1 Scientific Center, Association Noosphere, Dnipro, Ukraine

2 University of Customs and Finance, Dnipro, Ukraine

3 Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2020, 4(110): 44-62


Section: Science and Innovation-driven development of economy and society

Language: English

Abstract: The relevance of the study stems from the fact that the free circulation of knowledge and access to it is the most critical prerequisite for the advancement of science, which makes communication a determining factor and a “living” social fabric of science. The paper considers the scientific communications (SCs) not only as an interaction within the scientific community, but also as an interaction of science with business, government and society. Each type of SCs can feature specific contradictions, the so-called communication divides, reducing their effectiveness.

The aim of this paper is to systematize and structure various types and forms of SCs, existing in social relationships, make their structural analysis, identify and evaluate communication divides related to such typology, with proposing mechanisms for their efficient bridging.

The information sources for this are research papers of the leading Ukrainian and foreign scientists, findings of empirical research, including Stanford University reports. The Hegel’s principle of ascending from the abstract to the concrete as well as the general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, generalization, scientific deduction and induction) became the fundamental methodological tenet of the study. The paper is of interdisciplinary nature.

Findings. Four types of SCs (by addressees) are highlighted: Science-to-science (communications in the scientific community), Science-to-government (communications between science and government), Science-to-business (communications between science and business) and Science-to-society (communications between science and society). The authors suggested their own classification of SCs, encompassing the standard (oral and written) and virtual (individual and mass) types of SCs. The characteristics of the key types of SCs enabled to access their development and identify the communication divides and the causes of their occurrence. Based on this classification, the authors suggested the mechanisms for bridging these communication divides by type of SCs (with identification of the divide and the way to bridge it). In the course of the study and substantiation of the authors’ recommendations, special emphasis is laid on the capabilities for the development of SCs, created by the information technologies.

The conclusions are made about the need to build a single communication space for SCs using new forms of interactions, arising from virtual communications. For illustrative purposes, the paper suggests a model of the specialized web service designed to facilitate the process of SCs, with demonstrating its elements (in particular, database and knowledge base) and arrangement of information for various users. In the authors’ opinion, such services will become a step towards noosphere.

Keywords: noosphere, scientific communications, communication divides, information transfer channels, types and forms of communication, web services, virtual communications, information technologies.


  1. Khanin, I.G. (2018). The issues of paradigm development of economy and cognition. Dnepr: New ideology, 319 [in Russian].
  2. Zamoshchansky, I.I., Konashkova, А.M., Krasavin, I.V., Pyryanova, А.А. (2016). Scientific communications: scientist in modern society. News of the Ural Federal University. Series 3: Social Science, 149(1), 30–41 [in Russian].
  3. Lazar, М.G. (2011). Communications in modern science: sociological aspects. Proceedings of the Russian State Hydrometeorological University, 18, 239–244 [in Russian].
  4. Vydrin, О.V. (2009). Communication in science: on methodology of research. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State University, 42, 112–117 [in Russian].
  5. Gladkova, Z.V. (2009). Types of communications in modern science. Scientific Bulletin of the Moscow State Technical University of Civil Aviation, 142, 161–163 [in Russian].
  6. Lomovitskaya, V.М. (2017). From the history of the study of scientific communications. Sociology of science and technology, 4, 37–44 [in Russian].
  7. Lopasteisky, S.А. (2019). Value-based foundations of the scientific community in the conditions of formation of the society of knowledge. Izvestiya of Saratov University. New series. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 19(1), 25–29 [in Russian]. https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7671-2019-19-1-25-29
  8. Rozhdestvensky, I.V., Rozhdestvensky, О.I. (2015). Development of the innovative ecosystems of higher educational institutions and scientific centers. Saint Petersburg: OJSC Saint Petersburg Technopark, 30 [in Russian].
  9. Rudi, А.Sh. (2016). Forms and peculiarities of scientific communications. Manuscript, 4(2), 136–138 [in Russian].
  10. Ryazanova, А.А. (2016). Virtual scientific communications as a promising tool for scientific activities. Technical sciences: scientific priorities of scientists, 1, 96–99 [in Russian].
  11. Savchenko, А.P. (2017). Open informational environment of scientific communication as the driver of knowledge economy development in Russia. State and municipal management Scholar notes, 1, 129–135 [in Russian].
  12. Skiba, А.N. (2009). State, science and business – the obstacles and features of the formation of synergistic effect of the interaction. National interests: priorities and security, 21, 74–81 [in Russian].
  13. Chernikova, V.Ye. (2017). Scientific communication in the social and humanitarian sphere: defining the problem. Society: philosophy, history, culture, 6, 13–15 [in Russian].
  14. Shirokanova, А.А. (2013). A new role and forms of scientific communication in the digital age. Sociology, 1, 103–116 [in Russian].
  15. Bultitude, K. (2011). The Why and How of Science Communication, https://www.scifode-foundation.org/attachments/article/38/Karen_Bultitude__Science_Communication_Why_and_How.pd.
  16. Dewitt, J., Bultitude, K. (2018). Space Science: the View from European School Students. Research in Science Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9759-y
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Könneker, C., Lugger, B. (2013). Public Science 2.0 – Back to the Future. Science, 342, 49–50. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1245848
  20. Taking a risk making a difference (2007). 2006–2007 annual report of the Stanford University. Retrieved from https://otl.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj10286/f/otlar07.pdf. (last accessed: 10.02. 2020).
  21. Braha, J. (2017). Science communication at scientific societies. Seminars in cell & developmental biology, 70, 85–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.05.010
  22. Bathelt, H., Henn, S. (2014). The Geographies of Knowledge Transfers over Distance: Toward a Typology. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1403–1424. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46115
  23. Tishchenko, О.S. (2015). Modern forms of scientific communications in higher education. Socioprostir, 4(15), 67–70 [in Russian].
  24. Romm, C., Pliskin, N., Clarke, R. (1997). Virtual communities and society: toward an integrative three phase model. International Journal of information management, 17(4), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(97)00004-2
  25. Pauleen, D., Yoong, P. (2001). Facilitating virtual team relationship via Internet and conventional communication channels. Internet Research: Electronic Networking, Applications and Policies, 11(3), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240110396450
  26. Barker, M., Olabarriaga, S. D., Wilkins-Diehr, N., Gesing, S., Katz, D. S., Shahand, S., … Costa, A. (2019). The Global Impact of Science Gateways, Virtual Research Environments and Virtual Laboratories. Future Generation Computer Systems, 95, 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2018.12.026
  27. Liu, D., Valdiviezo-Díaz, P., Riofrio, G., Sun, Y.-M., Barba, R. (2015). Integration of Virtual Labs into Science E-leaming. Procedia Computer Science, 75, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.224
  28. Gui, Q., Liu, C., Du, D. (2009) Globalization of science and international scientific collaboration: A network perspective. Geoforum, 105, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.06.017
  29. Dynamics of development of sectoral scientific communications in Russia. (2015). Report of the Russianzventures company [in Russian]. Retrieved from https://www.rvc.ru/upload/iblock/0b3/201605_dynamics_of_scientific_communication.pdf (last accessed: 10.02.2020).
  30. Commercialization of technologies at an early stage. Study of global practices: universities, corporations, government. (2015). Report of the Russian venture company [in Russian]. Retrieved from https://www.rvc.ru/upload/iblock/9eb/ESR_RVC_2015_RU.pdf (last accessed: 10.02.2020).
  31. Marra, A., Mazzocchitti, M., Sarra, A. (2018). Knowledge sharing and scientific cooperation in the design of research-based policies: The case of the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 800–812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.164
  32. Shtoff, V.A. (1978). Problems in the methodology of scientific cognition. Moscow: Higher School, 269 [in Russian].
  33. Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: a conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.12.005
  34. Webster, J., Wong, W. (2008). Comparing traditional and virtual group forms: identity, communication and trust in naturally occurring project teams. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(1), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701763883
  35. Antonovsky, А.Yu. (2015). Understanding and mutual understanding in scientific communication. Voprosy Filosofii, 2, 45–58 [in Russian].
  36. Shevchenko, G.Ya., Bilozubenko, V.S. (2019). Structural model of scientific communications. Science and Science of Science, 4 (106), 37–51 [in Russian]. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2019.04.037
  37. Mirskaya, Ye.Z. (2010). Communication in science. Sociology of science and technology, 1, 126–139 [in Russian].
  38. Price, D.J. (1976). Trends in the development of scientific communication – past, present and future. Communication in modern science, 93–109 [in Russian].
  39. Zinoviev, А.А., Stepin, V.S., Goldberg, F.I. (2020). The method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete [in Russian]. Retrieved from https://gtmarket.ru/concepts/6994 (last accessed: 10.02.2020).
  40. Pobol, А.I. (2012). The partnership of business, government and science for innovative development of the regions. Interaction between business, government and science: three-sided view of the economic development, 1, 67–78 [in Russian].
  41. Rudi, A.Sh. (2012). Scientific communication and the place of the concept of sustainability in it.Scientific Bulletin of Omsk, 2(106), 115–118 [in Russian].
  42. Riabokon, М.V. (2019). The concept of Engineering schools in the national innovative system. Scientific Bulletin of International Humanitarian University. Series: Economy and Management, 40, 44–53 [in Russian]. https://doi.org/10.32841/2413-2675/2019-40-6
  43. Ivanov, I.I. (2006) The innovative policy during the transition to knowledge economy. Economic science in modern Russia, 1(32), 46–58 [in Russian].

Full Text (PDF)