Формы пропаганды и презентации научных достижений с помощью медиаинструментов
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v55.i1.08Ключевые слова:
трансформация научной журналистики, репрезентация науки, научно- просветительская деятельность, метод персонализации.Аннотация
Пропаганда достижений науки оформляется в специальные формы и осуществляется профессиональными медиа во взаимодействии с научным сообществом. Обращенность к массовой аудитории научного материала можно увидеть и на уровне подачи анализа научной информации.
Целью настоящей статьи является анализ компонентов дискуссии в условиях репрезентации науки в социальной научной среде. Слабость аналитических компонентов автор связывает с упрощением контента на рынке потребления информации. Унификация контента объясняется особенностями распространения научной информации в современном мире.
Научной и практической ценностью исследования является установление степени зависимости научно-просветительской деятельности от уровня интеграции массовой коммуникации и научной журналистики.
В ходе анализа обозначенной темы наряду с такими эмпирическими методами как описание, контроль и сравнение, систематизация и изучение документов, социометрические методы были использованы также и теоретические аксиоматические подходы, основанные на исследованиях зарубежных ученых.
Основными результатами научной статьи являются: анализ важности научно-просветительской деятельности для развития государства и удовлетворения потребностей общества; исследование роли государства в проведении информационной политики, направленной на пропаганду науки и образования; рекомендации по разработке механизмов стимулирования научных исследований и повышения статуса научного работника.
Ценность статьи. Автор утверждает, что для развития научной журналистики недостаточно одной только пропаганды научной информации. И приходит к выводу, что научные новшества и публикации должны подаваться через инструменты научной коммуникации с учетом особенностей аудитории. Эффективность пропаганды науки зависит от когнитивного, профессионального уровня научного журналиста. Только при продуктивном диалоге между наукой, обществом и государством возможно достижение стратегических ориентиров.
Библиографические ссылки
Abbott, A. (2011).The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. – p.263.
Arulchelvan, S. (2010). Science and technology dissemination through Tamil newspapers: A study. Indian Journal of Science Communication, 9(2), p.3–9.
Bagla, P. (2002). Good science journalism-and barriers to it in India. Science and Media: An International Workshop, Tobago, West Indies. – pp.96-115.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science // Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / Ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. Routledge: London, 2008. p.57-76.
Burns, Kelli S. (2017). Social Media: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-4355-6. Chauhan, N.M. (2011). Aptitude of the programme coordinators of Krishi Vigyan Kendras of India. Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education, 11(3), p.19–24.
Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attential Mechanisms in the Generation of science communications / The science and technology, Vol. 1(5), p.83.
Eastwood, John D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2001). DifferentialEmotion. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 63(6), pp.1004-1013.
Felt, U., Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science//Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 29. Dortrecht: Springer, 2012. p.133-154.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The Third Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. – p.193.
Gambarato, R. (2017). Transmedia Project Design: Theoretical and Analytical Considerations / R. Gambarato // Baltic Screen Media review: Vol.1. – р.84-85.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2012). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks International Journal, 4 (1), pp.7-16. Gopichandran, R. (2014). Some important facets of science communications. Dream 2047, 15(10), p.35.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, USA. – 308 p.
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.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. – p.310.
Maheshwar, M., Gavaravarapu, S. R. M., Venkaiah, M., & Rao, D. R. (2014). The quality of nutrition research reporting by leading daily newspapers in India. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 6(6), p.92–98.
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
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.
Norman, Kent L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10254-5.
Patairiya, M. (2007). Science journalism in India. The Pantaneto Forum Home Page, January 25, 2007. Available on www. pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/patairiya.htm
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.
Phillips, A. (2012). A Creator’s Guide to Transmedia Storytelling: How to Captivate and Engage Audiences Across Multiple Platforms Hardcover. June 23, 288 p.
Rajput, A. S. D. (2008). Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 95(11), p.1513. SciLogs in association with Nature.com, (2015). available on www.scilogs.com
Sciulli, D. (2010). Continental Sociology of Professions Today: Conceptual Contributions// Current Sociology, November 2010.
Vol. 46, №5. p.915-942.
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.
Shankar, A. and Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 102(8), p.1415.
Shanton, Karen; Goldman, Alvin (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. doi:12.12/ wcs.83. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
Shipman, N. (2012). Scientists: Social media is not necessarily a waste of time. Sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), pp.297-306.
Weingart, P. (2003). Science and the media // Research Policy, 2003, 23 (5). – p.841-863.
References
Abbott, A. (2011).The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. – p.263.
Arulchelvan, S. (2010). Science and technology dissemination through Tamil newspapers: A study. Indian Journal of Science Communication, 9(2), p.3–9.
Bagla, P. (2002). Good science journalism-and barriers to it in India. Science and Media: An International Workshop, Tobago, West Indies. – pp.96-115.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science // Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / Ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. Routledge: London, 2008. p.57-76.
Burns, Kelli S. (2017). Social Media: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-4355-6. Chauhan, N.M. (2011). Aptitude of the programme coordinators of Krishi Vigyan Kendras of India. Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education, 11(3), p.19–24.
Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attential Mechanisms in the Generation of science communications / The science and technology, Vol. 1(5), p.83.
Eastwood, John D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2001). DifferentialEmotion. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 63(6), pp.1004-1013.
Felt, U., Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science//Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 29. Dortrecht: Springer, 2012. p.133-154.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The Third Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. – p.193.
Gambarato, R. (2017). Transmedia Project Design: Theoretical and Analytical Considerations / R. Gambarato // Baltic Screen Media review: Vol.1. – р.84-85.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2012). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks International Journal, 4 (1), pp.7-16. Gopichandran, R. (2014). Some important facets of science communications. Dream 2047, 15(10), p.35.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, USA. – 308 p.
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.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. – p.310.
Maheshwar, M., Gavaravarapu, S. R. M., Venkaiah, M., & Rao, D. R. (2014). The quality of nutrition research reporting by leading daily newspapers in India. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 6(6), p.92–98.
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
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.
Norman, Kent L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10254-5.
Patairiya, M. (2007). Science journalism in India. The Pantaneto Forum Home Page, January 25, 2007. Available on www. pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/patairiya.htm
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.
Phillips, A. (2012). A Creator’s Guide to Transmedia Storytelling: How to Captivate and Engage Audiences Across Multiple Platforms Hardcover. June 23, 288 p.
Rajput, A. S. D. (2008). Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 95(11), p.1513. SciLogs in association with Nature.com available on www.scilogs.com
Sciulli, D. (2010). Continental Sociology of Professions Today: Conceptual Contributions// Current Sociology, November 2010.
Vol. 46, №5. p.915-942.
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.
Shankar, A. and Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 102(8), p.1415.
Shanton, Karen; Goldman, Alvin (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. doi:12.12/ wcs.83. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
Shipman, N. (2012). Scientists: Social media is not necessarily a waste of time. Sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), pp.297-306.
Weingart, P. (2003). Science and the media // Research Policy, 2003, 23 (5). – p.841-863.
Arulchelvan, S. (2010). Science and technology dissemination through Tamil newspapers: A study. Indian Journal of Science Communication, 9(2), p.3–9.
Bagla, P. (2002). Good science journalism-and barriers to it in India. Science and Media: An International Workshop, Tobago, West Indies. – pp.96-115.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science // Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / Ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. Routledge: London, 2008. p.57-76.
Burns, Kelli S. (2017). Social Media: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-4355-6. Chauhan, N.M. (2011). Aptitude of the programme coordinators of Krishi Vigyan Kendras of India. Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education, 11(3), p.19–24.
Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attential Mechanisms in the Generation of science communications / The science and technology, Vol. 1(5), p.83.
Eastwood, John D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2001). DifferentialEmotion. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 63(6), pp.1004-1013.
Felt, U., Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science//Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 29. Dortrecht: Springer, 2012. p.133-154.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The Third Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. – p.193.
Gambarato, R. (2017). Transmedia Project Design: Theoretical and Analytical Considerations / R. Gambarato // Baltic Screen Media review: Vol.1. – р.84-85.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2012). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks International Journal, 4 (1), pp.7-16. Gopichandran, R. (2014). Some important facets of science communications. Dream 2047, 15(10), p.35.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, USA. – 308 p.
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.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. – p.310.
Maheshwar, M., Gavaravarapu, S. R. M., Venkaiah, M., & Rao, D. R. (2014). The quality of nutrition research reporting by leading daily newspapers in India. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 6(6), p.92–98.
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
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.
Norman, Kent L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10254-5.
Patairiya, M. (2007). Science journalism in India. The Pantaneto Forum Home Page, January 25, 2007. Available on www. pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/patairiya.htm
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.
Phillips, A. (2012). A Creator’s Guide to Transmedia Storytelling: How to Captivate and Engage Audiences Across Multiple Platforms Hardcover. June 23, 288 p.
Rajput, A. S. D. (2008). Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 95(11), p.1513. SciLogs in association with Nature.com, (2015). available on www.scilogs.com
Sciulli, D. (2010). Continental Sociology of Professions Today: Conceptual Contributions// Current Sociology, November 2010.
Vol. 46, №5. p.915-942.
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.
Shankar, A. and Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 102(8), p.1415.
Shanton, Karen; Goldman, Alvin (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. doi:12.12/ wcs.83. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
Shipman, N. (2012). Scientists: Social media is not necessarily a waste of time. Sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), pp.297-306.
Weingart, P. (2003). Science and the media // Research Policy, 2003, 23 (5). – p.841-863.
References
Abbott, A. (2011).The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011. – p.263.
Arulchelvan, S. (2010). Science and technology dissemination through Tamil newspapers: A study. Indian Journal of Science Communication, 9(2), p.3–9.
Bagla, P. (2002). Good science journalism-and barriers to it in India. Science and Media: An International Workshop, Tobago, West Indies. – pp.96-115.
Bucchi, M. (2008). Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: theories of public communication of science // Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology / Ed. by M. Bucchi, B. Trench. Routledge: London, 2008. p.57-76.
Burns, Kelli S. (2017). Social Media: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-4408-4355-6. Chauhan, N.M. (2011). Aptitude of the programme coordinators of Krishi Vigyan Kendras of India. Indian Research Journal of
Extension Education, 11(3), p.19–24.
Dickert, S., & Slovic, P. (2009). Attential Mechanisms in the Generation of science communications / The science and technology, Vol. 1(5), p.83.
Eastwood, John D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. (2001). DifferentialEmotion. Per- ception & Psychophysics, 63(6), pp.1004-1013.
Felt, U., Fochler, M. (2012). Re-ordering Epistemic Living Spaces: On the Tacit Governance Effects of the Public Communication of Science//Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook 29. Dortrecht: Springer, 2012. p.133-154.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism. The Third Logic. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. – p.193.
Gambarato, R. (2017). Transmedia Project Design: Theoretical and Analytical Considerations / R. Gambarato // Baltic Screen Media review: Vol.1. – р.84-85.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. (2012). The Social Brain: Discovering the Networks International Journal, 4 (1), pp.7-16. Gopichandran, R. (2014). Some important facets of science communications. Dream 2047, 15(10), p.35.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture. New York, NY: New York University Press, USA. – 308 p.
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.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2003). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003. – p.310.
Maheshwar, M., Gavaravarapu, S. R. M., Venkaiah, M., & Rao, D. R. (2014). The quality of nutrition research reporting by leading daily newspapers in India. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 6(6), p.92–98.
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
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.
Norman, Kent L. (2017). Cyberpsychology: An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-10254-5.
Patairiya, M. (2007). Science journalism in India. The Pantaneto Forum Home Page, January 25, 2007. Available on www. pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/patairiya.htm
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.
Phillips, A. (2012). A Creator’s Guide to Transmedia Storytelling: How to Captivate and Engage Audiences Across Multiple Platforms Hardcover. June 23, 288 p.
Rajput, A. S. D. (2008). Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 95(11), p.1513. SciLogs in association with Nature.com available on www.scilogs.com
Sciulli, D. (2010). Continental Sociology of Professions Today: Conceptual Contributions// Current Sociology, November 2010.
Vol. 46, №5. p.915-942.
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.
Shankar, A. and Goulding, C. (2001). Interpretive consumer research: Science communication: Careers and courses in India. Current Science, 102(8), p.1415.
Shanton, Karen; Goldman, Alvin (2010). Simulation theory. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. doi:12.12/ wcs.83. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
Shipman, N. (2012). Scientists: Social media is not necessarily a waste of time. Sympathy. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(4), pp.297-306.
Weingart, P. (2003). Science and the media // Research Policy, 2003, 23 (5). – p.841-863.
Загрузки
Как цитировать
У.М., Е. (2020). Формы пропаганды и презентации научных достижений с помощью медиаинструментов. Серия Журналистики, 55(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v55.i1.08
Выпуск
Раздел
Мир информации
