Professional well-being in science
An eudaimonic perspective
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19487986 |
|---|---|
| Authors | A V Noskova (0000-0001-6587-0822, Moscow State Institute of International Relations, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 26 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 130-141 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-15 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | RUDN Journal of Sociology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2313-2272 • E-ISSN: 2408-8897 |
| Publisher | Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (PUBLISHER • RU) |
| DOI | 10.22363/2313-2272-2026-26-1-130-141 |
| OpenAlex | W7154598467 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
The article explains the potential of the eudaimonic approach to the sociological study of professional well-being in science. The relevance of this approach is determined by the increasing complexity of the problem of professional burnout among scientists under the current new challenges. Eudaimonic well-being is the degree to which scientists realize their higher socialprofessional and personal needs. The article presents the evolution of the eudaimonic approach from Aristotelian philosophy to contemporary methods of measuring well-being. Another theoretical basis for the article is R. Merton’s concept of scientific ethos: the proposed method for measuring professional well-being is based on his principle of the ambivalence of scientific norms. The structure of eudaimonic well-being consists of two components - personally and socially oriented - and eight pairs of dichotomous variables. The author tested a hypothesis about structural differences in the eudaimonic well-being of scientists in the humanities and natural sciences on the data from the online survey conducted in 2024 (N=536). Common features include a high level of professional well-being and a structured distribution of motives (the most significant are “enjoying the content of work” and “independence - the ability to independently set work schedule and professional tasks”, while the least significant is “competing with colleagues”); however, scientists in natural sciences are more focused on higher social-professional needs. Thus, science retains its functional significance as an institutional channel for realizing higher needs in the profession. At the same time, a shift in the structure of value motives toward personally oriented, which is more evident among social researchers, may become a new ethical challenge for social science and indirectly affect prospects for social education in Russia
Ambivalence · Eudaimonia · Nomothetic and idiographic · COVID-19, Geopolitics, Technology, Migration · Educational Innovations and Challenges · Psychology of Development and Education
| Highly cited | No |
|---|