alternative vision of history, do not even fall into the field of view of the historian.

Thus, according to P. Yu. Uvarov, in the French history of the 15th century, along with the victorious model of a centralized monarchy and nation-state, there was a “Burgundian alternative”, actually represented by the state of the Dukes of Burgundy. “This trend was not realized - the accidental death of Charles the Bold put an end to this “experiment”, and Burgundy fell apart. This result seemed so convincing to the supporters of the “linear model” of historical evolution that the history of the lands of the Duke of Burgundy acquired among them the status of a typical “misunderstanding”, an instructive zigzag of history, corrected by the laws of historical necessity. From the French "General Histories" history of the Netherlands in the 15th century. completely disappeared. This could be explained by the peculiarities of French historiography as an element of national identity,” but our historians do not have a word about the political history of the Burgundian state. “Such a state did not exist, because it was “wrong” and had no future.” Thus, insufficient knowledge of the problem of alternative historical development may hamper the full development of historical science.

Common phrases that history does not have (does not know, does not tolerate, does not allow, does not love, does not have) the subjunctive mood, or that historical science excludes (it is not applicable, not permissible in it) the subjunctive mood, have literally filled journalism, and partly the arguments of professional historians. This phenomenon could become an interesting object of study for memetics - a science that describes in genetic terms the reproduction, distribution, selection, mutation and death of memes - elementary units, quanta of culture. Such information quanta - memes, can also include formulated ideas, literary clichés and phrases used by the authors of printed works. The life of a meme can be imagined by analogy with the trajectory of the spread of a virus, which can only exist in the cell of an infected carrier. The carriers of the meme “history has no subjunctive mood” in our case are the arguments of historians devoted to historical experience, “lessons of history,” the choices made by subjects of historical activity in critical situations, unexpected changes in the course of events under the influence of accidents.

It is characteristic that after or before the statement about the inadmissibility of the subjunctive mood in history, reasoning in the subjunctive mood is very often heard. This, on the one hand, shows the need for this very “subjunctive mood” in the study of the historical past, and on the other hand, indicates the absence, or at least underdevelopment, of methodological reflection on this problem. For a significant part of domestic historians, the entire methodology on this issue most often comes down to another meme, namely: “one should study what could have been in order to understand why everything happened exactly the way it did and not otherwise.” It seems that the problem of alternative historical development, due to its importance and complexity, should not be reduced to the functioning of memes.

Degree of knowledge of the problem

There are still no general historiographic works on the study of the problem of alternativeness in Russian historical science. Some authors provide very brief reviews of several works. Meanwhile, the critical mass of author's publications on the topic of alternativeness has reached such a limit that special research in this area is required.

Domestic historical science has accumulated quite extensive and original experience in studying the problem of alternativeness, which needs generalization, creative comprehension and development. Here, first of all, it is necessary to consider the contribution of methodologists M. Ya. Gefter, A. Ya. Gurevich, I. D. Kovalchenko, M. A. Barga, E. M. Zhukova, B. G. Mogilnitsky, P. V. Volobueva, Yu. M. Lotman. Among the latest works, the studies of S. stand out. A. Ekshtut and L.I. Borodkina. The works of N. Ya. Eidelman, A. D. Sukhov, V. B. Kobrin, E. A. were also considered. Nikiforova, E. G. Plimaka, I. K. Pantina, I. M. Klyamkina, G. G. Vodolazova, Ya. G. Shemyakina, V. V. Ivanova I. V. Bestuzhev-Lada A. S. Akhiezera, A.V. Korotaeva, M. S. Kagana, V. B Lukov and V. M. Sergeev, Yu. P. Bokarev, S. F. Grebenichenko, S. B. Pereslegin and many others.

The works of foreign authors who addressed the problem of alternativeness in history are also involved: M. Blok, D. Milo, R.Koselleck, L. Mises, A. J. Toynbee, R. Vogel, E. Anksel, A. Demanda, K. Maxey, N. Fergusson and others.

Despite the solid history of development, the new direction of scientific analysis has not yet been fully formed, not only in domestic science, but also abroad. There is not only a proven methodology, but not even a generally accepted name. The concepts of “alternative development”, “multivariate history”, “alternative studies”, “retro-alternative studies”, “retroprognostics”, “virtual history”, “failed history”, “counterfactual modeling” are used. No coordination is sought between all these directions. Such concepts as “historical possibility”, “historical probability”, “historical accident”, “freedom of choice” are used everywhere, but are not sufficiently conceptualized theoretically and methodically mastered. The dissertation work is an attempt to overcome these shortcomings.

Novelty of the dissertation research

The novelty in the historiographical part of the work, in addition to the first generalized study of the issues, was contained in the application of the method of analysis of discursive practices to the study of the role and place of the ideas of K. Marx and F. Engels in the study of the problem of alternative historical development in Soviet historical science. Discourse analysis is also used to characterize the understanding of alternativeness in history by M. Ya. Gefter and to criticize the use of the concepts of synergetics in historical knowledge.

The novelty was also contained in the development of a correct definition of historical contingency, in some new principles for the classification of historical possibilities, in highlighting such an aspect of the problem as the relationship between the choice of a historian and the choice of a subject of historical activity, in posing the problem of the incorrect use of mathematical methods in the study from the point of view of mathematics and system analysis historical alternatives and in criticism carried out from these positions.

When searching for metaphysical philosophical foundations for the theoretical study of alternativeness in history, areas of intersection or complementarity, as well as methods of mutual verification or falsification for antinomianism (Kant), dialectics (Hegel), intuitionism (A. Bergson, N.O. Lossky, S.A.) were established. Levitsky), existentialism (S. Kierkegaard, M. Heidegger, J.-P. Sart), positivism (P.S. Laplace) and neopositivism (L. Wittgenstein, K. Hempel). Such a synthesis in relation to the problem of alternativeness in history also constitutes novelty.

When using probabilistic logic for the theoretical study of the alternative nature of historical development, the complementarity and mutual verifiability of the concepts of probability of Leibniz, A. will be considered. A. Markov, R. Mises, A. N. Kolmogorov, R. Carnap, J. Keynes, G. Reichenbach, L. Zadeh in the study of historical probability. Based on the concepts of probabilistic logic, an attempt will be made to develop a new methodology for empirical analysis of the probabilistic picture of the historical situation.

Relevance of the research topic

The scientific significance of the problem of alternative historical development is closely related to the current problems of modern socio-economic and political practice. Failure to understand the multi-variant nature of historical development in the past leads to a lack of understanding of the multi-variant nature of the future in conditions of constant variability of the current situation, which can lead to irreversible mistakes. Suffice it to recall the declaration that there was no alternative to shock therapy in Russia in the early 90s. Political levers were thrown to silence other opinions. Everyone knows the catastrophic result for Russia. It was the logic of no alternative that gave rise to the theory of Russia’s permanent “lag” and “catching up” with the West, which does not recognize that this is not a lag, but other forms of development.

Of course, non-recognition of alternative development is characteristic not only of the historical consciousness of Russians. For example, guided by the concept of no alternative, advisers to US presidents destroyed the economies of Africa and Latin America for their own good, for the sake of progressive development, but development along one path in which there can be no alternatives.

In search of historical origins and historical lessons for the modern situation, historical consciousness tends to turn to analogies with the past in the subjunctive mood. So in 1990-1991, the image of Stolypin became very popular. The former “reactionary” and “hangman” turned into a hero. Then, in August 1991, the focus shifted to the February Revolution. Then they started talking about the danger of a “new October”.

M. N. Pokrovsky’s thesis that “history is politics thrown back into the past” remains relevant despite all the political and historiographical upheavals. Historical arguments in the subjunctive mood have become another weapon in the “war for the past.” A failed but possible story has become one of the “battlefields” in the information wars of modern propaganda. In this regard, the study of historiographical and methodological aspects of alternativeness in history, in addition to scientific, may also have social and practical significance, namely: to contribute to the accumulation of a theoretical basis for planning and conducting “attacks” and “counterattacks” in information wars, to remain aloof from which the historian is unlikely to succeed fully.

What was glasnost during perestroika, if not a large-scale information war aimed at discrediting the Soviet regime? And the theme of alternative history (for example, “if the communists had not done what they did in the past, we would have lived better now”) was one of the main ones in this war.

In general terms, the processes occurring with humanity at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries are usually called the term “globalization”. Globalization involves many development alternatives and opposing trends. One of the main trends in the modern world is the decentralization of political power, caused by the avalanche-like progress of the scientific and technological revolution, its global nature and universal impact on all aspects of social life, the massive development of means of communication, the transnational nature of economic centers, reducing the need for traditional centers of political power. At the same time, ethnic and nationalist groups are recognized as the most effective and efficient subjects of decentralization of state power at the current, first, stage of globalization. This is due to the fact that established state borders, as a rule, do not correspond to real ethnic, linguistic and territorial unities. An encouraging influence on such groups can, in the near future, lead to the formation of new small state entities and open up the possibility of their participation in various economic unions.

With regard to the topic of alternativeness, such trends were reflected primarily in PR campaigns aimed at supporting centrifugal and separatist movements in the territory of the former USSR. In state and ethnic entities that have ever had independence or belonged to another state, it is very common to argue that life in these regions would have been better if they had not once been annexed to the USSR or Russia. Or that life in countries that were not part of the USSR would be worse if they joined the USSR (for example, Finland, which claims to return Karelia). Such reasoning is especially typical for the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Tatarstan, etc. To verify this without raising the entire press, it is enough to make an appropriate request on the Internet, for example this: subjunctive&&history&&name of the country.

For Russia, three development options can be seen regarding the processes of globalization. The first is a refusal to participate in globalization, that is, a kind of autarky, which means the destruction of Russia as a power. This option has little chance, and if implemented, it will be reversible. The second option is self-elimination from the main roles in globalization and becoming its passive object. That is, Russia becomes a raw materials appendage, “the tenth contractor of third corporations.” This option is very beneficial for many small officials and market operators in Russia, and, naturally, for the international economic elite. And the third, the only worthy option is active globalization, the creation of some kind of Russian strategy.

Looking at these prospects from the point of view of using the problem of the alternativeness of the historical past in political propaganda, we can assume that the forces seeking to implement the second option will try to belittle the historical role of Russia, disavow its potential for mobilization in critical historical situations and overestimate this potential for the West , to create disbelief among Russians in revival. When choosing the third option, it becomes necessary to respond to such attacks, and there are already examples of such confrontation. Thus, in the article “The Caribbean Crisis: Counterfactual Modeling of a Possible Outcome,” I. A. Kopylov, head of the group of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, and S. A. Modestov, adviser to the Personnel Directorate of the President of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Political Sciences, criticize the reasoning of American historians that the behavior of the administration Khrushchev in the early 60s, from the point of view of military-strategic potential, was a bluff and an unjustified adventure, and the United States could have defeated the USSR in the event of a more stringent response. The authors of the article note that “the intensified interest in unrealized historical opportunities is associated by American colleagues with the missed opportunities of the strong, who overestimated the potential of the weak. All the counterfactual versions of the past they consider have in mind the same distressing circumstance: the issue could have been resolved with the enemy earlier, easier and cheaper.”

The main thing that a historian who finds himself in a situation of information war should not forget is that the imposition of political interests on historical science is fraught with distortion of the past and undermining trust in historians as servants of scientific truth. This should be taken into account in modern conditions of another alternative situation of social development.

Chronological framework of the study

The chronological framework of the study can be determined on two grounds: historiographical and specific historical.

The first chapter is devoted to domestic historiography since the mid-1960s. until 2001. The second chapter discusses the work, starting from the end XIX century..

The specific historical framework is determined by the themes and plots that were touched upon by domestic and foreign authors in connection with the theme of alternative history. These frameworks cover fragments of human history from primitiveness to modern times. For the same reasons, the territorial-spatial historical framework is not limited, although the greatest attention is paid to Russian and European history.

Dissertation structure

The structure of the dissertation is subordinated to the goals and objectives of the research. The work consists of an introduction, 2 chapters, a conclusion, a list of sources and references. The first chapter is historiographical with methodological comments. It consists of 8 sections, the information in which is systematized according to chronology and authorship of works. The second chapter is methodological with historiographical comments. It consists of main 5 sections. The information in the second chapter is systematized according to the problem principle.

The sources of historiographic research are the works of domestic authors who studied the theoretical or specific historical aspects of the problem of alternative historical development, including materials from round tables devoted to this topic. When analyzing the methodological aspects of the problem of alternativeness, the works of foreign historians on this topic were used, as well as the philosophical works of representatives of German classical philosophy, positivism, Marxism, existentialism, intuitionism, neopositivism, and postmodernism. The works of domestic and foreign mathematicians were used as auxiliary material when applying the concepts and methods of higher mathematics.

In modern conditions of the development of scientific thought, any scientific research must be socially significant, contain new scientific information, generalize the best experience, solve new theoretical problems, and reveal methods for using theory in specific conditions of activity. That is, any scientific research must be relevant in modern conditions of scientific development and contain elements of scientific novelty.

Relevance of scientific research

The relevance of scientific research is determined by the fact that its results will contribute to solving specific practical problems or will help eliminate existing theoretical contradictions in the field of accounting as a whole or in its individual areas. The relevance of scientific research is justified, first of all, by the novelty of the results obtained in the process of its implementation, on the basis of which new theoretical principles can be established and ways of their application for the specific practical needs of accounting practice can be determined.

Domestic and foreign scientists interpret the concept of the relevance of scientific research differently (Table 10.4).

Table 10.4

Definitions of "relevance of scientific research"

In scientific research in the field of accounting, certain types of relevance are distinguished (Fig. 10.2):

Rice. 10.2. Types of relevance of scientific research in the field of accounting

For example, a scientist who conducts research in the field of accounting on the topic “Accounting and cost control in the management system of forestry enterprises” can justify the relevance of his research as follows:

1. The study of cost accounting methods at forestry enterprises is relevant in connection with significant changes in current legislation, namely in connection with the adoption of the Tax Code of Ukraine.

2. Taking into account the changes made to the current national accounting provisions (standards), it is relevant to study the classification characteristics of expenses of forestry enterprises in order to improve their analytical accounting.

3. In connection with the ongoing process of reforming the tax legislation of Ukraine, the issue of developing new forms of primary tax documents, namely a tax invoice, remains relevant.

4. Taking into account the changes made to the Chart of Accounts for accounting assets, capital, liabilities and business operations of enterprises and organizations of Ukraine for organizing analytical cost accounting, a pressing issue is the introduction of additional sub-accounts for accounting costs at forestry enterprises.

A more detailed example of the scientifically based formation of the relevance of scientific research on the topic “Accounting and cost control in the management system of forestry enterprises” is given below:

Scientific novelty

Scientific research carried out on a current topic with the aim of solving certain problems must contain the scientific novelty of the results obtained. In Ukraine, when carrying out scientific research, it is customary to formulate the scientific novelty of the results obtained using the following phrases:

First

Improved...;

Received further development...

The issue of novelty is one of the most controversial and difficult when carrying out various types of scientific research, including in the field of accounting. Some scientists may consider the result obtained by the scientist to be new, while others may consider it to be long-known. At the same time, when drawing conclusions, they rely on their personal experience, which, due to the growing number of works, the expansion of research topics and the simultaneous partial reduction of available sources of information, is becoming less and less reliable. Therefore, every scientist must be able to clearly and reasonably determine the novelty of his own scientific result, as well as defend his choice in the future.

When formulating scientific novelty, it is important to consider three main conditions:

1. Disclosure of the result, that is, in a scientific work it is necessary to indicate what type of new knowledge the researcher received. This could be the development of a concept, methodology, classification, patterns, and the like. So, one should distinguish between theoretical and practical novelty.

2. Determining the degree of novelty of the result obtained, its place among known scientific facts. In comparison, new information can perform various functions: clarify, specify existing information, expand and supplement it, or significantly transform it. Depending on this, the following levels of novelty are distinguished: specification, additions, transformations.

3. The assessment of new results is their detailed and clear presentation, and not formal, unsupported assurances that the theoretical positions and practical conclusions of the study are new.

So, we can distinguish three levels of novelty of scientific research:

a) transformation of known data, their radical change;

b) expansion, addition of known data;

c) clarification, specification of known data, extension of known results to a new class of objects and systems.

It is also possible to mathematically describe the forms of novelty of scientific research (Table 10.5)

Table 10.5

Forms of scientific novelty

	Characteristics of scientific novelty	Designations of scientific novelty
	Partial new combination of features	(It was A + B, it became C + D)
	Enabling a new feature	(It was A + B, it became A + B + C)
	Replacing some features with new ones	(It was A + B + C, it became A + B + D)
	Using a more specific characteristic as a generally accepted	(It was A + B + C, it became A + B + C1, where C1 = C + C + C1.)
	New relative arrangement of features	(It was A + B + C, it became A + C + B)
	A new type of connection and interaction between features:
	Sharing features that were previously used separately as a new combination	(Was X = A + B; Y = C + D, became Z = A + B + C + D)
	New form (mode, structure) features	(It was a + B + C, it became A + B + C).
	New quantitative ratio of traits	(It was A + B + C, it became A + 2B + 3C)

All scientific provisions in the field of accounting, taking into account the achieved level of novelty, are the theoretical basis (foundation) solved in the study of a scientific problem or scientific problem. First of all, scientific work can be given positive reviews for this.

The scientific novelty and theoretical significance of scientific research in the field of accounting lies in revealing the content of the concept, method or technique, identifying and formulating the patterns of the accounting process or describing accounting models. The practical significance of scientific novelty, including the justification of a new accounting or methodological system, recommendations, requirements, proposals.

To determine these parameters for assessing the results of scientific research in the field of accounting, a number of requirements are put forward that scientific work at all levels must meet. However, an analysis of scientific works in the field of accounting by young scientists shows that many authors do not have a common understanding of how to formulate novelty, theoretical and practical significance in content and form, how to “separate” them without repeating the same thing, without duplicating description of the relevance of the study.

In scientific novelty, research presents a short list of new scientific provisions (solutions) proposed by the scientist personally. It is necessary to show the difference between the results obtained and previously known ones, to describe the degree of novelty (obtained for the first time, improved, received further development).

Typical mistakes made in this case are:

Novelty is replaced by the relevance of the topic, its practical and theoretical significance;

The works state that this issue has not been considered in specific conditions, its importance for practice has not been explored;

The conclusions to the sections are of a statement nature and are self-evident statements that really cannot be argued with;

There is no connection between previously obtained and new results, that is, continuity.

Each scientific position in the field of accounting is clearly formulated, separating its basic essence and focusing special attention on the level of novelty achieved. The scientific position in the field of accounting that has been formulated should be read and understood easily and unambiguously (without the accumulation of small details and clarifications that obscure its essence). In no case should you resort to presenting a scientific position in the form of an abstract, when it is simply stated that this and that have been done in a scientific work, but the essence and novelty of the position cannot be discovered from what is written. Presenting scientific statements in the form of an abstract is the most common mistake made by a scientist when presenting the general characteristics of a work, which occurs in 90% of scientific papers. There are often scientific works whose conclusions repeat well-known provisions or obvious truths.

When forming scientific novelty during scientific research in the field of accounting, you should express your own opinion (if you have compelling arguments), but you should not abuse the pronoun “I” so much that it catches your eye. As a rule, for formal reports it is appropriate to avoid the personal pronouns I, we, you, you, because they give the communication and text a touch of personal address, of an informal nature. Most often in scientific communication, the use of impersonal forms (researched, reviewed, analyzed) predominates for colloquial vocabulary, informal communication, direct appeal to the listener or reader; the author can choose “I”. Impersonal sentences, passive phrases, and reflexive verbs also contribute to objectivity of opinion.

Personal constructs can easily be turned into impersonal ones. For example: I am convinced - it is quite clear that; we believe - it is believed that...

Excessive emphasis on “I” or “we” in scientific research in the field of accounting constantly suggests that the author is more interested in himself than in the object of study; the essence may be lost in the personal background. The constant “we” makes us wonder why the researcher constantly “extols” himself by referring to the plural form. The pronoun we most often means the team (author and co-author, group of authors) who worked on the concept, analysis, exploration results, their implementation in practice, and the like.

Examples of scientific novelty

Below are the options for the established scientific novelty of the research on the topic “Accounting and cost control in the management system of forestry enterprises”:

First:

A methodology for budgeting the production costs of forestry enterprises' products has been proposed, which includes a budget model for production costs by type of wood, which allows for cost planning, operational control of the rational use of production resources and implementation of the production program;

Improved:

The method of distribution of general production costs of forestry enterprises due to the use of variable costs, in particular, labor costs as a distribution base, provides more reasonable information about the amount of production costs and the level of cost and, accordingly, the establishment of a real selling price for crop products;

Received further development:

Interpretation of the concept of “information support for cost management” is a set of information flows containing information about the costs of production, taking into account the needs of users at all levels of management and providing information communication between sources and users of such information;

Justification of the basic requirements for the concept of “information support for cost management” - minimum volume with maximum content, efficiency, usefulness, reliability, timeliness, grouping by responsibility centers, analyticality, understandability, reliability, purposefulness, comparability, suitability.