https://www.site/2017-10-09/dissernet_opublikoval_polnuyu_versiyu_zaklyucheniya_soveta_vak_po_dissertacii_medinskogo
“Research performed at an extremely low level”
Komsomolskaya Pravda/ Global Look Press
The website of the Dissernet project published the full conclusion of the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission, which supported the statement of a group of scientists about the deprivation of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences from the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky. It is noted that the text full version provided by one of the authors of the statement - Ivan Babitsky and received by him from one of the members of the VAK expert council on history.
In conclusion, it was noted that Medinsky's dissertation did not reveal unreasonable borrowings (this was also mentioned earlier by the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation Olga Vasilyeva).
The content side of the dissertation was criticized. Council members note that the work of Medinsky - the ideas of foreigners about Russia and Russians and the presentation of these ideas in the writings of foreigners - is relevant.
However, the title of the work is “Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history the second half of the XV-XVII centuries”, which, at the same time, became the subject of research, experts recognize as incorrect, not reflecting the subject of research and too abstract for historical work. “The author is engaged in “correction” of inaccuracies and “distortions” of the realities of Russian life in the writings of foreigners, not realizing that for this kind of writings they are natural and inevitable, since this is a presentation of impressions and a certain, due to various reasons, vision of representatives of another culture," it concluded.
Experts also point out that it is not clear what principle Medinsky was guided by when selecting the analyzed sources.
“The scientific problem formulated by the author, which consists in the generalization of foreign materials concerning critical aspects Russian history of the second half of the 15th-17th centuries and the argumentation of the evidence for their objectivity "does not stand up to criticism," the conclusion says.“Proving that many works of foreigners of the period under study were biased, contained unreliable information, were created under the influence of a certain political situation, forming, for the most part, a negative image of the Russian state in public opinion their compatriots, etc., V. R. Medinsky does not discover anything new. All this has long been known, firmly rooted in the Russian tradition of historical writing,” the conclusion says.
Experts also call the principles of forming the source base “doubtful”. “Medinsky, wishing to prove the groundlessness of certain information given in the notes of foreign authors, often refers to the information contained in the Russian chronicles, probably considering it absolutely reliable and, obviously, not attaching importance to the fact that the chronicles themselves are a complex source, requiring special source criticism and cross-checking by analyzing sources of a different species. At the same time, he ignores information from other Russian sources if they contradict his theses, ”the conclusion says.
“It should be noted that V. R. Medinsky’s dissertation research was carried out at an extremely low level. The object, subject, scientific problem, purpose and objectives of the study are defined unprofessionally, there is a discrepancy between the chronological framework stated in the introduction to the structure and content of the dissertation. […]
The dissertation […] in its scientific level does not meet the requirements for dissertations for competition degree Doctor of Historical Sciences, specialty 07.00.02 - National history. It does not contain provisions that can be qualified as a scientific achievement or a solution to an important scientific problem,” the conclusion says.Recall that last week the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on history decided to support the statement of a group of professional historians and experts of the Dissernet project to deprive Medinsky of his degree. One of the authors of the statement, Ivan Babitsky, wrote about this on Facebook.
The scandal surrounding the dissertation of the Minister of Culture of Russia has been going on for more than a year, when the participants of Dissernet decided to prove the poor quality of Medinsky's dissertation and sent an application for the deprivation of his scientific degree (ZaLUS) of Medinsky to the Higher Attestation Commission. The petition was planned to be considered at Moscow State University, but the dissent council did not consider the work, but then Ivan Babitsky turned to the Higher Attestation Commission with a request to invalidate the decision of the dissertation council, since the meeting was held with great violations. On July 7, the application was considered by the dissertation council for historical sciences of BelSU. As a result of the meeting, it was concluded that the work of Medinsky meets the criteria of the Higher Attestation Commission.
The Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) on history supported the initiative of Dissernet to deprive the Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky academic title of doctor of historical sciences. The last word in this proceedings, the presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, which until that time almost always agreed with the opinion of the council, should appoint. Specialists, previously called upon to prove the historical value of Medinsky's works, massively refuse their words, assuring that they were misunderstood. A number of other factors are also working against the minister: the recent embarrassment with a monument to Kalashnikov, the election of a new President of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the tough position of the president in relation to officials involved in science to the detriment of the civil service.
An activist was the first to announce the council's decision "Dissernet" Ivan Babitsky, who back in 2016 filed an application to deprive the minister of his degree due to the "absurdity" of his thesis m on the topic "Problems of objectivity in covering Russian history in the second half of the 15th - 17th centuries."
“Finally happened what should have happened. The expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on history has just decided by an overwhelming majority of votes, contrary to the conclusion of the Belgorod council, to support our application to deprive Medinsky of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. The decision was announced in my presence,” Babitsky later wrote on his Facebook page. The phone of the chairman of the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission Pavel Uvarov was unavailable on the evening of October 2.
Historian, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Askold Ivanchik, commenting on the decision of the VAK expert council, called it expected. “The decision of the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on history was expected, because it includes highly qualified specialists. They could not recognize the work of Medinsky as scientific without committing violence against their professional conscience,” Ivanchik told RBC.
The decision was announced at 16:45 Moscow time, Babitsky specified. 17 people voted for the deprivation of Medina's doctorate in history, three against and one abstention. The vote was secret, he said. Medinsky himself was not at the council, instead of the minister, his representatives were present at the Higher Attestation Commission: head of the Center for the History of Wars and Geopolitics of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Myagkov, leading researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Konstantin Averyanov and member of the Public Council of the Ministry of Culture Sergei Chernyakhovsky.
Where is Denmark located?
Ivan Babitsky filed an application for the deprivation of Medinsky of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences in April 2016, in addition to him, two doctors of historical sciences were among the applicants - Konstantin Yerusalimsky and Vyacheslav Kozlyakov. The applicants' comments relate to the Minister's scientific methodology, which he used in his dissertation. Medinsky at work evaluates historical events weighing them "on the scales of Russia's national interests", and this contradicts scientific approach, which implies objectivity and non-judgment in the analysis of the material, the applicants pointed out. In addition, Medinsky, they noted, incorrectly formatted references to sources. So, Medinsky referred to a “scandalous for serious research” resource specializing in the sale of abstracts on the Internet.
Scientists believe that the minister's text is "replete with gross errors." For example, he writes that during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, church books in Russia were written in Russian, so it was easy to understand them, in contrast to the religious works of Catholics and Protestants, written in Latin. “In one sentence, he was able to show that he knew nothing about such a phenomenon as the Church Slavonic language, nor about the translation of Holy Scripture into German made by Luther,” the statement said. In addition, Medinsky believes that the Russians were the first among the Europeans to face the attack of non-Christians. However, two and a half centuries before the baptism of Russia (988 AD), in 732, in the battle of Poitiers, the French stopped the invasion of the Arabs, scientists remind. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, an Italian humanist of the 15th century, Medinsky considers a German, and disputes the version of the origin of Rurik from Denmark by saying that the annals say: the prince was a Varangian and came from Scandinavia (Denmark belongs to Scandinavia).
Wandering scientific brainchild
The recommendation to deprive Medinsky of his academic degree does not mean that the minister will lose it. After the decision of the expert council, the presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission chaired by the head of this structure, the rector Russian University Friendship of Peoples Vladimir Filippov. The final decision of the Presidium is approved by the Ministry of Education and Science.
Prior to the expert council, Medinsky's dissertation materials were considered by three dissertation councils. In October 2016, the VAK sent them to Ural Federal University in Yekaterinburg, but the meeting was first canceled at the request of Medinsky, who could not come due to a busy schedule, and a few days later the dissertation was withdrawn because the deadline for its consideration had expired. In February 2017, Moscow State University did not consider the work of the minister on the merits, since no plagiarism was found in it. Then some members of the discouncil declared that the MSU experts were not provided with a dissertation for consideration at all.
In July 2017, the dissertation council of Belgorodsky state university refused to deprive Medinsky of the degree of doctor of historical sciences - 19 out of 22 members of the council voted in support of the minister. According to them, the minister's dissertation "contains some elements of tendentiousness," but its scientific nature has not suffered from this. In addition, the council concluded that the announcement of the withdrawal of the Minister's degree was made in a "cheeky, insulting tone that has nothing to do with scientific discussion". Today they have revised their position.
“Members of the Belgorod dissident council attended the meeting of the expert council on Monday. They insisted that they were not supposed to evaluate the minister's thesis itself, but only the credibility of our statement,” said "b" Dissernet expert. Also at the meeting were members of the RSSU discouncil, where the minister defended his dissertation. “They were asked why it happened that all three opponents of the minister were not experts on the topic of his dissertation. They answered: “We have no doubt that they have a broad scientific outlook,” said Mr. Babitsky. As a result, the council voted in favor of the recommendation to deprive the minister of his degree. Marina Moseykina, a member of the expert council, Doctor of Historical Sciences, emphasized that “during the voting, the majority voted in favor, but the decision was not made unanimously.”
Military historians vs.
Supporter of Medinsky Mikhail Myagkov from Center for the history of wars and geopolitics The Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences believes that the expert council showed "unprofessionalism" because it did not take into account the position of the dissident councils of BelSU and Moscow State University. “In any case, this is a technical decision, which, in fact, means nothing. We are waiting for the meeting of the VAK presidium,” Myagkov summed up.
Calls the decision "technical" and the press secretary of Medinsky Irina Kaznacheeva. “If you remember, there was a positive conclusion of two dissenting councils - Moscow State University and BelSU. At BelSU, it was decided by an overwhelming majority that the work corresponds to a scientific degree. So the presidium of the VAK will sort everything out,” she said. The meeting of the presidium, at which they can decide on Medinsky's dissertation, will be held on October 20, Babitsky said.
“We received an order at our level, considered what was ordered, and made a decision. The professional community is guided by professional motives. It is difficult for me to comment on today's decision, because I do not know the kitchen of the VAK expert council. But this doesn’t concern us anymore and we won’t do anything, since we have done our job, and it’s hard for me to say why it happened today, ”said Nikolai Bolgov, chairman of the dissertation council of Belgorod State University.
The Presidium may not agree with the decision of the expert council, said the co-founder of the Dissernet community, deputy director of the Institute for Information Transmission Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Gelfand. “There were situations when the expert council proposed to leave the degree, and the presidium decided to deprive, as in the case of the deputy Alexander Smetanov, but it was the other way around. This is a normal situation,” he notes. According to Gelfand, the composition of the presidium for the humanities is "non-uniform." “There are very worthy people, and there are those who are not so principled,” he explained. Gelfand specified that Medinsky, according to the rules of the Higher Attestation Commission, would be invited to the meetings of the presidium.
Meanwhile, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that there is no provision for removing a minister from his post if he is deprived of his academic degree. “I don't think that somewhere in some norms there is some kind of linkage of such matters, some kind of mutual connection,” he said, indirectly hinting that such a possibility is still being considered. As previously reported by the agency "Ruspres", President Vladimir Putin promised to fire officials who defend dissertations while in public service. After that, Minister of Health Veronika Skvortsova refused to run for academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
"Contradicts the principles of science, objectivity and historicism"
Full text of the decision of the Higher Attestation Commission on Medinsky's dissertation
Vladimir Medinsky (left)
1. The relevance of the general direction of research by V. R. Medinsky - the ideas of foreigners about Russia and Russians and the presentation of these ideas in the writings of foreigners - is undeniable. Stereotypical images of Russia in the public opinion of Western countries were largely formed several centuries ago and in a number of their manifestations, with some variations, exist to this day.
2. The title of the work - "Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history in the second half of the 15th-17th centuries", which, at the same time, became the subject of research (p. 9), should be recognized as incorrect. Such a formulation does not reflect the subject of the dissertation research, since it is too abstract for a historical work. Firstly, it does not mention the subject of coverage of Russian history (in whose coverage?), it is not clear what or whom in question. Secondly, objectivity in covering one state, society, culture, etc. representatives of others (contemporaries of events) is, in principle, not achievable. A professional historian can aspire to it, but not a historical individual who perceives the culture of the Other/Alien. The perception of the Other is always subjective, it is determined by the unconscious values and attitudes of one’s culture, the historical and cultural environment of the perceiving subject, his individual characteristics etc. Perception can be scientifically interpreted, but it cannot be judged in terms of "objectivity" and "reliability." The category of reliability is applicable to the assessment of eyewitness information about material inanimate objects, objects, simple facts, but not about people of a different culture and their properties. The author is engaged in the "correction" of inaccuracies and "distortions" of the realities of Russian life in writings of foreigners, not realizing that for this kind of writings they are natural and inevitable, since this is a presentation of impressions and a certain, due to various reasons, vision of representatives of another culture.
2. The purpose of the study stated by V. R. Medinsky: “analysis of the socio-cultural and socio-economic aspects of the perception of the Moscow state in the testimonies of foreigners” (p. 9) in combination with its chronological framework (“the second half of the 15th–17th centuries – p. 7 ) does not correspond to the structure of the work. Of the 366 pages of the main text of the dissertation (sections II–V, pp. 69–437), 266 pages (72% of the text) are devoted to the second half of the 15th–16th centuries. Of the remaining 102 pages (section V), 36 pages (pp. 336–372) refer to the Time of Troubles, and only 65 pages (pp. 336–372) are devoted to the period from 1613 to 1700. From the notes of foreigners of this vast, eventful almost century-old period, the author considered only the works of Adam Olearius, Adolf Lisek and Johann Korb, and among the dissertator's attention there were dozens of texts, including informative and important for research evidence of Augustine Meyerberg, Yakov Reitenfels, Andrei Rode, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's life physician Samuel Collins, Foy de la Neuville, Patrick Gordon, and others. The author does not justify the principle of selecting sources.
4. The scientific problem formulated by the author, which consists in “generalizing foreign materials concerning the most important aspects of Russian history of the second half of the 15th–17th centuries and the argumentation of evidence for their objectivity” (p. 9), does not stand up to criticism. "Summary of materials" cannot be scientific problem, and the end of the phrase - "and the argumentation of the evidence of their objectivity" - remains undisclosed, unclear to the reader.
5. On p. 3 V. R. Medinsky presents his chief research principle: "Weighing on the scales of Russia's national interests creates an absolute standard of truth and reliability of historical work" (p. 3). Meanwhile, this false proposition, which is included in irreconcilable contradiction with the principles of science, objectivity and historicism (their listing in the introductory part of the dissertation thus becomes an empty formality). Ethnocentrism/nation-centrism, in whatever forms it manifests itself, has never acted and cannot act in science as a criterion of reliability or serve as a basis scientific work striving for objectivity. The criteria for the reliability of historical research are determined by principles and methods that are universal in nature and do not depend on the nationality of the researcher. Another thing is to take into account the national (civilizational) features of the development of the community under study, which must be done for all societies and cultures in order to identify the common and special in their development.
6. In the historiographical section of the work there is no significant amount of modern research on the problem. At the end of XX - beginning of XXI century. a whole series of works by well-known Russian historians (not to mention foreign ones) was written, dedicated to the image of Russia and Russians in the perception of contemporaries, including foreigners, during the period under study (for example, O. G. Ageeva, M. M. Krom, L E. Morozova, V. D. Nazarova, A. I. Filyushkina, A. L. Khoroshkevich, M. Po, etc.). Acquaintance with the historiographical essay shows that the characterization of the works of the predecessors was carried out very selectively. Many studies included in the list of references are not analyzed in the historiographical part of the dissertation; Fundamentally important publications (for example, Herberstein’s “Notes on Muscovy” of 1988 and 2007, fundamental for the study of the topic) are devoted to literally one or two paragraphs each (pp. 44–45); about three pages are allotted to the latest literature on the issue, which has introduced fundamentally new views on the problem and provided first-class examples of publication culture and scientific criticism of the writings of foreigners (pp. 43–46).
7. Proving that many works of foreigners of the period under study were biased, contained unreliable information, were created under the influence of a certain political situation, forming, for the most part, a negative image of the Russian state in the public opinion of their compatriots, etc., V. R. Medinsky did not reveals nothing new. All this has long been known, firmly rooted in the Russian tradition of historical writing, going back in its basic provisions to at least the classic work of V. O. Klyuchevsky “Notes of Foreigners on the Moscow State”. O high degree The subjectivity of such writings (as well as the high degree of subjectivity of any narrative in general) is mentioned in all the basic courses on source studies and the history of Russia taught at the historical faculties of our universities. The same textbook for curricula is the thesis of continuity, interconnection (sometimes textual), which can be seen in many writings of foreigners about pre-Petrine Russia, about the special influence on the rooting of stereotypes about Russia of “Notes on Muscovy” by S. von Herberstein. By stating (on pp. 438-439) that all this is the result of his original research, formulated and proven by him for the first time, V. R. Medinsky misleads readers.
8. The principles of the formation of the source base and the methods of source analysis used by the author are doubtful, and as a result, the whole set of intermediate conclusions that form the basis for the general conclusion of the study.
It is quite natural that in the dissertation of V. R. Medinsky the core of the source base, the main empirical object of his study, are the writings of foreigners about Russia of the specified period; the author himself rightly points to this, calling these sources “main” (p. 51). However, at the same time, he considers it sufficient to use not the compositions themselves, but their translations into Russian. Meanwhile, the doctoral dissertation should use primary sources in the original language from the most serviceable authentic editions. This is all the more important since the dissertation deals with the interpretation of Western authors' impressions of Russia. Meanwhile, the choice of publications is random. So, for example, the notes of Heinrich Staden were used in the thesis based on the 2002 edition, although by the time the dissertation was being prepared, an academic two-volume edition of this monument was published, edited by E. E. Rychalovsky. Notes by Jacques Margeret "State Russian Empire” are analyzed according to the outdated edition of 1982, and not according to the newest 2007 edited by An. Berelovich, V. D. Nazarov and P. Yu. Uvarov.
Involving only translations leads to particularly unfortunate consequences where the dissertation tries to evaluate the terminology of the authors of essays about Russia. V. R. Medinsky does not seem to realize that the terms he writes about do not belong to the original texts, but to their translations into modern Russian. So, on p. 184-185, he reproaches Herberstein for calling the prince of the Drevlyans Mal "sovereign", although "he did not have the status of a sovereign." Had the author bothered to refer to the original, he might have seen that the Latin text is princeps and the German Fürst. Both words correspond to the Russian prince (which is what Mal is called in the annals); thus, "sovereign" is the result of a free translation made by our contemporary, while the author curiously accused Herberstein of using this term.
The intention of V. R. Medinsky to conduct a deep and comprehensive study of the notes of foreigners in comparison with “Russian documentary sources relating to specific events and facts” (p. 8) can be considered promising. Indeed, the problem of verifiability, the verifiability of information contained in a particular source, can be solved only in a contextual cross-comparison. It gives scope for the use of methods of comparative analysis and allows answering a number of questions that are really important within the framework of the stated problem.
The author of the dissertation refers the entire array of sources of Russian origin to the group of additional ones (p. 52) and gives a list of them, combining them according to their type: act material, order documentation, court cases, annals and chronographs, scribes, customs and notebooks, publicistic works of the XVI– 17th century and other narrative sources. Almost all of the listed sources have been published to date, however, V.R. Medinsky notes that he also widely used unpublished archival documents stored mainly in the RGADA and partly in the archive of the St. Petersburg Institute of Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. In the list of used sources and literature, 13 positions are indicated in the heading "archival sources". But there is reason to believe that V. R. Medinsky hardly worked with the archival files indicated by him. In his essay, on almost four hundred pages of the main text, it is possible to find only 13 references to archival funds that are frankly nominal in nature (pp. 100, 106, 181, 240, 249, 257, 287, 297, 325, 332, 274, 408 and 426). Most often these are "deaf" references to the case or simply to the inventory without indicating the sheets; sometimes - with an indication of the total number of sheets in a storage unit (for example, "RGADA. F. 32. D. 1 (1488-1489). L. 1-204", p. 181). References to specific sheets of the case are given only in five cases. This shows that the author, most likely, did not work with archival documents (his employment in the reading room of the RGADA is not documented) ADAR, but scooped the most general information about the information contained in them from the guide to the archive, and at best - from the inventories, focusing on the headings of cases or documents available there. There are not even references in the text to some of the archival cases noted in the list of used sources.
With "inaccurate" and "biased" sources, the dissertation does not stand on ceremony. He can simply state that "it really wasn't like that," without bothering to look for evidence. In other cases, he resorts to a different technique: he uses assessments from the writings of some foreigners as a criticism of the opinions of others, not taking into account that both of them can be equally biased in their judgments. So, for example, while highly appreciating the reliability of S. Herberstein's information about the Russian army (p. 220), the author for some reason recognizes as "unreliable" a similar description of the field camps of the Russian army given by R. Chancellor (p. 234); A. Contarini and G. Perkamot spoke positively about Ivan III, but Herberstein did not, which means that “it is quite obvious that the Austrian diplomat deliberately denigrated Ivan III” (p. 199, 206).
In some cases, such a contrast between information from different authors looks like frankly curious. So, on p. 239 the author writes: “Chancellor's information about poor people is also contradictory. Arguing that "there is no people in the world who would live as beggarly as the poor live here, and that the rich do not take care of them," he at the same time reported on the charitable activities of the monks. In general, Chancellor's data on the existence of beggars and poor people in the Russian state contradict the news of Barbaro and Contarini about a large number of products on Russian markets, which cost mere pennies. As the messages of the authors of the late XV century. about cheap products on the markets can refute the existence of more than half a century later (in the 1550s) in the country of the poor, remains a mystery - the author does not reveal his "logic".
V. R. Medinsky, wishing to prove the groundlessness of certain information given in the notes of foreign authors, often refers to the information contained in the Russian chronicles, probably considering it absolutely reliable and obviously not attaching importance to the fact that the chronicles themselves are a complex source , which needs special source criticism and cross-checking by analyzing sources of a different species. At the same time, he ignores information from other Russian sources if they contradict his theses. For example, repeatedly refuting the false, in his opinion, testimonies of foreigners about the drunkenness of Russian priests (pp. 341, 440, etc.), the dissertator ignores the materials of the Stoglavy Cathedral of 1551, where this vice of the clergy was recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Claiming that the Crimeans in 1521 reached only Kolomna, the author refers to the Resurrection Chronicle, ignoring the testimony of a number of others, from which it follows that individual detachments reached the village of Vorobiev near Moscow and the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery. The dissertation student rejects Herberstein's news that the Crimean Khan received a letter with an obligation to pay tribute, although similar information is in the Bit Book, an official document that no foreigner had access to.
9. Some fragments of V. R. Medinsky’s dissertation are a presentation of the conclusions of other researchers, devoid of originality and, moreover, incorrectly executed. For example, most of Section III (pp. 182–223) is devoted to an analysis of the factual and interpretive errors of S. Herberstein, despite the fact that such work was carried out by the commentators of the 1988 edition of Notes on Muscovy. Retelling the content of the comments, V. R. Medinsky does not refer to them, but to the sources of the commentators, while not always doing it skillfully. Convicting Herberstein of wanting to give more credibility to his story about the Crimean raid of 1521, V. R. Medinsky writes that the Austrian pointed to receiving information from the Polish ambassadors, “who became his informants.” The author refers to the following edition: Russian Historical Library, vol. 35, no. 90, p. 605-607" (p. 223). Turning to the comments in the edition of Herberstein's Notes..., we see that their authors indicate: “The Lithuanian embassy, headed by Bogush Voitkov, was in Moscow from 29 August. to 4 Sept. 1521 (Sat. RIO. - T. 35. - No. 90. - P. 605–607) ”(See: Herberstein S. Notes on Muscovy. M., 1988. P. 340). Obviously, V.R. Medinsky, firstly, does not see the difference between the Lithuanian and Polish ambassadors, although at that time Poland and Lithuania, being in a dynastic union, had separate diplomatic departments, and secondly, he confuses two widely known pre-revolutionary serial editions of sources - "Russian historical library"and" Collection of Russian historical society”, probably simply rewriting the data he misunderstood from the comments to the 1988 edition.
10. Factual errors in the dissertation are numerous. A number of them are rightly indicated in the appeal letter. But there are quite a few others that can also be considered rude. The author believes that at the end of the XV century. there was Ukraine, which “was then called Lithuania” (p. 87); that Dalmatia at the same time was one of the regions of Yugoslavia (p. 152). He apparently does not see the difference between white and black clergy when he refutes Herberstein's information about the disastrous financial situation Russian priests, recalling that in the XVI century. The Russian Church was a large landowner "and did not need anything" (p. 212). The author reproaches Herberstein for drawing the border between Europe and Asia along the Don (p. 221), not suspecting that this is a tradition dating back to ancient times. He confuses textbook dates (Devlet Giray dates the raid on Moscow to 1570 instead of 1571 - p. 262; the introduction of the oprichnina in 1566 instead of 1565 - p. 265; Ivan III's campaign against Tver in 1520 instead of 1485 - p. 302); claims that the Zemsky Prikaz was founded only at the end of the 1570s (p. 277), although the first mention of this institution in the category books dates back to 1572; refuting the information of J. Fletcher (late 16th century) about the drunkenness of Russians and drawing attention to the fact that alcoholic beverages in Russia could only be produced on major church holidays, i.e. several times a year, reinforces this information with a reference to the Code of 1649 (p. 341), and so on and so forth.
Of course, some shortcomings, errors, inaccuracies, misprints can be in any study. But in the dissertation of V. R. Medinsky, their number goes off scale, being a systemic, qualitative problem.
In connection with the discussion in the media mass media, which arose around the conclusion of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History regarding the dissertation of V.R. Medinsky, members of the Expert Council would like to draw attention to the following circumstances:
1) The frequently heard statement about the allegedly available two positive conclusions (dissertation councils at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov and at Belgorod State University) on the dissertation of V.R. Medinsky is not true.
First, the dissertation of V.R. Medinsky never entered and was not considered in the dissertation council D 501.001.72 at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, and on February 7, 2017, this dissenting council decided to refuse to consider the case on the deprivation of V.R. Medina scientific degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences, which subsequently served as the basis for the Higher Attestation Commission to transfer this case for a new consideration to the Dissertation Council D 212.015.11 at Belgorod State University. Thus, the dissertation council from Moscow State University did not accept any positive conclusion on the dissertation.
Secondly, the dissertation council at the Belgorod University, although it submitted its opinion to the Higher Attestation Commission, but also DID NOT CONSIDER IN SUBSTANCES the dissertation of V.R. Medinsky (but only the text of the application for the deprivation of the degree of Doctor of Science).
Therefore, such an examination of the dissertation on the merits eventually had to be done by the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History. At the same time, the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History acts fully within its competence, since it is the highest expert body in this specialty in Russian Federation and has the right to both agree and disagree with the decision or opinion of any dissertation council.
2) In speeches in support of V.R. Medinsky is often told that he should not be deprived of his degree, since there is no plagiarism in his dissertation. But the mere absence of plagiarism is not yet a guarantee that the work meets the requirements for a doctoral dissertation. At the same time, the assertion of the presence of elements of plagiarism has never been the main claim against the author, either on the part of the applicants V.N. Kozlyakov, K.Yu. Yerusalimsky and I.F. Babitsky, or on the part of the members of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission.
3) Over a year ago, all members of the Expert Council were given the text of V.R. Medinsky, and they had a full opportunity to form their own idea of the quality of this text and evaluate the validity of the conclusion prepared by experts on the topic of the dissertation. At a meeting of the expert council on October 2, 2017, this opinion was discussed, which was approved by 17 votes in favor, with three votes against and one abstention, however, none of the colleagues who ultimately voted against the adoption of the recommendation to deprive V.R. Medina scientific degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences, did not speak in favor of the fact that the dissertation meets the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission.
At the same meeting, certain questions were asked to the invited representatives of the party that submitted the application for deprivation of the academic degree, as well as to the representatives of V.R. Medinsky. At the same time, members of the Expert Council were ready to ask questions about the essence of the work to its author, V.R. Medinsky, however, due to his absence from the meeting, these questions obviously could not be asked to people who are not the authors of the dissertation text and are not responsible for its content.
4) In itself, the general direction of research touched upon in the dissertation is well known in historical science, and its relevance and significance have never been questioned. However, the essence of the conclusions of the Expert Council is that the QUALITY of the work done by V.R. Medinsky's work and states that the applicant for a scientific degree lacks the basic professional skills of a historian, and above all, a scientific source study analysis of the sources he involved.
5) The accusations in the media of “harassment” of V.R. Medinsky have no grounds, since the conclusion of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission does not affect either the personality or the diverse activities of V.R. Medinsky in his posts. However, members of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History, acting within the framework of regulations approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, are obliged to make their judgment based on high scientific requirements. Our professional ethics and the desire to preserve the prestige of historical science call us to the same. Attempts to give political or ideological overtones to the examination process of V. R. Medinsky’s dissertation deliberately mislead the public, they are used to divert the discussion from the scientific field to the sphere of political and information technologies.
Thus, the recommendation of the Expert Council to deprive V.R. Medina's doctorate in history is by no means caused by disagreement with his "vision of history" or with his "patriotic position." We are deeply convinced that unskilled, unprofessional work discredits domestic science and thus can be considered an anti-patriotic phenomenon.
Members of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History
Doctor of History, Professor of the Department of History Russia XIX- beginning of XX century. Faculty of History, Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosova A.Yu. Andreev
Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of History, Professor, Deputy Director of the Institute for African Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Professor D.M. Bondarenko
Doctor of History, Professor of the School of Historical Sciences of the National research university « graduate School economy” O.V. Budnitsky
Doctor of History, Head of the Paleolithic Department of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.A. Vasiliev
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Leading Researcher of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences S.Yu. grandchildren
Doctor of History, Professor of the Department of National History of the Vologda State Pedagogical University T.M. Dimoni
Doctor of History, Professor of the Department of History of Russia before early XIX in. Faculty of History, Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosova A.A. Gorsky, Deputy Chairman of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History
Doctor of History, Chief Researcher Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation V.G. Kiknadze
Doctor of History, Dean of the Faculty of History and Political Science, Perm State National Research University I.K. Kiryanov
Doctor of History, Professor, Head of the Department of Russian History of the North Caucasus federal university M.E. Kolesnikova
Doctor of History, Professor, Leading Researcher, Head of the Center for Economic History of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.V. Kondrashin
Doctor of History, Professor of the Department of the History of Russia in the Middle Ages and Modern Times of the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State Humanitarian University I.V. Kurukin
Candidate of History, Associate Professor, School of Historical Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics E.S. Marey, Secretary of the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on History
Doctor of History, Professor, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsina O.S. Porshneva
Doctor of History, Leading Researcher at the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.V. Roginsky
Doctor of History, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.V. Trepavlov
Doctor of History, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Department of Medieval Archeology of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.V. Chernetsov
Doctor of History, Leading Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences I.A. Hormach
Doctor of History, Chief Researcher, Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences A.L. Shemyakin
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. N.N. Miklukho-Maklay RAS V.A. Shnirelman
Image copyright Vyacheslav Prokofiev/TASS Image caption Medinsky previously called the claims to his dissertation "a denunciation in the best traditions of Lysenkoism"
The Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) recommended not to deprive the Minister of Culture of Russia Vladimir Medinsky of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. Earlier, the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission voted for the deprivation of a scientific degree, declaring that Medinsky did not have the basic skills of a historian.
The presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission considered the claims to the dissertation of the minister untenable and recommends that the Ministry of Education retain the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences for him, Interfax reported, citing one of the participants in the presidium meeting (his name is not called).
"They left the doctor of sciences. 14 - "for", six - "against", - said the source of the agency.
About the same informed on Facebook, the expert of the Dissernet community, Ivan Babitsky, who sought to deprive Medinsky of his academic degree. Academician Alexander Chubaryan, who was present at the meeting, in a conversation with the BBC Russian Service, suggested that the presidium of the VAK "did not want to create a precedent."
Medinsky himself told reporters: "70% are in favor [not to deprive], 30% are against." The Minister was present at the meeting of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, which was held behind closed doors for the press.
- There is no absolute objectivity: Medinsky answers critics
"Medinsky spoke brilliantly. Our role was to support him, but we didn't even need it. Sometimes his speech caused applause from the audience for the content of the answers," Professor of Political Science Sergei Chernyakhovsky, who was present in the hall, told the Vedomosti newspaper.
Now the Higher Attestation Commission must submit its recommendations to the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia. According to the regulation on the awarding of academic degrees, it is up to them to make the final decision. A corresponding order will be prepared in the near future, the press service of the ministry told the BBC.
"I'm very happy that it's all over," Russian Education Minister Olga Vasilyeva later said.
The Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission ruled in favor of the Minister of Culture, despite the recommendation of the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission, the vast majority of whose members agreed with the demand to deprive Medinsky of his academic degree. Anton Gorsky, deputy chairman of the VAK's expert council on history, told the BBC Russian Service earlier that "as a rule" the presidium listens to the decisions of the expert councils.
Thesis Scandal
Medinsky, then a member of the State Duma, defended his doctoral dissertation at the Russian State social university(RGSU) in June 2011. His work is called "Problems of Objectivity in the Coverage of Russian History in the Second Half of the 15th-17th Centuries".
Five years later, in April 2015, doctors of historical sciences Vyacheslav Kozlyakov and Konstantin Yerusalimsky and candidate of philological sciences Ivan Babitsky demanded to deprive Medinsky of his degree. In their opinion, his dissertation "cannot be considered historical research"because she's full of blunders."
- Minister Medinsky was left with a scientific degree
- The dissertation council of Moscow State University refused to study the complaint against Medinsky
- VAK withdrew the application for the deprivation of the degree of Medinsky
The minister's dissertation traveled around the country from one university to another, and as a result, in July, the dissertation council of Belgorod State University considered it and found no reason to deprive the minister of his degree. However, on October 2, the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission recommended that this be done, and the decision on the issue was submitted to the presidium.
Without basic skills
17 members of the VAK expert council voted for depriving Medinsky of his doctoral degree in the specialty "National History", with three votes against and one abstention. They explained their position on October 14 by publishing a statement in the Trinity Variant publication.
It said that the council's recommendation to deprive Medinsky of his academic degree "was by no means caused by disagreement with his" vision of history "or with his" patriotic position.
"We are deeply convinced that unskilled, unprofessional work discredits domestic science and thus can be considered an anti-patriotic phenomenon," wrote members of the VAK's expert council on history. They also denied allegations of "bullying".
- Discussion council that considered Medinsky's dissertation closed at Moscow State University
Three abstracts of Dr. Medinsky
On Monday, October 16, it turned out that disputes over scientific value are not the only question to the doctoral dissertation of Medinsky. In the abstract of the work on the websites of the Higher Attestation Commission and the RSSU, in which the defense took place, doctors of historical sciences Basir Gasanov, Alexander Borisov and Vladimir Lavrov are listed as opponents. Gasanov died, and two other scientists told Novaya Gazeta that they did not participate in the defense of Medinsky's dissertation.
Borisov found it difficult to answer why his name is listed in the abstract. Lavrov confirmed to the publication that the minister approached him with a proposal to become an opponent. The scientist, according to him, then replied that he was ready, but he was not an expert in the period about which Medinsky writes, and advised him to turn to someone else.
In addition, the council did not give a positive review of the dissertation necessary for conferring a doctoral degree, several representatives of the past expert council of the VAK, which was supposed to consider Medinsky's work, told the newspaper.
In response, the Russian Military Historical Society, headed by the Minister, published on Twitter cover page photo alternative version abstract, accompanying it with a "question to the guys from these new newspapers and their speakers: do you know how to use the search?" (author's spelling retained).
In the photographs of the original (according to the RVIO version) abstract, Medinsky's opponents are doctors of historical sciences Vladimir Semin, Vladimir Tymchik and Anatoly Korolev. A similar photocopy was provided to the Interfax agency by the Ministry of Culture. In the RVIO, the confusion with the names of opponents is explained by the fact that the VAK and RSSU made a mistake by posting a draft document with incorrect data on their websites.
Soon after discrepancies were discovered in the information about Medinsky's official opponents, Sergei Mironenko, a member of the Higher Attestation Commission and the scientific director of the State Archives, became interested in his dissertation work. He turned to the Ministry of Education with a request.
"At first they began to tell me that it was in a suburban storage, and when I said that I worked in state archive and I know that the Ministry of Education does not have any out-of-town storage, they said that they should consult with the authorities," Mironenko told the Dozhd TV channel.
According to the current procedure for awarding academic degrees, the dissertation abstract indicating the list of opponents is signed by the secretary of the dissertation council. After a successful defense, it, along with the text of the dissertation, is obligatorily stored in the Higher Attestation Commission and the Russian state library(RGB).
Despite the same composition of opponents, the version of the abstract posted on the websites of the VAK and RSSU differs from the one stored in the RSL. In the first case, five monographs by Medinsky are listed among the author's publications.
A list with the titles of these works is given in the statement of Kozlyakov, Yerusalimsky and Babitsky. "It should be noted that, to put it mildly, a strange circumstance that no traces of the existence of at least one of the five monographs indicated by V.R. Medinsky could be found by the undersigned in any way accessible to a private person," the scientists reported.
Rotation before the meeting
Within two days of the decision of the presidium of the VAK, several scientists were excluded from its composition, including the chief scientific secretary of the commission, Nikolai Arister.
In October 2016, more than two dozen academicians and corresponding members of the Russian Academy of Sciences accused him of putting pressure on the dissertation council of the Ural Federal University (UrFU). Initially, it was there, on the proposal of the Higher Attestation Commission, that claims to the work of Medinsky were to be considered.
The Meduza publication, citing its sources, reported that Ural Federal University scientists were allegedly going to support the application to deprive the minister of his doctorate in history. Arister sent a letter to the dissertation council of UrFU, in which, on behalf of the VAK, he "informed about the need to cancel the meeting," the academicians of the Russian Academy of Sciences claimed, whose appeal was published by the Kommersant newspaper.
Three days after Arister's appeal, the VAK withdrew the materials of Medinsky's dissertation from UrFU.
The Russian Ministry of Education stated that the exclusion of Arister from the VAK had nothing to do with "the issues that are currently on the agenda of the commission." An Interfax source in the ministry called personnel changes a planned rotation.
The expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) recommended depriving Minister of Culture Vladimir Medinsky of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. He announced this on his page in Facebook one of the applicants for depriving Medinsky of his degree, an expert of the Dissernet community, Ivan Babitsky.
“The expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on history by an overwhelming majority decided, contrary to the conclusion of the Belgorod council, to support our application to deprive Medinsky of the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences,” Babitsky said.
Medinsky's dissertation entitled "Problems of objectivity in the coverage of Russian history in the second half of the 15th-17th centuries." was defended in 2011 in the dissent council at the RSSU, the rector of which was fired by the former Minister of Education Dmitry Livanov due to plagiarism in her own dissertation.
The issue with the dissertation was planned to be resolved by the end of January 2017. However, in February, Ivan Tuchkov, dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, said that the university's dissertation council refused to further consider the dissertation, not finding plagiarism in it.
In July 2017 dissertation dissertation council of Belgorod State University.
However, following the meeting, 19 representatives of the dissident council voted to leave Medinsky with the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. 3 people abstained, no one voted against.
“Theoretically, the presidium has the right to disagree with the expert council, but in practice there was no such case. There have been situations when the presidium agrees with us, but the expert council does not, but for the expert council to agree with us, but the presidium does not, this has never happened,” one of the founders of Dissernet commented on the situation to Gazeta.Ru » Andrey Zayakin.
“The decision of the expert council is advisory in nature, and has a recommendatory character. There were precedents when the expert council made one decision, and the presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission - another. AT this case, I believe, the principle of professionalism was not observed - the decision was biased, and it was made by the majority negatively disposed towards the dissertation.
The decision of the Moscow State University and the positive decision of the Belgorod University were ignored. I hope that the decision of the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission will be objective and take into account the opinions of the dissenting councils of the two universities, ”Mikhail Myagkov, scientific director of the Russian Military Historical Society, told Gazeta.ru.