Alma Mater
ISSN 1026-955X
Vestnik Vysshey Shkoly (Higher School Herald)
The best way to learn all about Higher Education


Research paradigms of the socio-professional group of State Civil and Municipal employees in the scientific literature

N.G. Khoroshkevich
80,00 Р

UDC 316.35-057.1        

Natalya G. Khoroshkevich, Cand. Sci. (Sociology), Associate Professor at Ural Federal University n.a. the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin, e-mail:   


In connection with the emergence of a new society, the study of the socio-professional groups on a scientific basis becomes relevant again. It is emphasized that the history of the study of a social community from the perspective of sociology allows us to analyze the interactions of different actors.

The article presents the classifications of research paradigms of a particular professional group. The classification of bureaucracy research paradigms is based on the Marxist, neoclassical and institutional paradigms. The research approaches applied are: rational choice institutionalism, historical and sociological. Six research paradigms are identified through an analysis of the entire history of the study of officialdom: Marxist and neo-Marxist, institutional and neo-institutional, classical and neoclassical research paradigms. The strengths and weaknesses of each are identified. The neo-institutional paradigm is very multi-faceted. The article considers its three strands: rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism.

Today, the most popular paradigms in the study of bureaucracy are the neoclassical and the neo-institutional. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Conclusions have been drawn on the state and prospects of research approaches to the study of this social community, taking into account trends in the development of sociology and humanitarian knowledge. It is very important and promising to develop the practice of combining different research approaches in the study of this community, as well as to use the achievements of other sciences if necessary.

Key words: history of research, socio-professional group of state civil and municipal employees, sociology, paradigms, bureaucracy.




1. Weber, M. Selected works. / Per. with German comp. commonly. Yu.N. Davydov (comp., transl, ed.); Prefaced. by P.P. Gaydenko. Moscow: Progress, 1990. 808 p.

2. Veblen, T. The Theory of the Leisure Class. Moscow: Progress, 1984. 367 p.

3. Zborovsky, G.E. Metaparadigmal model of theoretical sociology. Sociological studies. 2008. No. 4. P. 3–15.

4. Marx, K. K criticized the Hegel philosophy of law. In: Electronic Library Civil Society. 191 p. URL: (accessed on: 22.08.2021).

5. Merton, R. Social theory and social structure. Moscow: AST Moscow: Keeper, 2006. 873 p.

6. Nestic, T.A. Bureaucracy in foreign studies. Social sciences and modernity. 1998. No. 2. P. 52–61.

7. Model. Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Dictionaries and encyclopedias on the Academician. URL:Модель (accessed on: 08.05.2022).

8. Niskanen, W.A. Bureaucrats and politicians. In: Milestones of economic thought. Welfare economics and public choice. St. Petersburg: Economic School; Moscow: HSE: TEIS, 2004. Vol. 4. 568 p.

9. Panov, P.V. Neoinstitutionalism(s): explanatory models and causality. Polis. Political studies. 2015. No. 2. P. 39–55.

10. Paradigm — interpretations, types and meanings. URL: (accessed on: 08.05.2022).

11. Toshchenko, Zh.T. Political sociology: Textbook for universities. Moscow: UNITY-DANA, 2002. 495 p. URL:тощенко_ж.т._политическая социология (accessed on: 23.04.2021).

12. Fromm, E. The Heart of Man / Transl. from Engl. Moscow: ACT: Transekniga, 2004. URL: (accessed on: 23.04.2021).

13. Weber, M. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Illinois: The Free Press, 1947. 300 p.

14. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. 212 p.

15. March, J., Olsen, J. Elaborating the “new institutionalism”. In: The Oxford handbook of political institutions. Rhodes, R., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006. 28 p.