HOW DO TRANSFORMATIONS IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE AND SPECIFIC STRATEGIES OF COMMUNICATION PRACTICES INFLUENCE THE POSSIBILITY OF COEXISTENCE AMONG MODELS OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202562218Keywords:
scientific communication, functional system of science, conceptual models of public communication of science and technology, digitalization of scienceAbstract
The article focuses on the issues of science-society communication practices in the context of the transformation of the public sphere. The increasing digitalization of the media environment provides new tools for the development, modification, and merging of “traditional” models of science-society communication. These tools imply, on the one hand, a greater level of inclusion for communication participants and, on the other hand, the formation of a new actor in this communication – the “knowledge society”. In the article, the author highlights potential directions for the transformation of traditional communication practices between science and society in the context of new media.
References
Абрамов Р.Н., Кожанов А.А. Концептуализация феномена Popular Science: модели взаимодействия науки, общества и медиа // Социология науки и технологий. 2015. Т. 6. № 2. C. 45–59.
Abramov, R.N., Kozhanov, A.A. “Kontseptualizatsiya fenomena Popular Science: modeli vzaimodeystviya nauki, obshchestva i media” [Popular Science Conceptual Analysis: Models of Science, Society and Media Communications], Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy, 2015, no. 6 (2), pp. 45–59. (In Russian)
Bjork, B.C. “A Model of Scientific Communication as a Global Distributed Information System”, Information Research: An International Electronic Journal, 2007, no. 12 (2) [http://InformationR.net/ir/12-2/paper307.html, accessed on 07.05.2024].
Bucchi, M., Trench, B. “Science Communication Research: Themes and Challenges”, in: Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, 2014, no. 2, pp. 1–14.
Davies, S. “Constructing Communication: Talking to Scientists About Talking to the Public”, Science Communication – SCI COMMUN, 2008, no. 29, pp. 413–434.
Draker, P. The Age of Discontinuity: Guidelines to Our Changing Society. London: Heinemann, 1969.
Grant, W. “The Knowledge Deficit Model and Science Communication”, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. November 22, 2023 [https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190228613-e-1396, accessed on 07.05.2024].
Heintz, C. “Folk Epistemology: The Cognitive Bases of Epistemic Evaluation”, Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2010, no. 1 (4), pp. 477–482.
Lane, R. “The Decline of Politics and Ideology in a Knowledgeable Society”, American Sociological Review, 1966, no. 31 (5), pp. 649–662.
Lee, N., VanDyke, M. “Set It and Forget It: The One-Way Use of Social Media by Government Agencies Communicating Science”, Science Communication, 2015, no. 37 (4), pp. 533–541.
Machlup, F. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972.
McDivitt, P. The Information Deficit Model is Dead. Now What? Evaluating New Strategies for Communicating Anthropogenic Climate Change in the Context of Contemporary American Politics, Economy, and Culture. Journalism & Mass Communication Graduate Theses & Dissertations, 2016 [http://search. proquest.com/docview/1807432622/, accessed on 07.05.2024].
Metcalfe, J., Gascoigne, T., Medvecky, F., Nepote, A.C. “Participatory Science Communication for Transformation”, Journal of Science Communication, 2022, no. 21 (2), E. [https://jcom.sissa.it/ article/pubid/JCOM_2102_2022_E/, accessed on 07.05.2024].
Meyer, G. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of a Public Deficit Always Return?”, Public Understanding of Science, 2016, no. 25 (4), pp. 433–446.
Raps, B. “In Science Communication, Why Does the Idea of a Public Deficit Always Return?”, Public Understanding of Science, 2016, no. 25, pp. 460–464.
Schmid-Petri, H., Bürger, M. “Modeling Science Communication: From Linear to More Complex Models”, in: Leßmöllmann, A., Dascal, M., Gloning, T. (eds.) Handbooks of Communication Science. Science Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019, pp. 105–122.
Stichweh, R. “Hierarchies and Universal Inclusion in Scientific Communities”, in: Forsberg, E., Geeschwind, L., Levander, S., Wermke, W. (eds.) Peer Review in an Era of Evaluation. Understanding the Practice of Gatekeeping in Academia. Cham: Paigave Macmillian, 2022, pp. 37–52.
Tayeebwa, W., Wendo C., Nakiwala, A.S. “Theories and Models of Science Communication”, in: Wendo, C. (eds.) Science Communication Skills for Journalists. A Resource Book for Universities in Africa, 2022, pp. 14–22.
Trench, B. “Towards an Analytical Framework of Science Communication Models”, in: Cheng, D., Claessens, M., Gascoigne, T., Metcalfe, J., Schiele, B. and Shi, Sh., (eds.) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Dordrecht: Springer, 2008, pp. 119–138.
