sofs.org.ua › About us › Archive › 2019 › 2019, 4(106) › 1.4

1.4

STRUCTURAL MODEL OF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATIONS

1 G.Y. SHEVCHENKO
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3984-9266,
2 V.S. BILOZUBENKO
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1269-7207
1 Association Noosphere
2 University of Customs and Finance

Nauka naukozn. 2019, 4(106): 37-51
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2019.04.037

Section: Vital problems of modern science
Language: Russian
Abstract: The article focuses on the importance of scientific communication as a mandatory attribute of science, a factor of its effectiveness and development. The purpose of the article is to present a structural model of scientific communications that can serve as the basis for describing their landscape: channels, characteristics, disturbances, determinants and space.

The basis of the scientist’s activity consists of two complementary processes: 1) generation and comprehension of own hypotheses and thoughts; 2) dialogue, interaction with other scientists for the discussion and mutual enrichment in cognition. The science is understood as a creative work of free personalities, and the scientific communication is presented as a dialogue taking into account the factors (of the landscape) where it takes place. A key element of communication is a message. Solitude and discussion complement each other in the scientist work.

The article considers two types of scientific communications: 1 – communications of scientists within the scientific community; 2 – communication of scientists with the public. Different purposes of these types of communications are highlighted. It is noted that each type of communication has its own purposes, characteristics, channels and disturbances. They form a landscape of scientific communications together, encompassing different target audiences.

A structural model of scientific communications which describes the interaction between communicators on the basis of their thesauruses is proposed; it covers possible channels, characteristics, disturbances, synergy manifestations. A dialogue of communicators with a change in the thesaurus based on the models is shown.

A formal view of scientific communication structural model is presented, encompassing participants, their thesauruses and communication space. The parameters of the latter are environment, communication process characteristics, disturbances of the communication process, synergy of the dialogue participants. The special aspects of information technologies using, in particular the Internet, to ensure scientific communication are shown.

Keywords: scientific communications, scientific information, dialogue, structure, communication space.

REFERENCES

  1. Khanin, I.G. (2018). Noospheric knowledge and management path. Dnipro: New ideology, 319 [in Russian].
  2. Jucan, M. & Jucan, C. (2014). The Power of Science Communication. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288
  3. Hunter, P. (2016). The communications gap between scientists and public. EMBO reports, 17, 1513–1515. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643379
  4. Fischhoff, B. (2019). Evaluating science communication. PNAS, 116, 7670–7675. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805863115
  5. Fischhoff, B. & Scheufele, D. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 110, 1433–1439. Retrieved from 10.1073/pnas.1213273110.
  6. Das, S. (2013). Scientific communication: understanding scientific journals and articles. Global Media Journal – Indian Edition, 4, 1–10. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/cc35/19ea41afe2a40f91f1f7678fdd60fc6396a7.pdf.
  7. Illingworth, S. (2017). Delivering effective science communication: advice from a professional science communicator. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology, 70, 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.04.002
  8. Cooke, S., Gallagher, A., Sopinka, N., Nguyen, V.M., Skubel, R.A., Hammerschlag, N. & et al. (2017). Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS, 2, 233–248. Retrieved from https://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/facets-2016-0055. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016-0055
  9. Brownell, S., Price, J. & Steinman, L. (2013). Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students this Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training. J Undergrad Neurosci Educ., 12, E6–E10.
  10. Information and library activities, bibliography: terms and definitions. Minsk: Interstate Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification. Retrieved from https://www.ifap.ru/library/gost/7099.pdf [in Russian].
  11. Vydrin, O.V. (2009). Scientific communication: to the research methodology. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Culturology, vol. 15, issue 42, 112–117 [in Russian].
  12. Moiseev, N. (1982). Person, environment, society. Formalized description problems. Moscow: “Nauka” [in Russian].
  13. Chesnokov, S.V. (2009). Matrix data and concepts of mathematics. Sociological Journal, 1, 141–144. [in Russian].
  14. Gadamer, G. (2000). The dialectical ethics of Plato. Phenomenological interpretation. Saint-Petersburg: Fileba [in Russian].
  15. Vernadskiy, V.I. (2012). Selected Scientific Papers of Academician V.I. Vernadsky. Vol. 8. Kiev: Phoenix. [in Russian].
  16. LaRouche, L. (2008). Free Trade vs. National Interest: The Economics Debate About Russia. EIR , 35, 4–41. Retrieved from https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/eirv35n26-20080704/eirv35n26-20080704_004-free_trade_vs_national_interest-lar.pdf.

Full Text (PDF)