Transformation of Models of Interaction between Science and Society: From the Dialogical Model of Popularization to the Network Structure of Citizen Science
Research Article
How to Cite
Rassolova E.N., Galkin K.A. Transformation of Models of Interaction between Science and Society: From the Dialogical Model of Popularization to the Network Structure of Citizen Science. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2024. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 193-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.3.14 (in Russ.).
Abstract
This article examines the transformation of models of interaction between science and society in the second half of the 20th century and the early 21st century, taking into account significant changes in communication between them and processes of deinstitutionalization characteristic of contemporary societies. The main attention is paid to the critical analysis of the processes of popularization of scientific knowledge and peculiarities of interaction between professional researchers and science enthusiasts under conditions of network communications. We have identified the main models of interaction between science and society, which include various features of communication between academics and the public.
One of the main results of the study is the identification of points of contact between the interests of professional scientists and science enthusiasts. This can contribute to more effective cooperation and knowledge exchange between these groups.
Keywords:
science enthusiasts, scientists, deinstitutionalization of science, development of science, communication in science, popularization of science
References
1. Pisarev A., Gavrilenko S. In search of an evanescent object: Science and its history. Logos. 2020;30(1):1–28. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22394/0869-5377-2020-1-1-25.
2. Kasavin I. T., Shipovalova L. V. The contemporary philosophy of science: An eternal return. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2022;59(4):6–20. (In Russ.). DOI 10.5840/eps202259452.
3. Barber B. Science and the social order. Westport, CT : Greenwood Press; 1978. xxiii, 288 p.
4. Merton R. K. The institutional imperatives of science. In: Barnes B., ed. Sociology of science. L. : Penguin Books; 1972. P. 65–79.
5. Medunetsky V. M., Silaeva K. V. The main stages of the development of technical sciences [Osnovnye etapy razvitiya tekhnicheskikh nauk] : A study guide. St. Petersburg : ITMO University; 2016. 67 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kuzmin M. N. Educational process in Russia and Europe in modern period: Anthropological aspect. Questions of Philosophy=Voprosy filosofii 2011;(4):53–61. (In Russ.).
7. Dear P. What is the history of science the history of? Early modern roots of the ideology of modern science. Logos. 2020;30(1):29–62. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22394/0869-5377-2020-1-29-58.
8. Nalyotova I. V. University of Humboldt in dynamics of university education development. Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities=Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2010;(9):7–12. (In Russ.).
9. Leite L. History of science in science education: Development and validation of a checklist for analysing the historical content of science textbooks. Science & Education. 2002;11(4):333–359. DOI 10.1023/A:1016063432662.
10. Kuhn T. The history of science. In: Patton L., ed. Philosophy, science, and history : A guide and reader. N. Y. : Routledge; 2014. P. 106–121.
11. Tuarmensky V. V., Boranovsky A. V., Lyashchuk Yu. O. [et al.] From science city to technopolis: History of transformation. Human capital=Chelovecheskij kapital. 2020;(1):100–107. (In Russ.). DOI 10.25629/HC.2020.01.11.
12. Mirsky E. M. Science as a social institution [Nauka kak sotsial'nyi institut]. Higher Education in Russia=Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2004;(8):89–108. (In Russ.).
13. Barber B. Talcott Parsons and the sociology of science: An essay in appreciation and remembrance. Theory, Culture & Society. 1989;6(4):623–635. DOI 10.1177/026327689006004006.
14. Bourdieu P. The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum. 1991;6(1):3–26. DOI 10.1007/BF01112725.
15. Mirskaya E. Z. R. K. Merton and the ethos of classical science [R. K. Merton i etos klassicheskoi nauki]. Philosophy of Science=Filosofiya nauki. 2005;11(1):11–28. (In Russ.).
16. Mirsky E. M. Sociology of science – new challenges. Sociology of Science and Technology=Sociologia nauki i tehnologij. 2011;2(3):13–30. (In Russ.).
17. Wynne B. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science. 1993;2(4):321–337. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003.
18. Nielsen K. The ‘institutional turn’ in the social sciences: a review of approaches and a future research agenda. In: Ioannides S., Nielsen K., ed. Economics and the social sciences: Boundaries, interaction and integration. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing; 2007. P. 91–111.
19. Buchholz К. Criteria for the analysis of scientific quality. Scientometrics. 1995;32(2):195–218. DOI 10.1007/BF02016894.
20. Smirnov S. G. Problem book on the history of science. From Thales to Newton [Zadachnik po istorii nauki. Ot Falesa do N'yutona]. M. : Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education; 2017. 360 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-4439-3170-8.
21. Coccia M. Science, funding and economic growth: Analysis and science policy implications. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 2008;5(1):1–27. DOI 10.1504/WRSTSD.2008.017810.
22. Pisano G. P. The evolution of science-based business: Innovating how we innovate. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2010;19(2):465–482. DOI 10.2139/ssrn.1545806.
23. Dickson D. The new politics of science. Chicago : University of Chicago Press; 1988. xi, 404 p.
24. Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review. 2012;77(2):167–187. DOI 10.1177/0003122412438225.
25. Mann M., Schleifer C. Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces. 2020;99(1):305–332. DOI 10.1093/sf/soz156.
26. Ferran-Ferrer N. Volunteer participation in citizen science projects. El Profesional de la Información. 2015;24(6):827–837.
27. Hartman J. The popularization of science through citizen volunteers. Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6(1):69–86. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/005.
28. Laptev V. V. Improvement of the system of academic staff training at the present stage of science and society development. Izvestiya: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences. 2009;(83):7–17. (In Russ.).
29. Turnhout E., Stuiver M., Klostermann Ju. [et al.]. New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy. 2013;40(3):354–365. DOI 10.1093/scipol/scs114.
30. Bijker W. E., Bal R., Hendriks R. The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press; 2009. viii, 223 p.
31. Abramov R. N., Kozhanov A. A. Popular science conceptual analysis: Models of science, society and media communications. Sociology of Science and Technology= Sociologia nauki i tehnologij. 2015;6(2):45–59. (In Russ.).
32. Pogozhina N. N. Modern trends in the communicative interaction of science and society. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2023;(76):141–152. (In Russ.). DOI 10.17223/1998863X/76/14.
33. Trench B. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng D., Claessens M., Gascoigne T. [et al.], eds. Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer; 2008. P. 119–135. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7.
34. Schiele B., Claessens M., Shi S., eds. Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends. Dordrecht : Springer; 2012. xxv, 317 p. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6.
35. Miller S. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10(1):115–120. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308.
36. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics. 2006;9(3):211–220. DOI 10.1159/000092659.
37. Kasavin I. T. Science: A public good and a humanistic project. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2021;(60):217–227. (In Russ.). DOI 10.17223/1998863X/60/19.
38. Kent M. L., Taylor M. Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review. 2002;28(1):21–37. DOI 10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X.
39. Daum A. W. Varieties of popular science and the transformations of public knowledge: Some historical reflections. Isis. Vol. 2009;100(2):319–332. DOI 10.1086/599550.
40. Pandora K., Rader K. A. Science in the everyday world: Why perspectives from the history of science matter. Isis. 2008;99(2):350–364. DOI 10.1086/588693.
41. Irwin A. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10(1):1–18. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301.
42. Irwin A. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. L. : Routledge; 2002. xiii, 198 p.
43. Liu H.-Y., Dörler D., Heigl F., Grossberndt S. Citizen science platforms. In: Vohland K., Land-Zandstra A., Ceccaroni L. [et al.], eds. The science of citizen science. Cham : Springer, 2021. P. 439–459. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_22.
44. Hunter D. E. L., Newman G. J., Balgopal M. M. Citizen scientist or citizen technician: A case study of communication on one citizen science platform. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2020;5(1):17. DOI 10.5334/cstp.261
45. Abe Y. Temporal citizen science after Fukushima. International Journal of Communication. 2023;17:1573–1591.
46. Wagenknecht K., Woods T., Nold C. [et al.]. A question of dialogue? Reflections on how citizen science can enhance communication between science and society. Journal of Science Communication. 2021;20(3):A13. DOI 10.22323/2.20030213.
47. Simpson R., Page K. R., De Roure D. Zooniverse: Observing the world's largest citizen science platform. In: WWW’14 companion : Proceedings of the 23rd International conference on world wide web. N. Y. : Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. P. 1049–1054. DOI 10.1145/2567948.2579215.
48. Castells M. Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication. 2007;1:238–266.
2. Kasavin I. T., Shipovalova L. V. The contemporary philosophy of science: An eternal return. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. 2022;59(4):6–20. (In Russ.). DOI 10.5840/eps202259452.
3. Barber B. Science and the social order. Westport, CT : Greenwood Press; 1978. xxiii, 288 p.
4. Merton R. K. The institutional imperatives of science. In: Barnes B., ed. Sociology of science. L. : Penguin Books; 1972. P. 65–79.
5. Medunetsky V. M., Silaeva K. V. The main stages of the development of technical sciences [Osnovnye etapy razvitiya tekhnicheskikh nauk] : A study guide. St. Petersburg : ITMO University; 2016. 67 p. (In Russ.).
6. Kuzmin M. N. Educational process in Russia and Europe in modern period: Anthropological aspect. Questions of Philosophy=Voprosy filosofii 2011;(4):53–61. (In Russ.).
7. Dear P. What is the history of science the history of? Early modern roots of the ideology of modern science. Logos. 2020;30(1):29–62. (In Russ.). DOI 10.22394/0869-5377-2020-1-29-58.
8. Nalyotova I. V. University of Humboldt in dynamics of university education development. Tambov University Review. Series: Humanities=Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki. 2010;(9):7–12. (In Russ.).
9. Leite L. History of science in science education: Development and validation of a checklist for analysing the historical content of science textbooks. Science & Education. 2002;11(4):333–359. DOI 10.1023/A:1016063432662.
10. Kuhn T. The history of science. In: Patton L., ed. Philosophy, science, and history : A guide and reader. N. Y. : Routledge; 2014. P. 106–121.
11. Tuarmensky V. V., Boranovsky A. V., Lyashchuk Yu. O. [et al.] From science city to technopolis: History of transformation. Human capital=Chelovecheskij kapital. 2020;(1):100–107. (In Russ.). DOI 10.25629/HC.2020.01.11.
12. Mirsky E. M. Science as a social institution [Nauka kak sotsial'nyi institut]. Higher Education in Russia=Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2004;(8):89–108. (In Russ.).
13. Barber B. Talcott Parsons and the sociology of science: An essay in appreciation and remembrance. Theory, Culture & Society. 1989;6(4):623–635. DOI 10.1177/026327689006004006.
14. Bourdieu P. The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum. 1991;6(1):3–26. DOI 10.1007/BF01112725.
15. Mirskaya E. Z. R. K. Merton and the ethos of classical science [R. K. Merton i etos klassicheskoi nauki]. Philosophy of Science=Filosofiya nauki. 2005;11(1):11–28. (In Russ.).
16. Mirsky E. M. Sociology of science – new challenges. Sociology of Science and Technology=Sociologia nauki i tehnologij. 2011;2(3):13–30. (In Russ.).
17. Wynne B. Public uptake of science: a case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science. 1993;2(4):321–337. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/2/4/003.
18. Nielsen K. The ‘institutional turn’ in the social sciences: a review of approaches and a future research agenda. In: Ioannides S., Nielsen K., ed. Economics and the social sciences: Boundaries, interaction and integration. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Publishing; 2007. P. 91–111.
19. Buchholz К. Criteria for the analysis of scientific quality. Scientometrics. 1995;32(2):195–218. DOI 10.1007/BF02016894.
20. Smirnov S. G. Problem book on the history of science. From Thales to Newton [Zadachnik po istorii nauki. Ot Falesa do N'yutona]. M. : Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education; 2017. 360 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-4439-3170-8.
21. Coccia M. Science, funding and economic growth: Analysis and science policy implications. World Review of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development. 2008;5(1):1–27. DOI 10.1504/WRSTSD.2008.017810.
22. Pisano G. P. The evolution of science-based business: Innovating how we innovate. Industrial and Corporate Change. 2010;19(2):465–482. DOI 10.2139/ssrn.1545806.
23. Dickson D. The new politics of science. Chicago : University of Chicago Press; 1988. xi, 404 p.
24. Gauchat G. Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review. 2012;77(2):167–187. DOI 10.1177/0003122412438225.
25. Mann M., Schleifer C. Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces. 2020;99(1):305–332. DOI 10.1093/sf/soz156.
26. Ferran-Ferrer N. Volunteer participation in citizen science projects. El Profesional de la Información. 2015;24(6):827–837.
27. Hartman J. The popularization of science through citizen volunteers. Public Understanding of Science. 1997;6(1):69–86. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/6/1/005.
28. Laptev V. V. Improvement of the system of academic staff training at the present stage of science and society development. Izvestiya: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Sciences. 2009;(83):7–17. (In Russ.).
29. Turnhout E., Stuiver M., Klostermann Ju. [et al.]. New roles of science in society: Different repertoires of knowledge brokering. Science and Public Policy. 2013;40(3):354–365. DOI 10.1093/scipol/scs114.
30. Bijker W. E., Bal R., Hendriks R. The paradox of scientific authority: The role of scientific advice in democracies. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press; 2009. viii, 223 p.
31. Abramov R. N., Kozhanov A. A. Popular science conceptual analysis: Models of science, society and media communications. Sociology of Science and Technology= Sociologia nauki i tehnologij. 2015;6(2):45–59. (In Russ.).
32. Pogozhina N. N. Modern trends in the communicative interaction of science and society. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2023;(76):141–152. (In Russ.). DOI 10.17223/1998863X/76/14.
33. Trench B. Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: Cheng D., Claessens M., Gascoigne T. [et al.], eds. Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices. Dordrecht, Netherlands : Springer; 2008. P. 119–135. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7.
34. Schiele B., Claessens M., Shi S., eds. Science communication in the world: Practices, theories and trends. Dordrecht : Springer; 2012. xxv, 317 p. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4279-6.
35. Miller S. Public understanding of science at the crossroads. Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10(1):115–120. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/308.
36. Wynne B. Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science – hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics. 2006;9(3):211–220. DOI 10.1159/000092659.
37. Kasavin I. T. Science: A public good and a humanistic project. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science. 2021;(60):217–227. (In Russ.). DOI 10.17223/1998863X/60/19.
38. Kent M. L., Taylor M. Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review. 2002;28(1):21–37. DOI 10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X.
39. Daum A. W. Varieties of popular science and the transformations of public knowledge: Some historical reflections. Isis. Vol. 2009;100(2):319–332. DOI 10.1086/599550.
40. Pandora K., Rader K. A. Science in the everyday world: Why perspectives from the history of science matter. Isis. 2008;99(2):350–364. DOI 10.1086/588693.
41. Irwin A. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Understanding of Science. 2001;10(1):1–18. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/301.
42. Irwin A. Citizen science: A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. L. : Routledge; 2002. xiii, 198 p.
43. Liu H.-Y., Dörler D., Heigl F., Grossberndt S. Citizen science platforms. In: Vohland K., Land-Zandstra A., Ceccaroni L. [et al.], eds. The science of citizen science. Cham : Springer, 2021. P. 439–459. DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_22.
44. Hunter D. E. L., Newman G. J., Balgopal M. M. Citizen scientist or citizen technician: A case study of communication on one citizen science platform. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2020;5(1):17. DOI 10.5334/cstp.261
45. Abe Y. Temporal citizen science after Fukushima. International Journal of Communication. 2023;17:1573–1591.
46. Wagenknecht K., Woods T., Nold C. [et al.]. A question of dialogue? Reflections on how citizen science can enhance communication between science and society. Journal of Science Communication. 2021;20(3):A13. DOI 10.22323/2.20030213.
47. Simpson R., Page K. R., De Roure D. Zooniverse: Observing the world's largest citizen science platform. In: WWW’14 companion : Proceedings of the 23rd International conference on world wide web. N. Y. : Association for Computing Machinery; 2014. P. 1049–1054. DOI 10.1145/2567948.2579215.
48. Castells M. Communication, power and counter-power in the network society. International Journal of Communication. 2007;1:238–266.
Article
Received: 21.02.2024
Accepted: 25.09.2024
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Rassolova, E. N., & Galkin, K. A. (2024). Transformation of Models of Interaction between Science and Society: From the Dialogical Model of Popularization to the Network Structure of Citizen Science. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 6(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.3.14
Section
In search of a lost genre: popular science
