Science Communication in the Global Age: Social and Philosophical Analysis of International Experience and Ukrainian Context

Abstract

The practically unlimited spread of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-expert assessments in today’s media generates an active social request for critical thinking, which can only rely on a scientifically based position. At the same time, the competitive nature of the “science communication” and “scientific communication” concepts need to be philosophically reviewed using the methodology of contemporary theories and considering the current global and national challenges. Using the methodological approaches of Markus Dressel, three main models of interaction between science and society (SSIMs) were analyzed (technocratic, decisionist, and pragmatic ones) through the issue of establishing a common field of discourse between scientists and non-scientists. Brian Trench and Massimiano Bucchi differentiate three models of science communication – the deficit model, the engagement model, and the participation model (from deficit to dialogue and participation models). These models can be considered as a way of institutionalizing the interaction of science and society – respectively, the directions of science popularization, enhancement of the expert role of science in society, and participation of non-scientists in certain elements of scientific research. The article aimed to reveal the main trends in studying the institutional potential of the social influence on science communication globally and in Ukraine particularly. As research demonstrates, the deficit model dominates in Ukraine, though the expert role of science and community science as a form of society’s participation in performing scientific tasks is developing ever more intensely.

Keywords

• philosophy of science
• science communication
• scientific communication
• models of science communication
• institutionalization