Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy

The autonomy of science in a globalised world

Serhii Matiash
Download article
Abstract

The aim of the study was to identify the characteristics of scientific autonomy in a globalised society using various models of scientific management as examples. The methodology included the use of abstraction, analysis, synthesis and formalisation methods to compare systems for ensuring the autonomy of science in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The study found that in countries with developed science (the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom), scientific autonomy was achieved through the legally enshrined institutional independence of scientific organisations, stable funding, and self-regulation mechanisms through scientific councils and independent expert agencies. In developing countries (India, Indonesia, South Africa), autonomy was limited by dependence on state funding and the politicised appointment of heads of scientific institutions. In post-Soviet countries (Ukraine, Kazakhstan), a transitional state is observed: formally, autonomy was declared in laws, but in practice, scientific institutions significantly depend on the decisions of ministries, have limited access to alternative sources of funding, and have poorly developed self-regulation mechanisms. It has been found that the autonomy of science is not only an indicator of the democratic nature of the management system, but also an important condition for the effectiveness of scientific activity, international cooperation and the country’s competitiveness in the global scientific space. A study of official documents and scientometric data showed that the level of autonomy directly correlates with the number of publications, the attraction of international grants, and resistance to political fluctuations. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of a typology of scientific management models that can serve as a basis for reforms in the field of science aimed at strengthening institutional autonomy, improving the quality of research and expanding international scientific integration

Keywords

public funding; institutional independence; market mechanisms; academic freedom; knowledge quality standards

Suggested citation
Matiash, S. (2025). The autonomy of science in a globalised world. Humanities Studios: Pedagogy, Psychology, Philosophy, 13(3), 76-92. https://doi.org/10.31548/hspedagog/3.2025.76
References
  1. Algan, Y., Cohen, D., Davoine, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2021). Trust in scientists in times of pandemic: Panel evidence from 12 countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(40), article number e2108576118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2108576118.
  2. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. (1949, May). Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg.
  3. Boulton, G. (2022). Science as a global public good: The roles of the representative bodies of science – a perspective. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 88, 832-841. doi: 10.1007/s43538-022-00125-x.
  4. Cavanagh, A., Kalfadellis, P., & Freeman, S. (2023). Developing successful assumed autonomy-based initiatives: An attention-based view. Global Strategy Journal, 13(1), 176-216. doi: 10.1002/gsj.1403.
  5. Cerdeira, J., Mesquita, J., & Vieira, E.S. (2023). International research collaboration: Is Africa different? A cross-country panel data analysis. Scientometrics, 128, 2145-2174. doi: 10.1007/s11192-023-04659-9.
  6. Delen, I., & Tuzun, O.Y. (2024). Science education in different contexts: Regional and local differences in the main research trends. Education and Science, 49(218), 185-204. doi: 10.15390/EB.2024.12578.
  7. European Commission. (2005). The European charter for researchers. Retrieved from https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/am509774cee_en_e4.pdf.
  8. European Commission. (n.d.). Horizon Europe. Retrieved from https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe_en.
  9. Federal Government & Länder of Germany. (2019). Pact for Research and Innovation. Retrieved from https://www.gwk-bonn.de/fileadmin/Redaktion/Dokumente/Papers/GWK-Heft-63_Monitoring-Bericht-2019-Band_I.pdf.
  10. Gauchat, G.W. (2023). The legitimacy of science. Annual Review of Sociology, 49, 263-279. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-035037.
  11. Gauttam, P., Singh, B., Singh, S., Bika, S.L., & Tiwari, R.P. (2024). Education as a soft power resource: A systematic review. Heliyon, 10(1), article number e23736. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23736.
  12. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), article number 6. doi: 10.3390/soc15010006.
  13. Gherardini, L., & Cabri, G. (2024). The impact of autonomous vehicles on safety, economy, society, and environment. World Electric Vehicle Journal, 15(12), article number 579. doi: 10.3390/wevj15120579.
  14. Gomez, C.J., Herman, A.C., & Parigi, P. (2022). Leading countries in global science increasingly receive more citations than other countries doing similar research. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 919-929. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01351-5.
  15. Hempel, F. (2021). Novel reflections on the autonomy and responsibility of science. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, article number 615357. doi: 10.3389/frma.2021.615357.
  16. Hernández-Torrano, D., Karabassova, L., Izekenova, Z., & Courtney, M.G.R. (2021). Mapping education research in post-Soviet countries: A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 87, article number 102502. doi: 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2021.102502.
  17. Hogan, D., & O’Flaherty, J. (2022). Exploring the nature and culture of science as an academic discipline: Implications for the integration of education for sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 23(8), 120-147. doi: 10.1108/IJSHE-06-2021-0236.
  18. Hubersky, L., & Zhylinska, O. (2021). Science in the modern world: From value to complexity. Modern World: Culture and Science, 18, 53-60. doi: 10.31392/iscs.2021.18.053.
  19. Kwiek, M. (2023). The globalization of science: The increasing power of individual scientists. In P. Mattei, X. Dumay, E. Mangez & J. Behrend (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of education and globalization (pp. 728-761). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197570685.013.16.
  20. Law of Ukraine No. 848-VIII “On Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity”. (2015, November). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/848-19#Text.
  21. Lee, S.-M. (2022). Scientific policies of developing countries and mid-level entry strategy: From the perspective of a marine scientist. Geoscience Letters, 9, article number 31. doi: 10.1186/s40562-022-00242-x.
  22. Mariotti, S. (2025). “Open strategic autonomy” as an industrial policy compass for the EU competitiveness and growth: The good, the bad, or the ugly? Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 52, 1-26. doi: 10.1007/s40812-024-00327-y.
  23. Mayer, M., & Lu, Y.-C. (2023). Digital autonomy? Measuring the global digital dependence structure. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4404826.
  24. Metcalfe, J, et al. (2020). The COVID-19 mirror: Reflecting science-society relationships across 11 countries. Journal of Science Communication, 19(7), article number A05. doi: 10.22323/2.19070205.
  25. Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine. (2021). Ukrainian innovation strategy and development of science parks – uniting the efforts of science, government and business. Retrieved from https://mon.gov.ua/en/news/ukrainska-stratehiia-innovatsii-i-rozvytok-naukovykh-parkiv-iak-obiednaty-zusyllia-nauky-derzhavy-i-biznesu.
  26. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2022). Priority directions of science development for 2024-2026 approved in Kazakhstan. Retrieved from https://primeminister.kz/en/news/priority-directions-of-science-development-for-2024-2026-approved-in-kazakhstan-25716.
  27. National Science Foundation. (2022). Strategic plan. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/about/performance/strategic-plan.
  28. Oksana, L.P. (2020). Conceptualisation of the problem of giftedness in foreign and domestic research. Scientific Bulletin of Mukachevo State University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology”, 6(1), 125-131. doi: 10.52534/msu-pp.6(1).2020.125-131.
  29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2023. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/sti/oecd-science-technology-and-innovation-outlook-25186167.htm.
  30. Parliamentary Monitoring Group. (2024). 2019 white paper on science, technology and innovation & 2022-32 decadal plan. Retrieved from https://pmg.org.za/committee-meeting/39448/.
  31. Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S.W.S., & Petty, R.E. (2022). Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(30), article number e2120755119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2120755119.
  32. Polejack, A. (2021). The importance of ocean science diplomacy for ocean affairs, global sustainability, and the UN decade of ocean science. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, article number 664066. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2021.664066.
  33. Rasa, T., & Laherto, A. (2022). Young people’s technological images of the future: Implications for science and technology education. European Journal of Futures Research, 10, article number 4. doi: 10.1186/s40309-022-00190-x.
  34. Regulation of the President of Indonesia No. 78/2021 “On the National Research and Innovation Agency”. (2021, July). Retrieved from https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/174847/perpres-no-78-tahun-2021.
  35. Science, technology and innovation policy of India. (2020). Retrieved from https://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/STIP_Doc_1.4_Dec2020.pdf.
  36. Sharma, M., & Ankit, P. (2023). Importance of education in this challenging world. Smart Moves Journal IJELLH, 11(3), 10-21. doi: 10.24113/ijellh.v11i3.11408.
  37. Tegegn, D.A. (2024). The role of science and technology in reconstructing human social history: Effect of technology change on society. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), article number 2356916. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2356916.
  38. UK Parliament. (2021). Cuts to scientific research would be “paradoxical”. Retrieved from https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/135/science-and-technology-committee-commons/news/153062/cuts-to-scientific-research-would-be-paradoxical/.
  39. UK Research and Innovation. (2022). Annual reports and accounts 2022-2023. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64bf8a7fd4051a000d5a9242/ukri-annual-report-accounts-2022-2023-print-ready.pdf.
  40. UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development. Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000377433.
  41. Vasiliadis, G., Kiriakidi, E., & Panagiotakis, C. (2024). A worldwide analysis of top scientists across scientific fields. Journal of Scientometric Research, 13(1), 192-200. doi: 10.5530/jscires.13.1.16.
  42. Vergeles, K.M., Kulish, P.L., Shkolnikova, T.Yu., & Vergeles, T.M. (2020). Philosophy of science and technology in modern world. Bulletin of Ivan Franko Zhytomyr State University. Philosophical Sciences, 2(88), 71-79. doi: 10.35433/PhilosophicalSciences.2(88).2020.71-79.
  43. Vogt, M., & Weber, C. (2020). The role of universities in a sustainable society: Why value-free research is neither possible nor desirable. Sustainability, 12(7), article number 2811. doi: 10.3390/su12072811.
  44. Wildfeuer, A.G. (2020). Idea and function of science and scientific knowledge in a glocalised world. In H. Hobelsberger (Ed.), Social glocalisation and education: Social work, health sciences, and practical theology perspectives on change (pp. 251-266). Budrich: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
  45. Zivkovic, E. (2020). The role of science in modern society. Hemijska Industrija, 74(2), 75-78. doi: 10.2298/HEMIND200427013Z.
  46. Ziyaev, K.Z. (2022). Intelligent traffic management system. In The role of science and innovation in the modern world (pp. 124-128). London: Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7393822.