The article examines the transformation of professional practices among staff at regional museums supporting local culture in the context of implementing standard objectives of state development programs. This work is based on data obtained during the author's qualitative research conducted in 2024–2025. Respondents included museum staff from six cities across Russia, at various levels of the professional hierarchy—from rank-and-file specialists to managers. This allowed for a multidimensional understanding of the nature of changes in their professional practices. The author analyses how standardisation and its mechanisms are changing the everyday professional practices of museum workers. Particular attention is paid to how new federal standards and regulations are transforming interactions both within the museum staff and with visitors, local communities, and administrative structures. It was found that standardisation intensifies bureaucratisation, transforming many processes into measurable and detached procedures, that creates tension between management goals and the essential functions of museums. Not only were the adaptive strategies of museum staff identified, but also the emerging contradictions between bureaucratic goals and the cultural objectives of museums. It was established that museum staff act as active intermediaries who interpret external norms, relate them to the specifics of the local cultural landscape, and seek a balance between administrative expectations and the real needs of territorial communities. It is precisely the intermediary role of museum staff that ensures the stability of the local sociocultural space. Despite administrative pressure, they retain the ability to support regional specificities, develop unique practices of interaction with the population, and facilitate the reproduction of the cultural identity of local communities. Having examined the changes that have occurred in museum practice over the past five years, the author concludes that museum staff today serve as a bridge between standardised requirements and cultural content, helping to maintain the stability of local sociocultural spaces and support regional cultural distinctiveness. Museums continue to serve as spaces where state management standards meet living traditions and multiple local meanings.

sociology, culture, standardization, digitalization, cultural policy, sociocultural space, regional specificity, museums, professional practices

1.  Aksenova O. V. Osobennosti sotsial'no-kul'turnogo razvitiya udalennykh rossiiskikh lokal'nostei [Features of sociocultural development of remote Russian localities]. In Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya. Ezhegodnik. Vyp. 8 [Russia is reforming. Yearbook. Iss. 8]. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Moscow, IS RAN, 2009: 225–240 (in Russ.).
2. Aksenova O. V. Cultural milieu of the border lands: structure and actors. Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2014: 5: 4: 47–58 (in Russ.). EDN: TDOCUV.
3. Aksenova O. V. Activist paradigm of management at the transitional epoch: adaptation or resistance. In Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya. Ezhegodnik. Vyp. 14 [Russia is reforming. Yearbook. Iss. 14]. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Moscow, Novyi khronograf, 2016: 336–357 (in Russ.). EDN: WBLZNR.
4. Aksenova O. V. The subject of social action in Russia’s contemporary development: agent, actor, nobody. Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2020: 11: 2: 37–53 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.19181/vis.2020.11.2.640; EDN: RNECVF.
5. Aksenova O. V. Dynamics of the scientific discourse in the study of locality. Vlast', 2014: 22: 5: 94–98 (in Russ.). EDN: SEMQVN.
6. Aksenova O. V. Traditions of modernization: Sociocultural patterns of life in Russian localities. In Russia is reforming. Yearbook. Iss. 13. Ed. by M. K. Gorshkov. Moscow, Novyi khronograf, 2015: 51–70 (in Russ.). EDN: TOCABD.
7. Aksenova O. V. Paradigm of social action: Professionals in Russian modernization [monograph]. Moscow, IS RAN, 2016: 304 (in Russ.). EDN: VYBENB.
8. Bourdieu P. Formy kapitala [Forms of capital]. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya, 2002: 3: 5: 60–74 (in Russ.).
9. DiMaggio P., Powell W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Ekonomicheskaya sotsiologiya, 2010: 11: 1 (in Russ.).
10. Zimmel G. The Metropolis and Mental Life. Transl. from Germ. by K. Levinson. Ed. by A. Kurilkin. Moscow, Strelka Press, 2018: 109 (in Russ.).
11. Castells M. Communication Power. Transl. from Eng. by N. M. Tylevich. Ed. by A. I. Chernykh. Moscow, VSHE, 2016: 564 (in Russ.)
12. Lefebvre H. Proizvodstvo prostranstva [Production of space]. Transl. from Fr. by I. Staf. Ed. by M. Velikanova, A. Zhurbina. Moscow, Strelka Press, 2015: 431 (in Russ.)
13. Osipov A. M. Priorities of education studies in the context of the problem of bureaupathologies. Vestnik instituta sotziologii, 2023: 14: 2: 15–33 (in Russ.).
14. Ritzer G. McDonaldization of Society 5. Transl. from Eng. by A. V. Lazarev. Ed. by T. A. Dmitrieva. Moscow, Praksis, 2011: 592 (in Russ.).
15. Tönnies F. Obshchnost' i obshchestvo [Community and Society. Basic concepts of pure sociology]. Transl. from Germ. by D. V. Sklyadnev. St. Petersburg, Vladimir Dal', 2002: 447 (in Russ.).
16. Appadurai A. Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Vol. 1. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1996: 229.
17. Hawley A. Human Ecology: a theoretical essay. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1986: 168.
18. Hannan M. T., Freeman J. H. The Population Ecology of Organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 1977: 82: 5: 929–964.
19. Landry C. The Creative City. A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London, Routledge, 2008: 352.
20. Weber M. Economy and society. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1978: 1469.