Volodymyr Afrykanovych Nikitin


Doctoral candidate in Architecture, Doctor of Cultural Studies, Deputy Director of Ukrainian Institute of Public Policy.

International consultant on the organization of changes. Organizer and participant of more than  hundred organizational games and problem seminars. Founder of Kyiv debating club of amateurs ( 10 years experience) and  "reasons for  future" project.  One of the creators of Tolyatti Academy of Management and Kyiv Lyceum of Business. One of the founders of  Heraclean futuristic congress. Founder of "Foundation for Future"project, one of the initiators of "The Charter of Future" social platform.

Architect by profession. Kyiv citizen. The main area of interest -  theory of architecture, methodology of history and culture.

Along with H.P. Shchedrovitsky, A.P. Zinchenko, N.F. Andreychenko, A.H. Reus and others participated in creation and operation of Methodological Laboratories Network, focused on  creation of regional development networks with an university center. As a result, the background for organization of Surgut State University were created, projects were developed and methodologically oriented schools such as Academy of Business and Banking (now  - Tolyatti Academy of Management) and  Kyiv Business Lyceum were established. He worked in these schools and actively participated in the development of innovative forms of training, including humanitarian courses based on presentation of SBR methodology(System-based research methodology). The result of these studies was the concept of reflexive education, published in the book "The idea of ​​education."

In 1965-1995 worked at the Institute of History, Theory of Architecture and Urban Planning, together with other representatives of Kyiv group. He was engaged in the analysis of artistic forms, urban theories, analysis of trends in the development of world architecture. He taught at the Kyiv State Art Institute. Actively communicated with methodologists who worked in a similar Moscow Institute - A.H. Rappaport, V.L. Hlazychev, employees of H.P. Shchedrovitsky laboratory in this institute. The result of this work was the book "Genesis of Architectural Culture" and "Principle of the City", as well as the organizational typology of cultural formations. This typology became the subject of investigation in doctoral dissertation "Organizational forms of modern culture."


Since 2000 I have been working at International Center for Advanced Studies (Kyiv), where I deal with public policy issues - procedures for making political decisions, consultations with interest groups, communicative strategies. I attend seminars and trainings on these issues.

In 2003 I became co-founder and co-chairman of the Kyiv debating club of amateurs. The club discusses formation of the information society in Ukraine.

I published more than 100 scientific, methodological and research works, and, in addition, three books of poems.

In recent years, I focused on the formulation of methodological approach to history. I believe that MMK has formed its own approach, different from the scientific historical, philosophical or theological approaches to understanding history - its forms, meanings and procedures of entry, self-determination, description and analysis. The difference lies primarily in the emphasis on history of thinking and activity, but not forms of consciousness, mentality or political and economic life. History is a change of ideal formations, problems arising in the implementation of thinking activity and ways to resolve them, as well as their reproduction and translation. History is comprehended and begins "anew" from own programs and reflexion of their realization. The local becomes the basis for the universal. The history of MMK is a model for the history of thinking activity.

Hence I understand methodology as a mechanism of historical development. The methodology formulates and carries out a shift of marginal ontologies, and then "dies" in new subject-related organization.

The value of methodology first of all is seen in its means of organizing structured communication and drawing it into the world of thinking through it. I strongly oppose  the dissemination of methodology tasks to the implementation of intellectual power through politics and use of manipulative political technologies for this.

The main methodological problem of our time is not the conflict of ideal forms of thinking and virtual forms of consciousness, which has not been discussed yet