Ғылыми жетістіктерді медиа арқылы насихаттау мен түсіндірудің ағартушылық парадигмасы
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26577/HJ.2020.v55.i1.08Кілттік сөздер:
ғылыми журналистиканың трансформациясы, ғылымның репрезентациясы, дербестендіру тәсілі, ғылыми-ағартушылық қызмет.Аннотация
Ғылымның жетістіктерін насихаттау арнайы контексте пайда болып, оны медиа арқылы кәсіби журналистер мен ғылыми қауымдастық өкілдері жүзеге асыруда. Олар ұсынған контенттің қарапайым аудиторияға арналғаны ғылыми ақпараттың талдану деңгейінен де көрініс тауып жатады.
Мақаланың мақсаты – әлеуметтік ғылыми ортада ғылымның репрезентациясы жағдайында пікірталас компоненттерінің әлсіздігін сараптау. Талдау компоненттерінің әлсіздігінен полемикалық дәстүрге нұқсан келіп, ақпараттық жанрдағы материалдар басымдыққа ие болуда. Бұның себебін автор әлемдегі ақпаратты тұтыну нарығында болып жатқан контентті жеңілдету, оңайлату аспектілерімен түсіндіреді. Контенттің жұпыны болуын, унификацияға ұшырауын ғылыми жаңалықтардың таралу кеңістігі сияқты аспектімен байланыстыра зерттейді.
Зерттеу жұмысының ғылыми және практикалық құндылығына ғылыми журналистиканың жаңа қызмет формаларын зерттеу, жаңа парадигмалық түрленулерін талдауды жатқызамыз. Мақалада әлемдегі ғылыми басылымдардың кәсіби функциялары, жұмыс істеу формалары жаңа дәуірге қалай бейімделуі тиіс деген мәселелер қаралған.
Зерттеу әдістемесіне сипаттау, бақылау және салыстыру сияқты эмпирикалық тәсілдер, құжаттарды сараптау, жүйелеу және социометриялық тәсілдер, шетелдік ғалымдардың еңбектеріне сүйенген теориялық аксиоматикалық әдістер қолданылды.
Ғылыми мақаланың нәтижесі. Автор мақалада бүгінгі қазақ журналистикасының ағартушылық бағыты мен ғылымды дәріптеудің мазмұнын анықтауға, ғалымдардың беделін көтеруге байланысты ой-тұжырымдар жасайды.
Мақаланың құндылығы. Мақала авторы мемлекеттік ақпараттық саясат ғылыми журналистиканың дамуына әсер ететін фундаменталды мәселелерді шеше алмауда деген пікір айтады. Бұл бағытта автор қазақтілді журналистер білім мен ғылымның насихатын, оны жастар арасында таратудың маңызын қоғамға түсіндіруі тиіс деген болжам жасайды.
Зерттеу жұмысының қорытынды нәтижелері. Мақалада Қазақ Елінде де дамыған елдердегідей ішкі жалпы өнімнің 70% ғылымды қажетсінетін салаларға жұмсалуының маңызын көрсетіп, нақты ұсыныстар келтіреді. Мемлекет ғылыми зерттеулерді ынталандыру тетіктерін жасап, ғылымның мәртебесін өсіруі қажет. Қазақ қоғамында да ғылым мен технологиялық салалардағы жаңалықтарға деген сұраныс өсуде. Автор инновациялық экономиканы дамыту үшін ғалымдардың жаңа идеясы, ғылымды мемлекеттің қолдауы қажет деген қорытынды жасайды.
Библиографиялық сілтемелер
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.
Жүктелулер
Жарияланды
2020-03-26
Шығарылым
Бөлім
Ақпарат әлемі
