In the first part of the paper the author provides a brief overview of field science research, surveying different approaches and disciplinary backgrounds. The main part of the paper is devoted to a comparative analysis of field and laboratory science. This distinction is not based on the formal attribute of conducting research in the field, but on the different procedures of acquiring knowledge. Laboratory epistemology, in which experiments play a crucial role, is based on the procedures of the reduction of complex and holistic appearances. It also includes a decompositional methodology of analysis and subsequent rationally controlled synthesis, which underpins the production of modern technology. Field science, which has crystallized in various modern scientific disciplines under the significant influence of Alexander von Humboldt, is holistic, with a wide degree of variation Acknowledgement: The results of the project "Field Studies: Science beyond Laboratories and Libraries and Its Contemporary Transformations", carried out within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2021, are presented in this work. in the ontological structure of this holism. It ranges from the traditional ‘organism' model to more fluid and dispersed ontologies in which the organism is viewed in relation to its environment. This increase in complexity also corresponds to the development of conceptual means of analysis, where classical organicism is replaced by systems theory, cybernetics, etc. Epistemologically, holism comes in the form of a hermeneutic model of cognition, in which the "whole" and the "part" have a fundamentally fluid and open character. Hermeneutic epistemology allows us to integrate the problematic of historicism into the field model of research. Field models of scientific research are united despite disciplinary differences by a number of common epistemological features derived from these fundamental features of the field epistemology. In the last part of the article, the field epistemological model is compared with a number of models of the so-called "new ontologies" (actor-network theory, assemblage theory), and the author comes to the conclusion that there are structural similarities between them. In this paper we will also look at the role of historicism in shaping the modern theory of science.

The market of sociological research, in spite of all the limitations of recent years, demonstrates notable growth, both in Russia and globally. Nevertheless, we do not have enough data that could help answer the question of what this growth is related to. The fact is that we have at least some data on this market, which is largely closed from the outside observer, only in the case of institutionalized players: organizations whose activities are available for audit. At the same time, there is a tendency towards the expansion of the non-institutionalized segment of this market, about which, in general, we know quite little. The author, relying on current literature on the subject, attempts to examine the processes of proliferation of research methodologies and a fusion of field techniques that are leading to a rapid growth of modern social surveys. The article provides a methodological exposition of contemporary approaches to fieldwork in applied social surveys. The author reconstructs the field conceptualizations characteristic of rapid ethnography (REAPFQI+), the axiomatics of fieldwork, and notions of field pragmatics expressed in the choice of specific research techniques. The conclusion is made that, in comparison with traditional sociological research, REAPFQI+-styled social surveys are not aimed at achieving scientific truth, but are purely a field technique, the ideal of which is the pragmatic achievement of applied results.

In this article, the author analyses peculiarities of the fieldwork in so-called "closed communities”; those which differ significantly from the mainstream in their values and lifestyle and, as a result, try to prevent an influx of strangers. Literature on the methodology of closed community ethnography-as well as specific cases of research on this subject - are analyzed in detail. Nevertheless, the author mainly discusses her own practices in her research of Islamic fundamentalist communities in the North Caucasus, which can be considered "closed”. The article is an attempt of self-reflection based on a long experience of fieldwork. Problems such as the initial entry into "closed communities”, the impact of the researcher's positioning in the field on research outcomes, ethical aspects of fieldwork, and difficulties in the presentation of the findings about closed communities are addressed. Some other controversial methodological issues are also discussed, among them: whether a researcher should reflect the position of informants or his/her own ideas; if it is possible to remain unbiased; what to do with the distorted influence of a researcher on a field. Not all the instruments used by the author in the field are universal and can be applied to other contexts. However, specific approaches - such as the application the "ethnography-dialog", the use of multiple identities of the members of closed communities in cities, the widening of the scope of research (increasing the number of research objects) in cases where it is impossible to deepen it (analyzing the limited number of objects in greater detail), and the combination of personal contacts with social media - can be useful for other researchers of complicated fields.

This article analyses the prospects for the adoption of the labour ethnography methodology by Russian scholars. In many ways, the author is based on her own experience, which makes it possible to judge the possibilities of implementing ethnographic research of labor in both academic and applied projects. The topic of labor was central to Soviet sociology until the mid of 1980s; in the USSR, sociologists were mainly engaged in applied research commissioned by individual enterprises and organizations. However, the main research methods were questionnaires and interviews. The included observation was not used, except rare cases, such as Andrei Alekseev's project, although sociologists spent a lot of time at enterprises. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the study of labor by the method of included observation did not become more popular. In many ways it was hindered by the lack of opportunities to implement such research within the institutional framework of academic structures (researchers did not have time for long-term field work, there were no appropriate financial support programs, etc.). At the same time, the ethnography of labor was becoming a possible and in-demand approach in the field of applied research. Using the example of specific applied projects in which the author was a participant, the option of "adapting" the ethnography of labor to applied tasks was proposed by reducing the duration of field work (rapid ethnography) and by the introduction of a clear division of labor between the participants of the research team (collaborative ethnography).

This essay was penned in the spirit of the "postcolonial turn" and postcolonial frame for studying "other" people and cultures. It analyzes historical practices of "entry into the field," "being in the field," and subsequent publications of "descriptions of the field," in the West and in Russia before and after so-called "reflexive" and "postcolonial turns." It concludes that the scientific groundedness of the ethnographic field research, its novelty, and its scientific importance do not matter in the long run. Historically, there were cases where a well-written diary or travelogue made a more lasting impact on contemporary discourse and posterity than scientifically grounded field research. As examples of Levshin, Valikhanov, and Chekhov from the Russian and Eurasian history - and examples of the classics of anthropology, such as Malinowski and Evans-Prichard - show, the ethnographic quality, documental veracity, and longevity of ethnographic works is not connected with their scientific novelty and theoretical groundedness. The essay also thinks of the current rapprochement between academic life and life in the field, or as Geertz would call it, "Being Here" and "Being There." As a result of this rapprochement, ethnographies are moving closer to arts - non-fiction, investigative journalism, and even literary fiction - while at the same time moving away from the scientific-positivistic beginnings of ethnography in the social sciences.

Acknowledgments: The results of the project "Infrastructure of Scientific Knowledge and Territorial Development", carried out within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2019, are presented in this work. The article examines the functioning of the field research infrastructure (marine biological stations, specially protected natural areas, museum-reserves) in terms of the external effects it generates. These processes are described in the context of contemporary transformations of the conservation policy in Russia. The proposed analytical typology of these types of impact includes a consideration of negative and positive externalities - both those associated with the scientific activity itself (the emergence of private research stations) and the emergence of new economic forms of activity (tourism) - as well as the spread of new social practices. The paradoxical "Ouroboros effect" has been identified and described: the principle of noninterference, implicit in the conservation regime, in some cases prevents the use of measures aimed at saving protected flora and fauna. Examples of how these external effects contribute to the processes of touristifica-tion, revitalization, and gentrification of rural areas are also considered. Particular attention is paid to the role of scholars in the formation of local historical and cultural identity. Overall, the study allows us to draw a general conclusion about the significant and diverse effects of the presence of field research infrastructure on home territories, effects not directly related to the core activities of these institutions. The emergence of these effects is determined by the concentration, in research stations, of people with a high level of cultural capital. These people may foster the emergence of new forms of economic activity in the territory, as well as acts as the transmitters of social and organisational practices new to this local context.

Transport, transport networks, and infrastructures are considered in this article as factors that influence the course and results of scientific field research, the work of field stations, and the scientists themselves. To determine the nature and mechanism of such an influence, the author turns to a wide range of cases from different historical, geographical, and disciplinary contexts associated with the use of water, rail, road, and air transport in the process of fieldwork or for moving to the field. Time in motion is contemplated as a process structured with various practices and impressions that have a direct impact on the knowledge gained in the field and on the experience of fieldwork in general. The article highlights the role of vehicles as a "scientific instrument" since they mediate the relationship between an observer and a space as an object of observation. Based on an analysis of several cases, the author concluded that transport in the context of field science influences the system of scientific hierarchies, serves as a place for communication between scientists, and proposes changing roles for participants during scientific travel. Transport and its relevance for a particular landscape or field could be an important factor for the success of the research and the safety of its participants. The use of transport might involve certain risks that researchers try to anticipate and, if possible, avoid.

This review article outlines the main lines of the rather long and confused history of marine biological stations in Russia, and shows how most of the stations in question are linked through the people who established and developed them. The focus is on the Russian stations located on the coasts of the northern seas, some of which continue to play an important role in the education of future biologists in the two leading universities of the country. Much has been written about the history of marine biological stations, but at the same time there is a feeling that it is still a rather narrow circle of scholars that knows about them and their significance. The article approaches the history of the stations as a single stream, splitting into separate streams and sometimes gathering again. It focuses on the legacy of this particular research culture, which had grown in Russia from a common European root, but which underwent significant transformations during the Soviet era. The focus is on the stations located in the White and Barents Seas, for the reason that their history starts earlier than, for example, the history of stations on the Far East seas, is much better studied, and also because the author had her own experience of working at one of such stations in the 1980s and 1990s.

This paper is devoted to the problematization of field linguistics, a discipline, as defined by A.E. Kibrik, which develops and practices methods of obtaining information about a language unknown to the researcher on the basis of working with the language’s speakers. We examine the discipline’s colonial genealogy (XVI-XIX centuries), the marginalization of field methods and the subdiscipline in linguistics of the 1960s and 1980s, due to the flowering ofstructural and generative linguistics, and the rediscovery of the field, already on a new level, due to the understanding of the need to record and preserve thousands of dying languages. In contrast to social and cultural anthropology, where the collapse of colonial empires forced a rethinking of the field as an obligatory departure to exotic territories, in linguistics the emphasis on dying languages ties fieldwork to places that survived colonialism, i.e. affirms the opposition of dying “primitive” cultures and the modernity that destroysthem. Since the defense of languages under the threat of extinction is proclaimed asthe main foundation of the discipline, the scholars may perform their work insofar as the local communities help them, and they are obliged to repay this debt indefinitely. In other words, the ethos of field linguistics is constructed primarily in relation to informants (the host community) - purely scientific goals are understood as self-evident and do not require separate motivational texts. Particular attention is paid to the ambivalence of the new legitimation of field linguistics (isit possible to preserve languages?), the empirical opposition of “empiricists” versus “arm-chair” linguists, and the critical analysis of field mythologiesin linguistics and the implicit conflict between ethical and aesthetic self-justifications of the discipline - despite all distancing from Victorian science, with its gentlemen scholars, the latter is still present as a reference point, as the foundation of the discipline. This article was written on the basis of analysis of books, articles, and textbooks by linguists, as well as a series of in-depth interviews (N=6) with Russian linguists, experts in the languages of India (conducted in 2021)

The paper examines field research methods in early Soviet criminology in the 1920s. The crime and criminality studies flourished in postrevolutionary Russia due to the relative intellectual freedom of the era of NEP and unprecedented access to penitentiaries for researchers. Although this interdisciplinary field of studies brought together scholars from different disciplines and professions (criminal law, psychiatry, psychology, anthropology), the sociological branch (represented by lawyers) was considered the most promising. While criminal sociology was traditionally associated with statistics, Soviet criminologists began experimenting with field research techniques, such as surveys, direct observation, qualitative interviews, and case studies. One of the methods-the study of so called "hotbeds of crime’-was most similar to contemporary understanding of field research: it involved the involvement of a researcher into crime-related communities (homeless, beggars, street children, former criminals) and research on the streets, night shelters, marketplaces or other criminogenic zones. Concerned about criminal subcultures, criminologists and prison administrators were interested in studying the inmate code, processes of prisonization, tattoos and other aspects of prison culture. In order to institutionalize the position of a scientist within the penitentiary system, two "experimental prisons" were organized in Moscow's places of detention: the Criminological Clinic and the Experimental Penitentiary of the State Institute for the Study of Crime and Criminal. The research is based on archival documents, research papers and periodicals.

The field hospital, being a transitional point between the unified and purified laboratory space and the diverse and unique spaces of the "field", is a controlled, but not clearly defined place where one can access nature and "attach" to it. As housing for visiting scientists, field stations are included both in the routine and rhythm of daily life, as well as in long cycles of living, dilapidation and restoration. This article examines the empirical and conceptual significance of field stations in tropical and polar latitudes as places for scientific work and scientists' lives. The extraterritorial but at the same time homely nature of the field station affects the reliability of knowledge and its dissemination along the frontier of science. The task of creating a home in an extreme field, the everyday experience of expatriation and appropriation determine the special political dynamics of knowledge production in these places. Turning to the field stations, we focus on the images of nature and science that fuel transnational research and reveal the aesthetic and emotional aspects of working and living in these distant homes of science.

The results of the project “Field Studies: Science beyond Laboratories and Libraries and Its Contemporary Transformations”, carried out within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2021, are presented in this work

The results of the project “Field Studies: Science beyond Laboratories and Libraries and Its Contemporary Transformations”, carried out within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University) in 2021, are presented in this work.