Science Communication in the Global Age: Social and Philosophical Analysis of International Experience and Ukrainian Context -

Article

Open Access

by Oleh Kubalskyi¹
¹ Dobrov Institute for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies of the NAS of Ukraine (Kyiv, Ukraine)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/33/4
Received: 26 June 2024 / Accepted: 20 July 2024 / Published: 1 October 2024

View Full-Text Review Reports Cite This Paper

Abstract

The practically unlimited spread of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-expert assessments in today’s media generates an active social request for critical thinking, which can only rely on a scientifically based position. At the same time, the competitive nature of the “science communication” and “scientific communication” concepts need to be philosophically reviewed using the methodology of contemporary theories and considering the current global and national challenges. Using the methodological approaches of Markus Dressel, three main models of interaction between science and society (SSIMs) were analyzed (technocratic, decisionist, and pragmatic ones) through the issue of establishing a common field of discourse between scientists and non-scientists. Brian Trench and Massimiano Bucchi differentiate three models of science communication – the deficit model, the engagement model, and the participation model (from deficit to dialogue and participation models). These models can be considered as a way of institutionalizing the interaction of science and society – respectively, the directions of science popularization, enhancement of the expert role of science in society, and participation of non-scientists in certain elements of scientific research. The article aimed to reveal the main trends in studying the institutional potential of the social influence on science communication globally and in Ukraine particularly. As research demonstrates, the deficit model dominates in Ukraine, though the expert role of science and community science as a form of society’s participation in performing scientific tasks is developing ever more intensely.

Keywords: philosophy of science, science communication, scientific communication, models of science communication, institutionalization

References

Bernal, John D. (1939) Social Function of Science. London: Routledge.

Broks, Peter (2006) Understanding Popular Science. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Bucchi, Massimiano (2008) Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication in science. Ed. by Bucchi M., Trench B. (eds.). Handbook of public communication of science and technology: 57–76. New York: Routledge.

Bultitude, Karen. (2011) The why and how of science communication. Ed. by P. Rosulek (ed.). In Science Communication: 31-58. Pilsen: European Commission.

Dressel, Markus (2022). Models of science and society: transcending the antagonism. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 9: 241. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01261-x

Felt, Ulrike, Wynne Brian, Callon Michel, et al. (2007). European Knowledge Society Seriously: Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate; European Commission. Directorate-General for Research: Technical Report. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/5d0e77c7-2948-4ef5-aec7-bd18efe3c442

General Assembly of the NAS of Ukraine (2021) Statute the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Available online: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/n0001550-02#Text (in Ukrainian).

Habermas, Jurgen (1970) The scientization of politics and public opinion. In: Habermas J. Toward a rational society: student protest, science, and politics. Trans. from German by Jeremy J. Shapiro: 62–80. Beacon Press, Boston.

Ienna, Gerardo (2022) The Double Legacy of Bernalism in Science Diplomacy. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 45 (4), Special Issue: Knowledge from Below: 602-624. https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.202200009

Institute of Sociology of the NAS of Ukraine (2023) Sociological monitoring “Ukrainian society”. Available online: https://i-soc.com.ua/ua/news/sociologichnij-monitoringukrainske-suspilstvo (in Ukrainian).

Knorr Cetina, Karin (1997) Sociality with Objects. Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies. Theory, Culture and Society, 14(4): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327697014004001

Kubalskyi, Oleh (2022) Communicative Approach to Determining the Role of Personality in Science. Anthropological Measurements of Philosophical Research, No. 22: 36-48. https://doi.org/10.15802/ampr.v0i22.271325

Luhmann, Niklas (1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

McLuhan, Marshall (1962) The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Menzel, Herbert (1959) Planned and unplanned scientific communication. In Proceedings of International Conference on Scientific Information, Vol. 1, 199–243.

Moran, Joe (1998) Cultural Studies and Academic Stardom. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1): 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/136787799800100105

Nyzovets, Alyona (2023) Military forecasts from Ukrainian astrologists. Why do we look for excrescences especially during the war? LIGA.Life. Available online: https://life.liga.net/poyasnennya/article/voennye-prognozy-ot-astrologov-pochemu-my-slushaemekstrasensov-osobenno-vo-vremya-voyny (in Ukrainian).

Palmer, Sarah E., and Renato A. Schibeki (2012) What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies? Public understanding of science, 23(5): 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512455295

Popper, Karl (1994) Open Society and its Enemies: One-volume edition. Edited by George Soros, Alan Ryan, Ernst Hans Josef Gombrich & Karl R. Popper. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Price, Derek (1986) Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

Scheliga, Kaja, Sascha Friesike, Cornelius Puschmann, and Benedikt Fecher (2018) Setting up crowd science projects. Public Understanding of Science, 27(5): 515-534. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366251667851

Stehr, Nico (1994) Knowledge Societies. Thousand Oaks, Sage.

Thomas, William I.; and Dorothy Swane T. (1928) The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York: A.A.Knopf.

Trench, Brian, and Massimiano Bucchi (2016) Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords. Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 7(2): 151–168. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17333

Ukrainian Parliament (2015) Ukrainian Law on Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activity. No 848-VIII. Available online: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/848-19#Text (in Ukrainian).

Weber, Max (1926) Politik als Beruf. München: Duncker & Humblot.

Wernick, Andrew (1991) Promotional Culture: Advertising, Ideology and Symbolic Expression. London: Sage.

Share and Cite

Kubalskyi, Oleh (2024) Science Communication in the Global Age: Social and Philosophical Analysis of International Experience and Ukrainian Context. Philosophy and Cosmology, Volume 33, 123-133. https://doi.org/10.29202/phil-cosm/33/4

Back to the list of Articles