1 Association Noosphere, Dnipro, Ukraine

Nauka naukozn. 2023, 1(119): 81101

Section: Vital Problems of Modern Science
Language: English
Abstract: The article contains results of analysis of science communication (SC) that takes place between such actors as science, business, government and society. In particular, the communication gap between the above-mentioned actors is investigated. The relevance of this topic is proved by numerous publications of national and foreign researchers. It is known that the success of communication largely depends on the understanding and perception of the information message (IM) that is sent to the recipient. Their absence leads to communication gaps, which reduces the effectiveness of science communications up to complete misunderstanding. The aim of the study is to identify and structure such gaps, as well as to find ways to overcome them in order to increase the efficiency and successful design of scientific communications. The empirical basis of the study is the scientific works of leading domestic and foreign scientists. The research methods are the principle of ascent from the abstract to the concrete (Hegelian principle), as well as general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, generalization, scientific deduction and induction. The conducted research demonstrates that the difference in mental models and thesauri of communicants leads to communicative gaps in understanding — representational gaps, which in foreign literature are termed as rGaps. Such gaps occur when the communicators give the information message a meaning that the recipients do not realize, thus creating a conflict in the meaning and value of the transmitted information. It is concluded that the design of a successful SC should take into account the understanding factor along with its accompanying fascination. Mechanisms and techniques that contribute to the elimination of representational gaps are proposed, which in some cases make it possible to find a solution to the problem of understanding in the SC.

Keywords: noosphere, science communication, communication gaps, gaps in understanding, understanding of the information message, fascination, representative gap, perception gap.


  1. Bultitude, K. (2011). The Why and How of Science Communication. Science Communication. Rosulek, P. (Ed.). 1—18. Pilsen: European Commission.
  2. DeWitt, J., & Bultitude, K. (2018). Space Science: the View from European School Students. Research in Science Education, 50(5), 1943-1959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9759-y
  3. 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
  4. Jucan, M.S., & Jucan, C.N. (2014). The Power of Science Communication.  Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 149, 461—466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.288
  5. Cronin, M.A., & Weingart, L.R. (2019). Conflict across representational gaps: Threats to and opportunities for improved communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(16), 7642—7649. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805866116
  6. Singh, S.D., & Marusak, H.A. (2021). Bridging the gap: preparing the next generation of brain scientists to communicate with the general public and lawmakers. Neuropsychopharmacology, 46(13), 2233—2234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-021-01084-5
  7. Luna, M., & Velasco, J.L. (2003). Bridging the Gap between Firms and Academic Institutions. Industry and Higher Education, 17(5), 313—323. https://doi.org/10.5367/000000003773007247
  8. Dmitrevskaya, I.V. (2010). Communicative space of the noosphere.  Philosophy, 2, 9—25 [in Russian].
  9. Yanenko, L.P. (2020). Possibilities of cognitive linguistics against cognitive dissonance. Proceedings from: Ukrainian online-conference “Actual problems of foreign language communication: linguistic, methodical and socio-psychological aspects”, 269—271. Lutsk: NTU [in Ukrainian].
  10. Terenteva, N.O. (2021). Noosphere education in the context of sustainable development: the university sector. Science and Education a New Dimension, 2, 38—41 [in Ukrainian].
  11. Czikіn, V.O. (2007). Globalization: a noospheric approach. Sumy: SumDPU [in Russian].
  12. Kіslov, D.V. (2014). The importance of communications as an element in the development of the noosphere. State and regions, 3(19), 4—7 [in Russian].
  13. Lіshhitovich, L.I. (2019). Noosphere. Kiev: Lіra [in Ukrainian].
  14. Hunter, P. (2016). The communications gap between scientists and public. EMBO reports, 17(11), 1513—1515. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643379
  15. Binoy, V.V. (2017). Introduction: When Science Meets the Public—Bridging the Gap. Bridging the Communication Gap in Science and Technology, 1—9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1025-5_1
  16. Zhang, L., Malviya, S., Tandoc, E.C., & Ho, S.S. (2022). Exploring channels and gaps in information dissemination and acquisition among energy scientists and the public: The Southeast Asian context. PLOS ONE, 17(8), 1—17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0273626
  17. Pobol, A.I. (2012). Partnership of business, government and science for innovative development of regions. Interaction of business, state, science: a view from three sides on economic development, 1, 67—78. Minsk: Belorussian State University [in Russian].
  18. Medvedeva, S.M. (2014). From scientific innovation to popularization of science: a theoretical model toc of science communication. MGIMO Review of International Relations, 4(37), 278—286. https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2014-4-37-278-286 [in Russian].
  19. Barysheva, A.V. Economy of knowledge: a new paradigm of scientific knowledge. URL: https://spkurdyumov.ru/philosophy/ekonomika-znanij/ (last accessed: 04.10.2022) [in Russian].
  20. Kahlor, L.A., & Stout, P. (2010). Communicating science: new agendas in communication. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631
  21. Gregory, J., & Miller, S. (2000). Science in Public. Cambridge: Basic Books.
  22. Irwin, A. (1996). Misunderstanding Science? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281—304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
  24. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (2008). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240
  25. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, (2009). Challenging futures of science in society: emerging trends and cutting-edge issues: report of the MASIS expert group setup by the European Commission, Publications Office. URL: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/467
  26. Gross, A.G. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  27. Shevchenko, G.Y., & Bilozubenko, V.S. (2019). Structural Model of Scientific Communications.  Science and Science of Science, 4, 37—51. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2019.04.037 [in Russian].
  28. Musxelishvili, N.L., & Shrejder, Y.A. (1997). Information and fascination in direct and indirect communication. Scientifi c and technical information, 2(8), 1—7 [in Russian].
  29. Nazarov, M.M. (1999). Mass communication in the modern world. Moscow: USSR [in Russian].
  30. Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
  31. Yakobson, R.O. (1985). Speech communication; Language in relation to other communication systems. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
  32. Kibrik, A.E. (1987). Modeling of language activity in intelligent systems. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
  33. Pocheptsov, G.G. (1986). Fundamentals of pragmatic sentence description. Kyiv: Vsshaya shkola [in Russian].
  34. Makarov, M.L. (2003). Fundamentals of discourse theory. Moscow: Gnozis [in Russian].
  35. Grajs, G.P. (1985). Logic and verbal communication. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].
  36. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
  37. Newcomb, T.M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60(6), 393—404. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063098
  38. McLuhan, H.M. (1951). The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man. New York: Vanguard Press.
  39. Bakhtin, M.M. (1995). Man in the word world. Moscow: Russian Open University [in Russian].
  40. Pocheptsov, G.G. (2001). Communication theory. Kyiv: Vakler [in Russian].
  41. Pospelov, D.A. (1989). Intelligent interfaces for computers of new generations. Electronic computing, 3, 4—20 [in Russian].
  42. Shevchenko, G.A., Bilozubenko, V.S., & Marchenko, O.А. (2020). Identification and mechanisms for bridging the divide in different types of scientific communications. Science and Science of Science, 4, 44—62. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2020.04.044
  43. Shrejder, Y.A. (1974). The logic of sign systems. Moscow: Nauka [in Russian].
  44. Pereverzev, V.N. (2002). Metalogical aspects of communication theory. Communication Theory & Applied Communication, 1, 118—128 [in Russian].
  45. Moіseeva, N.І. (2014). Globalization trends in the field of social communications. Bulletin of the Kharkiv State Academy of Culture, 43, 110—119 [in Russian].
  46. Ilganaeva, V.A. (2009). Social communications (theory, methodology, activity): dictionary-reference. Kharkiv: City Typography [in Russian].
  47. Sokolov, A.V. (2002).  Communication in modern science.  St. Petersburg: Publishing house Mixajlova V.A. [in Russian].
  48. Oseledchik, M. B. (2002) Control logic. Мoscow: Moscow State University of Food Production [in Russian].
  49. Petrov, Y.A., & Zaharov, A.A. (2006). General methodology of thinking. Moscow: Company Sputnik+ [in Russian].
  50. Strugaczkij, A., & Strugaczkij, B. (2016). Waves dampen the wind. Moscow: AST [in Russian].
  51. Licklider, J.C.R., & Taylor, R.W. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. Science and Technology, 76, 21—38.
  52. Collins, R. (2002). The sociology of philosophies. Novosibirsk: Siberian Chronograph [in Russian].
  53. Lefevr, V.A. (1968). Algebra of conflict. Moscow: Znaniye [in Russian].
  54. Adler, Y.P., & Granovskij, Y.V. (2017). Planning an experiment working with data. Dnipro: Lira [in Russian].

Full Text (PDF)