The paper features the term "lifeworld" coined in 1910 by E. Husserl. The research objective was to describe the ideological content of Husserl's phenomenology, which determined the content and categorical design (type) of phenomenological sociology. E. Husserl introduced a systematic concept of the "lifeworld" and used it as a basis for a branch of social science now referred to as "understanding sociology". In addition, Husserl’s socio-philosophical and epistemological research helped to resolve the "crisis" of science, which he himself discovered, and to recreate the trampled dignity of human subjectivity. The research generalizes and clarifies various scientific views on the criticism of E. Husserl's naturalism and the problem of "lifeworld". Its results can be used in courses of sociology, philosophy, and history.

The review was prepared on the basis of the materials of the expert section ‘Scientometry 2.0: Digital Restart’, which took place as part of the Gaidar Forum 2020. It is devoted to a discussion of the role of applied scientometrics in assessing the effectiveness of scientists, as well as the prospects and possibilities of digitalization of science. The ‘tyranny of indicators’ and the crisis of confidence among the academic community in any formal assessment of their activities is one of the most important trends in the field of scientific administration in recent years. The object of public criticism is applied scientometrics as a tool for this assessment. During the discussion, experts made a number of significant comments regarding the widespread use of applied scientometrics. First, scientometric awareness needs to be formed. Scientometrics can be useful for both researchers and organizations. Scientometric literacy needs to be educated. It is such an approach for the future that can be an important step towards overcoming the systemic crisis in assessing scientific activity. Secondly, the scientometric assessment should be supported by expert assessment. If the first formalizes the assessment process and makes the management system more transparent, the second fills it with meaningful meaning. Thirdly, the digital transformation in the management of scientific activity at the moment is not able to remove the contradiction that has arisen. Moreover, as follows from the expert’s speech, neither the scientific community, nor the scientific management system itself, is yet ready for digital transformation.