The relevance of studying generational relationships in academic and teaching communities stems from significant gaps in sociological research on higher education. The academic community of university academic and teaching staff has a complex structure, the generational one being one of the variety. Its current state and changing dynamics influence the functioning of modern Russian universities, raising concerns among both academic and teaching staff and university administration. The problems of generational relationships within the academic and teaching community, caused by imbalances in its generational structure, form the subject of this article. The purpose of the study is to determine the content and nature of generational relationships within the academic and teaching community. The article presents an analysis of academic and teaching staff's understanding of the problems of generational relationships, including signs of crisis and their orientation toward the ideal of intergenerational relationships. The article considers the reasons for the relevance of the problem, its theoretical and practical significance, scientific novelty, and outlines the possibilities of using the research results to solve important problems of university development. Along with a review of the literature on this issue, an analysis of the theoretical foundations of the study is presented with an emphasis on the conceptual substantiation of generational issues in the works of K. Mannheim. The empirical basis of the article is formed by the data of two sociological studies (2023-2024), obtained in the course of semi-structured interviews with representatives of different generations of scientific, pedagogical and administrative-managerial workers of Russian universities. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the focus on the contradictions of generational relations among scientific and pedagogical workers and the identification of potential zones of intergenerational tensions and conflicts. The main results of this study are as follows: interpretation of the orientation of scientific and pedagogical workers on achieving a balance in generational relations; characterization of the "rejuvenation policy" as a factor in the actualisation of negative age stereotypes; the definition of scientific schools and scientific mentoring as conflict-free zones of generational relations. The authors point to the risks of exaggerating the role of the younger generation, that are generated by state policy in higher education. They conclude that managerial assessments of a university's generational structure based solely on quantitative parameters of the ratio of representatives of the younger and older generations of academic staff are weakly justified.

scientific and pedagogical community, scientific and pedagogical workers, administrative and managerial workers, intergenerational and intragenerational relations, generation in a university, balance of generational relations, negative age stereotypes, scientific schools, scientific mentoring

1.  Barsukov I. N. Causes and consequences of generational conflict as a social problem of "aging" states. Sotsialnoe prostranstvo, 2016: 5(7). Accessed 27.02.2025. URL: http://socialarea-journal.ru/article/2069?_lang=en (in Russ.).
2. Bogacheva N. V., Sivak E. V. Myths about the "Generation Z". Sovremennaya analitika obrazovaniya, 2019: 1: 1–64 (in Russ.). EDN: VBVYTA.
3. Vidiasova L. A., Grigoryeva I. A. et al. Career expectations of the elderly in Russia: based on the analysis of the resumes’ database from the Rostrud portal "Work in Russia". Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i socialnye peremeny, 2024: 1: 26–47 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2024.1.2430; EDN: OKOFJO.
4. Volkov Yu. G. Intergenerational interaction in Russian society: The search for a language of consent and mutual understanding. Gumanitarij Yuga Rossii, 2018: 7(3): 30–42 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.23683/2227-8656.2018.3.2; EDN: USUAHO.
5. Volkova V. N., Chiker V. A. Features of career choices through the generation theory: the results of empirical research. Vestnik SPbGU. Menedzhment, 2016: 4: 79–105 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu08.2016.404; EDN: VLHYJT.
6. Zborovsky G. E., Ambarova P. A. Scientific and pedagogical staff as a social community in the changing conditions of academic development. Obrazovanie i nauka, 2022: 24(5): 147–180 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2022-5-147-180; EDN: DQKMBA.
7. Zborovsky G. E., Ambarova P. A. Сontradictions in the development of the research and pedagogical community as a problem of foreign and Russian research. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsialnaya praktika, 2023: 11(1): 8–25 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/snsp.2023.11.1.1; EDN: BBPWCF.
8. Zubok Yu. A., Seliverstova N. A. Essential components of the image of the future of the country in the representations of the youth. Nauka. Kultura. Obshhestvo, 2022: 28(4): 56–74 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/nko.2022.28.4.5; EDN: QATYVU.
9. Кaterniy I. V. Development of the Theory of Crisis in Sociology: Evolving Ideas and Modernity. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2023: 10: 14–26 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250028301-4; EDN: HYHUDT.
10. Kozyreva P. M., Smirnov A. I. Interaction of generations in modern Russia: An evolving rapprochement. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 2021: 11: 49–60 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.31857/S013216250014949-6; EDN: KNAYMK.
11. Mannheim K. Essays on the sociology of knowledge. The problem of generations – competitiveness – economic ambitions. Transl. from Eng. by E. Ya. Dodin. Moscow, INION RAN, 2000: 164 (in Russ.). EDN: LAFOX.
12. Myths and reality about the buzzer generation. Report. Moscow, INP; GK LANIT, 2022: 74 (in Russ.).
13.  Omelchenko E. L. Forgotten generation X. A retrospective look from the future. Interakciya. Intervyu. Interpretaciya, 2024: 16(2): 10–28 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/inter.2024.16.2.1; EDN: AATYIC.
14. Omelchenko E. L., Lisovskaya I. V. Youth as a barometer of the future? The youth agenda in contemporary Russia as viewed by youth policy experts. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny, 2022: 2: 66–92 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitor-ing.2022.2.2078; EDN: XIXVYB.
15. Radaev V. Millennials. How Russian society is changing. Moscow, HSE, 2019: 224 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.17323/978-5-7598-1985-1; EDN: STATFS.
16. Semenova V. V. Modern conceptual and empirical approaches to the concept of "generation". In Reforming Russia. Yearbook – 2003. Ed. by L. M. Drobizheva Moscow, IS RAN, 2003: 213–237 (in Russ.). EDN: PEOBWX.
17. Sinyavskaya O. V., Cherviakova A. A. et al. Happy helpers? The impact of social activity on the levels of happiness among people aged 50 and over in the European countries. Monitoring obshhestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsialnye peremeny, 2019: 6: 237–258 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.6.12; EDN: JQDDWR.
18. Twenge J. Generation I. Why the Internet generation has lost its rebellious spirit and become more tolerant. Transl. from Eng. by A. Tolmachev. Moscow, RIPOL Classic, 2019: 406 (in Russ.).
19. Trotsuk I. V. "White spots" of the generational analysis: objective and subjective meaning of the age. Vestnik RUDN. Sotsiologiya, 2015: 15(2): 19–35 (in Russ.). EDN: TPTDDF.
20. Shanin T. The history of generations and generational history. Chelovek. Soobshhestvo. Upravlenie, 2005: 3: 6–25 (in Russ.). EDN: OLBGBQ.
21. Shcelkin A. G. "Fathers and children" – a sociological portrait of generations in an ontological interior. Peterburgskaya sotsiologiya segodnya, 2022: 18: 5–34 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.25990/socinstras.pss-18.htp8-1j56; EDN: DUPRNX.
22. Aboim S., Vasconcelos P. From political to social generations: A critical reappraisal of Mannheim’s classical approach. European Journal of Social Theory, 2014: 17(2): 165–183. DOI: 10.1177/1368431013509681.
23. Bengtson V., Giarrusso R. et al. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family, 2002: 64(3): 568–576. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00568.x.
24. Berk R. A. Multigenerational diversity in the academic workplace: implications for practice. Journal of Higher Education Management, 2013: 28(1): 10–23.
25. Chavez M. J. A. Generational Diversity in the Academia: Ramifications and Challenges for Educational Leaders. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 2015: 5(1): 1–9.
26. Connolly J. Generational conflict and the sociology of generations: Mannheim and Elias reconsidered. Theory, Culture & Society, 2019: 36(7–8): 153–172. DOI: 10.1177/0263276419827085.
27. Duffy B. The Generation Myth: Why When You’re Born Matters Less Than You Think. Hachette UK, 2021: 288.
28. Eyerman R., Turner B. S. Outline of a theory of generations. European journal of social theory, 1998: 1(1): 91–106. DOI: 10.1177/136843198001001007.
29. Favretto A. R., Balduzzi G. Intergenerational Justice as Intergenerational Inclusion: New Challenges for Welfare Systems. REI – Revista Estudos Institucionais, 2020: 6(3): 1417–35. DOI: 10.21783/rei.v6i3.447.
30. Krawchenko T., Foster K. “Generationing” Public Policy: A Multicountry Review of Intergenerational Equity Policies. Public Policy and Governance Review, 2016: 7(2): 95–119.
31. Pilcher J. Mannheim's Sociology of Generations: An Undervalued Legacy. British journal of sociology, 1994: 45(3): 481–495. DOI: 10.2307/591659.
32. Sato Y. Intergenerational Inequalities and Policy Options for Achieving Generational Balance in Japan. Modern Macroeconomics with Historical Perspectives. Springer Singapore, 2023: 107–127. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-99-1067-0_6.
33. Strauss W., Howe N. Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. New York, William Morrow & Co, 1991: 538.
34. Urick M. J., Hollensbe E. C. et al. Understanding and Managing Intergenerational Conflict: An Examination of Influences and Strategies. Work, Aging and Retirement, 2017: 3(2): 166–185. DOI: 10.1093/workar/waw009.
35. van Rossem A. H. D. Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2019: 40(4): 434–455. DOI: 10.1002/job.2341.
36. Velarde J., Caballero K., Landeo A. Diversidad Generacional: Desafíos para la educación universitaria en el siglo XXI. Revista de Filosofía, 2022: 39(102): 664–673. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7063329.
37. Wistow J. The intergenerational contract. Social Policy, Political Economy and the Social Contract. Bristol University Press, Policy Press, 2023: 130–144. DOI: 10.51952/9781447352624.ch007.