Dobrov Institute for Scientific and Technological Potential and Science History Studies of the NAS of Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2020, 3(109): 64-77

Section: Problems of science and technology potential
Language: Ukrainian
Abstract: The article provides comparative and axiological analysis of an “internally” oriented science, driven primarily by cognitive factors, and an “externally” oriented science stimulated by the factors of social, economic, industrial, political, technological or other origin. “Internally” oriented science is a so-called classical science, driven by researcher’s cognitive interests; it discovers the laws of the objective world with empirical and theoretical means. “Externally” oriented science, non-classical science, is characterized by particular forms of research organization, ways to engage science with social institutions, transformation of scientists’ motivation and values, recording of research results and ways of their assessment. A review of specific concepts is made, proposed by Ukrainian and foreign scientists: “problem-oriented research”, “research on demand”, “targeted” research, “problem-oriented research”, “mission-oriented” research or research as a response to the “challenges” faced by the mankind. Their characteristic features are: interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary organization; knowledge instrumentality, algorithmicity, contextuality; researchers’ practical interest; ethical awareness, addressing the possible risks of implementing the advanced technologies; specific standards for research results evaluation. It is concluded that “externally” oriented science is considered to be practically efficient. But it is also subject to certain risks: when science is considered only as a mean for wealth creation, cognitive functions such as making a picture of the world, fostering of rational thinking, training of skilled personnel and independent experts will be lost. Targeted research has to combine both “internal” and “external” orientation and contribute to implementing the higher cultural values.

Keywords: targeted research, mission-oriented research, transdisciplinarity, basic research, applied research.


  1. Stokes, Donald E. (1997). Pasteur`s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press Washington, 196. Retrieved from http://swissgrad.net (last accessed: 09.03.2020).
  2. St. Petersburg International Economic Forum 2016. Panel session “‘Bigchallenges’ — an impetus for development of science”. Retrieved from http://youngscience.gov.ru (last accessed: 09.03.2020) [in Russian].
  3. Zierhofer, W., Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling Transdisciplinarity: An Analysis of Knowledge Integration in Problem-Oriented Research. Science Studies, vol. 20, issue 1, 51—74. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/. (last accessed: 09.03.2020).
  4. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union. A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Luxembourg: Publications Offіce of the European Union, 36.
  5. (2015). Policy brief. State of science and technology development, results of scientific, scientific and technological, innovative activity and technology transfer in 2014; Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine; State Research Institution “Ukrainian Institute of Scientific and Technical Expertise and Information”. Kyiv. Retrieved from:https://mon.gov.ua/ua/ nauka/nauka/informacijno-analitichni-materiali (last accessed: 09.03.2020) [in Ukrainian].
  6. Popper, K. (2002). Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Moscow: Editorial Ukrainian SSR, 384 [in Russian].
  7. Kuhn, T. (1975). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow: Progress, 288 [in Russian].
  8. Lakatos, I. (1967). Proofs and refutation. How to prove theories? Мoscow: Nauka, 152 [in Russian].
  9. Kopnin, P.V. (1963). Idea as a mode of thinking. Кiev, 108 [in Russian].
  10. Shynkaruk, V.I. (1964). Logics, dialectics and Hegel’s theory of knowledge. Кiev, 295 [in Russian].
  11. Popovych, M.V., Krymsky, S.B. (1976). Scientific and technological revolution and features of modern scientific knowledge. Philosophical and sociological problems of scientific and technological revolution. (pp. 311—345). Кyiv [in Ukrainian].
  12. Malitsky, B.A. (Eds.) (2001). Current issues of methodology and practice of science and technology policy. Kyiv: UkrINTEI, 204 [in Ukrainian].
  13. Dobrov, G.M., Tonkal, V.E., Saveliev, A.A., Malitsky, B.A. (1988). Scientific and technical potential: structure, dynamics, efficiency. Кiev: Naukova dumka, 347 [in Russian].
  14. Glushkov, V.M. (1969). On forecasting based on expert assumptions. Cybernetics, 2, 2—4 [in Russian].
  15. Dobrov, G.M. (1969). Science and technology foresight. Moscow: Nauka, 208 [in Russian].
  16. Dobrov, G.M., Korennoy, A.A., Musienko V.B., et. al. (1989). Foresight and evaluation of scientific and technological innovations. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 276 [in Russian].
  17. Malitsky, B.A., Popovych, O.S., Onoprienko, M.V. (2008). Grounding of scientific-technological and innovative priorities system based on “foresight” research. Кyiv: Fenix, 86 [in Ukrainian].
  18. Resolution of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine “On a new version of the Procedure of defining the subjects and oversight the implementation of scientific research at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine” No 111 from 13.04.2011. Retrieved from https://zakononline.com.ua/documents/show/106272___532533 (last accessed: 10.01.2020) [in Ukrainian].
  19. Krymsky, S.B. (2003). Queries of philosophical meanings. Кyiv: PARAPAN Publishers, 240 [in Ukrainian].
  20. Funtowicz, S.О., Ravetz, J.R. (1993). Science for the Post-normal Age. Futures, vol. 25, issue 7, 739—755. Retrieved from https://www.uu.nl/wetfilos/wetfil10/sprekers/Funtowicz_ Ravetz_Futures_1993.pdf (last accessed: 10.11.2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
  21. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
  22. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  23. Guggenheim, M. (2006). Undisciplined research: the proceduralisation of quality control in transdisciplinary projects. Science and Public Policy, vol. 33, issue 6, 411—421. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778795
  24. Hessels, L.K., van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37, 740—760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.008
  25. Ziman, J. (2003). Non-instrumental roles of science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(1), 17—27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0016-y
  26. Ryzhko, L.V., Onopriyenko, V.I., Bessalova, T.V., Zhyvaga, O.V., Borozdyh, N.V. (2019). Scientist in postmodern culture. Kyiv: Fenix, 240 [in Ukrainian].
  27. Schwab, K. (2019). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Kharkiv, 416 [in Ukrainian].

Full Text (PDF)