Features of scientific communication in the information age
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v56.i2.11Keywords:
stages of scientific communication, epoch of enlightenment, elite propaganda, mediation science, electronic science, convergent culture.Abstract
The integration of mass media and scientific communications has acquired new content, complementing and enriching their functional content. With the help of new communication technologies, the propaganda of science is carried out efficiently, quickly and on a systematic basis. In connection with the strengthening of relations between science and society, there is a need for a theoretical understanding of this phenomenon.
The purpose of this article is to study this phenomenon as a single process in the development of media and science, sociology, philosophy, history and philology.
The scientific and practical value of research work is reflected in the identification of different stages and the characteristics of scientific communication, the interrelationships between laws and the speed of their development. The methodology of research includes such methods as observation and comparison, description, systematization of sources and sociometric methods.
The result of a scientific article. In the article, the author claims that the industrial revolution and belief in the progress of science and technology intensify the demand for scientific communication. And comes to the conclusion that scientific communication has had a real impact on the formation of the business atmosphere and the application of scientific innovations in production.
The value of the article. Going from the fact that the propaganda of science is replaced by scientific communication, the author points out that the mechanism of production of scientific knowledge and the value of scientific research have changed as a result of the compaction of communication in a new format. The author comes to the conclusion that the commercialization of scientific communications changes the system of scientific information, and the increase of entertaining aspects of scientific communication leads to a change in scientific policy as a whole.
The final results of the study. To make conclusions about the current level of Kazakh scientific journalism and to make forecasts for the future is a daunting task. The author explains that it is not only scientific journalism, but also the enlightening direction of general journalism, the quality of scientific propaganda is beyond the scope of state support. The international experience shows that the strengthening of public aspirations for innovation and new ideas is impossible without the active participation of the state.
References
1. Bagla, P. (2002). Good science journalism-and barriers to it in India. Science and Media: An International Workshop, Tobago, West Indies. – pp.96-115.
2. Besley, J.C. & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(9). – pp.347-367.
3. Burns, Kelli S. (2017). Social Media: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-4355-6.
4. Campbell, S. W. and Kwak, N. (2010), Mobile Communication and Civic Life: Linking Patterns of Use to Civic and Political Engagement. Journal of Communication, 6(11). – pp.536-555.
5. Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attential Mechanisms in the Generation of science communications / The science and technology, Vol. 1(5), p.83.
6. Eastwood, John D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2001). Differential Emotion. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 63(6), pp.1004-1013.
7. Eveland, W. P., & Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3). – pp.223-243.
8. Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The Third Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. – p.193.
9. Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2012). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks International Journal, 4 (1), pp.7-16.
10. Goidel, K. & Nisbet, M.C. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 23(5). – pp.175-192.
11. Gopichandran, R. (2014). Some important facets of science communications. Dream 2047, 15(10), p.35.
12. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, USA. – 308 p.
13. Kapoor, N. (2012). A science information resource hub for sustainable science communication. In Proceedings of International Conference on Science Communication (pp. 98–103). New Delhi: Communication and Information Resources (NISCAIR), CSIR.
14. Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. – p.310.
15. Media for Science Forum. (2010). Meta-review: The crisis of media, the relocation of the journalists’ world and the decline of science sections in the context of the Internet communicative and social revolution. Media for Science Forum, 12–13 May 2010, Madrid, Spain. Available on www.mediaforscience.com
16. Nautiyal, C. M. (2010). Science and science communication in India. In S. Priest (Ed.), The encyclopaedia of science and technology communication / New York, NY: Basic Books. – pp.381–388.
17. Nisbet, M.C., Goidel, R.K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16(4). – pp.420-436.
18. Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96 (10). – pp.1767-1778.
19. Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J.E., (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 15(6). – pp.504-608.
20. Norman, Kent L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10254-5.
21. Patairiya, M. (2007). Science journalism in India. The Pantaneto Forum Home Page, January 25, 2007. Available on www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/patairiya.htm
22. Patil, S. S., & Kokate, K. D. (2011). Training need assessment of subject matter specialists of Krishi Vigyan Kendras. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 11(1), p.19–22.
23. Phillips, A. (2012). A Creator's Guide to Transmedia Storytelling: How to Captivate and Engage Audiences Across Multiple Platforms Hardcover. June 23, 288 p.
24. Prior, M. (2005). News vs Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3). – pp.574-592.
25. Rajput, A. (2008). Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 95(11), p.1513.
26. Sciulli, D. (2010). Continental Sociology of Professions Today: Conceptual Contributions// Current Sociology, November 2010. Vol. 46, №5. p.915-942.
27. Scolari, C.A. (2009). Transmedia Storytelling: Implicit Consumers, Narrative Worlds and Branding in Contemporary Media Production / C.A. Scolari // International Journal of Communication. Vol. 3. № 4. – p.203-223.
28. Shankar, A. and Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 102(8), p.1415.
29. Shanton, Karen; Goldman, Alvin (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. doi:12.12/wcs.83. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
30. Shipman, N. (2012). Scientists: Social media is not necessarily a waste of time.
Sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), pp.297-306.
