HUNTING FOR CREATIVITY: THE ROLE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATORS IN EVALUATING SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461232Keywords:
creativity, epistemology, science communications, science and society, science journalism, public relations in scienceAbstract
Science communicators, including journalists and experts in the field of public relations in science, are often seen as an external and optional addition to the scientific community. Their influence on scientific practices and public perception of science is often underestimated, and their role is understood as a technical one: as a simple retelling of scientific research in a language understandable to the public. In this paper, using the example of such a criterion as “creativity”, we propose to reconsider the role of science communicators more broadly. The paper shows that it is science communicators, rather than representatives of the scientific community, who should be the primary subjects of evaluating articles according to the criterion of creativity. The authors argue that the creativity of scientific research is an essential element in the development of science as a social phenomenon, rather than just a component of its internal operation. Science communicators are not considered as “external” actors in relation to science – their work has a significant impact on the fundamental criteria for scientific success, such as the establishment of scientific reputation, and influences the perception of science among the general public. They do not just describe research, they form ideas about the value aspects of science in society and influence the image of science, which is broadcast into the public space, selecting articles according to certain criteria that are not always the most significant in science, endowing scientific results with a special, socially relevant significance that is not explicitly presented in the texts of scientific articles. The activities of science communicators can influence the funding and development of a scientific field, its public and government support, its popularity among applicants, students, and young scientists – and, consequently, the quality of scientific personnel involved in this field. In fact, science communicators turn out to be key architects of public, and often intrascientific, ideas about science and various scientific fields.
References
Anderson, P.S., Odom, A.R., Gray, H.M., Jones, J.B., Christensen, W.F., Hollingshead, T., et al. “A Case Study Exploring Associations Between Popular Media Attention of Scientific Research and Scientific Citations”, PLoS ONE, 2020, vol. 15 (7): e0234912. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0234912
Antonovskiy, A.Yu. “O degumaniziruyushchei missii nauki” [On the Dehumanizing Mission of Science], Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya [Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science], 2022, no. 66, pp. 244–251. (In Russian). DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/66/22.
Arefieva, I.Ya., Vernov, S.Yu., Koshelev, A.S. “Tochnoe reshenie v strunnoi kosmologicheskoi modeli” [Exact Solution in a String Cosmological Model], Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, 2006, vol. 148, no. 1, pp. 23–41. (In Russian)
Boden, M. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms, 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.
Bucchi, M., Trench, B. “Science Communication and Science in Society: A Conceptual Review in Ten Keywords”, Tecnoscienza, 2016, no. 7, pp. 151–168.
Currie, A. “Creativity, Conservativeness & the Social Epistemology of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A, 2019, vol. 76, pp. 1–4.
Davies, S., McCallie, E., Simonsson, E., Lehr, E., and Duensing, S. “Discussing Dialogue: Perspectives On The Value Of Science Dialogue Events That Do Not Inform Policy”, Public Understanding of Science, 2008, no. 18 (3), pp. 338–353.
Dorozhkin, A.M., Shibarshina, S.V. “Epistemologicheskaya randomizatsiya, ili o kreativnosti v nauke” [Creativity as a Problem Solving Procedure], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 21–33.
Gerasin, V.A. et al., “Struktura nanokompozitov polimer / NA+ – montmorillonit, poluchennykh smesheniem v rasplave” [The Structure of Polymer / Na+- Montmorillonite Nanocomposites Prepared Via Melt-Blending], Nanotechnologies in Russia, 2007, vol. 2, no. 1–2, pp. 90–105. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T. “Kommunikatsiya i tvorchestvo” [Communication and Creativity], Philosophy of Science and Technology, 2012, no. 1, pp. 7–23. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T. “Nauchnoe tvorchestvo kak sotsial’nyi fenomen” [Creativity in Science as a Social Phenomenon], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2022, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 19–29. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T. “Poznanie i tvorchestvo” [Cognition and Creativity], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2010, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 5–16. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T. Migratsiya. Kreativnost’. Tekst. Problemy neklassicheskoi teorii poznaniya [Migration. Creativity. Text. Problems of Non-Classical Theory of Knowledge]. Saint Petersburg: RKhGI, 1998. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T., Sakharova, A.V. “Kreativnost’ – ne sushchnost’, a sushchestvovanie!” [Creativity is not Essence, but Existence!], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2023, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 50–59. (In Russian)
Kieran, M.L. “Creativity as an Epistemic Virtue”, in: H. Battaly (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology. Abingdon: Routledge, 2018.
Kuhn, T. Struktura nauchnykh revolyutsii [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions], trans. by I.Z. Naletova. Moscow: Progress, 1977. (Trans. into Russian)
Levin, S.F. “Shkala kosmologicheskikh rasstoyanii. Ch. I. ‘Neozhidannye’ rezul’taty” [The Cosmological Distances Scale. Part 17: Coincidence of Coincidences], Izmeritel’naya Tekhnika, 2014, no. 2, pp. 9–14. (In Russian)
Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (eds.) Posobie po obshchestvennym svyazyam v nauke i tekhnologiyakh [Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology]. Moscow: Alpina Non-Fiction, 2018. (Trans. into Russian)
Sokolova, O.I. “O vozmozhnostyakh kreativnosti: kogda ne-nauka pomogaet otvetit’ na nauchnye voprosy” [Сreativity Opportunities: When Non-Science Helps to answer Scientific Questions], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2023, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 60–67.
Suldovsky, B. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of the Public Deficit Always Return? Exploring Key Influences”, Public Understanding of Science, 2016, no. 25 (4), pp. 415–426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629750
Wallas, G. The Art of Thought. Solis Press, 2018.
