The Impact of Neoliberalism on Models of Science Communication
https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2022-2-22-119-137
Abstract
National science is being transformed under the influence of global processes, which are mainly, although not entirely, dictated by the dominance of neoliberal ideas in a wide range of developed and developing countries. The term neoliberalism, (or neo-liberalism), which was coined in the 20th century, offers recommendations that include a set of political, economic, and ideological actions. The article examines the impact of the neoliberal turn in science on the process of interaction between science and society. It is substantiated that this affects the development of vector models for the spread of scientific neoliberal ideology. Academia is a research field that deals with a wide range of issues from actual dissemination of scientific research to the models of involving new constituencies, in which non-professionals are encouraged to participate in research via scientific discussions and polls. Academia is a global and debatable topic to be discussed. It should be noted that scientific communications as a process of promoting scientific knowledge outside the scientific communities have not been thoroughly studied by domestic researchers yet. In the international scientific community and the Russian scientific field, until recently, the understanding of the tasks of scientific communication varied greatly. However, the development of scientific communities is widespread in different countries and reveals the impacts of neoliberalism research on this process. The neoliberal initiative encourages the creation of conditions in which, firstly, citizens take an active part in solving scientific issues. And secondly, the prestige of the pursuit of pure science does not deter researchers from promoting commercialization and the free development of their scientific activity. The peculiarities of interaction between science and society are regarded from the point of view of the Italian sociologist Massimiano Bucchi. Distinguished in academic discourse for his classification of relationships among science, technology, and society, M. Bucchi specifies three patterns for such relationships: deficit, dialogue, and completion.
About the Author
M. D. Krynzhina
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina D. Krynzhina — PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the International Journalism Department
76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
References
1. Ablazhey, A. M. (2012) ‘The Concept of Neo-Liberal Science in Western Social Thought’, Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriâ: filosofiâ, 10(2), pp. 74–81. (In Russian).
2. Abramov, R. N. and Kozhanov, A. A. (2015) ‘Popular Science Conceptual Analysis: Models of Science, Society and Media Communications’, Sociology of science and technology, 6(2), pp. 45–59. (In Russian).
3. Besley, J. C. et al. (2018) ‘Understanding Scientists’ Willingness to Engage’, Science Communication, 40(5), pp. 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
4. Bourdieu, P. (1985) ‘The market of symbolic goods’, Poetics, 14(1–2), pp. 13–44. https://doi. org/10.1016/0304-422X(85)90003-8
5. Bubela, T. et al. (2009) ‘Science communication reconsidered’, Nature Biotechnology, 27(6), pp. 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0609-514
6. Bucchi, M. (2008) ‘Of deficits, deviations and dialogues: Theories of public communication of science’, in Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 71–90. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203928240
7. Chomsky, N. (1982) Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
8. Davi, H. et al. (2021) ‘How has neoliberalism weakened science?’, Natures Sciences Sociétés, 29(3), pp. 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2021053
9. Davies, S. R. (2008) ‘Constructing Communication’, Science Communication, 29(4), pp. 413–434. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
10. Davies, S. R. and Horst, M. (2016) Science Communication: Culture, Identity and Citizenship. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50366-4
11. Fecher, B. and Friesike, S. (2014) ‘Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought’, in Opening Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 17–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
12. Foucault, M. (2004) ‘The Crisis of Medicine or the Crisis of Antimedicine?’, Foucault Studies, (1), pp. 5–19. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i1.562
13. Golovko, N. V. (2012) ‘Neoliberal Conception of Science and Knowledge Economics’, Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriâ: filosofiâ, 10(4), pp. 57–63. (In Russian).
14. Habermas, J. (1968) Technik und wissenschaft als ‘ideologie’. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (Russ.ed.: (2007) Tekhnika i nauka kak ‘ideologiya’. Moscow: Praksis Publ.).
15. Harvey, D. (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Russ.ed.: (2007) Kratkaya istoriya neoliberalizma: aktual’noye prochteniye. Moscow: Pokolenie Publ.).
16. Hayek, F. A. (2014) The Road to Serfdom. Edited by B. Caldwell. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315728124. (Russ.ed.: (2021) Doroga k rabstvu. Moscow: AST Publ.).
17. Jasanoff, S. (2011) ‘Constitutional Moments in Governing Science and Technology’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), pp. 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9302-2
18. Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
19. Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: the Rise of Disaster Capitalism. London: Allen Lane. (Russ.ed.: (2010) Doktrina shoka. Rastsvet kapitalizma katastrof. Moscow: Dobraya kniga Publ.).
20. Konnov, V. I. (2010) ‘History and current state of science policy paradigms’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, (5), pp. 101–112. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2010-5-14-101-
21. Krynzhina, M. D. (2020) ‘Opportunities for Science Diplomacy under Sanctions: the Experience of SovietAmerican Scientific and Technical Cooperation in the 1970-1980s’, Sociology of science and technology, 11(3), pp. 59–73. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24411/2079-0910-2020-13004
22. Kurath, M. and Gisler, P. (2009) ‘Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bioand nanotechnology’, Public Understanding of Science, 18(5), pp. 559–573. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662509104723
23. Lane, H. and Bahan, B. (1998) ‘Article Commentary: Ethics of cochlear implantation in young children: A review and reply from a Deaf-World perspective’, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 119(4),
24. pp. 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(98)70070-1
25. Lave, R., Mirowski, P. and Randalls, S. (2010) ‘Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science’, Social Studies of Science, 40(5), pp. 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710378549
26. Menzel, H., Somers, R. and Glaser, W. A. (1958) The flow of information among scientists: problems, opportunities, and research questions. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research.
27. Mirowski, P. (2018) ‘The future(s) of open science’, Social Studies of Science, 48(2), pp. 171–203. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0306312718772086
28. Mises, L. Von (1993) Bjurokratija. Zaplanirovannyj haos. Antikapitalisticheskaja mental’nost’ [Bureaucracy. Planned chaos. The anti-capitalistic mentality]. Moscow: Delo Publ. (In Russian).
29. Neustroeva, S. (2018) ‘Scientific Communication: a Global Trend or a New Academic Discipline?’, Social area, (5), p. 12. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2018.5.17.12
30. Nisbet, M. C. and Scheufele, D. A. (2009) ‘What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions’, American Journal of Botany, 96(10), pp. 1767–1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ ajb.0900041
31. Nye, J. S. (2004) Soft Power: the Means to Success in World Politics. New York: Public Affairs.
32. Ogawa, M. (2012) ‘Towards a “Design Approach” to Science Communication’, in Communication and Engagement with Science and Technology. New York: Routledge, pp. 15–30. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203807521
33. Palmer, S. E. and Schibeci, R. A. (2014) ‘What conceptions of science communication are espoused by science research funding bodies?’, Public Understanding of Science, 23(5), pp. 511–527. https://doi. org/10.1177/0963662512455295
34. Pocock, M. J. O. et al. (2015) ‘The Biological Records Centre: a pioneer of citizen science’, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 115(3), pp. 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12548
35. Polanyi-Levitt, K. (2012) ‘The Power of Ideas: Keynes, Hayek, and Polanyi’, International Journal of Political Economy, 41(4), pp. 5–15. https://doi.org/10.2753/IJP0891-1916410401
36. Reincke, C. M., Bredenoord, A. L. and van Mil, M. H. (2020) ‘From deficit to dialogue in science communication’, EMBO reports, 21(9), p. e51278. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202051278
37. Romanova, M. D. (2015a) ‘Influence of Cultural Context on Formation of Science Policy (French Experience)’, Polis. Political Studies, (5), pp. 119–129. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2015.05.10
38. Romanova, M. D. (2015b) ‘The History of Popularization of Science in France’, MGIMO Review of International Relations, (2), pp. 276–282. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2015-2-41-276-
39. Romanova, M. D. (2017) ‘Nauka, orientirovannaja na obshhestvo: istorija nauchnyh izdanij vo Francii [Science aimed at society: the history of scientific journals in France]’, in Social’no-psihologicheskie problemy populjarizacii nauki v Rossii i za rubezhom [Socio-psychological problems of science popularization in Russia and abroad]. Moscow: MGIMO University Publ., pp. 137–157. (In Russian).
40. Ropke, W. (1937) Die lehre von der wirtschaft. Wien: Springer.
41. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2005) ‘A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms’, Science, Technology, &
42. Human Values, 30(2), pp. 251–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
43. Stocklmayer, S. M. and Bryant, C. (2012) ‘Science and the Public—What should people know?’, International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), pp. 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.5 43186
44. Tarasov, A. A. (2017) ‘The Counter-Revolution of Neoliberalism’, in Revolyutsiya i evolyutsiya: modeli razvitiya v nauke, kul’ture, sotsiume [Revolution and evolution: models of development in science, culture, society]. Nizhnij Novgorod: Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod Publ., pp. 314–316. (In Russian).
45. Vohland, K. et al. (2021) ‘Editorial: The Science of Citizen Science Evolves’, in The Science of Citizen Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_1
46. Vostrikova, E. and Kusliy, P. (2015) ‘Neoliberalism in Science: the STS Approach’, Epistemology & philosophy of science, (4), pp. 105–127. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Krynzhina M.D. The Impact of Neoliberalism on Models of Science Communication. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. 2022;6(2):119-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2022-2-22-119-137
Views:
601
Email this article 