Abstract
The purpose of the study is to develop a concept of a virtual space for the promotion and popularization of science and technologies for communication between scientists, society and state; promoting the inclusive development of science and technology in Ukraine; the formation of a scientific worldview and the innovative culture of society. Research methods: methods of analysis, synthesis and comparison; hermeneutic, contextual, sociological methods; systematic, transdisciplinary, prognostic-analytical, historical approaches. Results. Among benefits of the study there is the expected outcome of the research: to formulate proposals for the development of scientific communications in society, dialogue and cooperation of scientists and all age and professional strata of population; the formation of an innovative culture, critical thinking and a scientific worldview; increasing the attractiveness of the profession of a scientist, the social status of a scientist. Conclusions. The authors of the article propose the measures which should be implemented that in order to contribute to the high-quality modern training of future specialists, oriented to participate in the innovative reconstruction of Ukraine based on the latest achievements of science and high technologies, and will ensure a worthy replenishment of the personnel potential of Ukrainian science
Keywords
scientific communication, engagement in science, Citizen science, Open science
References
1. Bucchi, M., & Trench, B. (Eds.). (2021). Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781003039242
2. Gilbert, J.K., & Stocklmayer, S.M. (Eds.). (2012). Communication and engagement with science and technology: Issues and dilemmas - a reader in science communication (1st ed.). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203807521
3. Guston, D. H. (2014). Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 53–59. doi: 10.1177/0963662513476403.
4. Guston, D.H. (2011). Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 691-697. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9314-y.
5. Harrington, E. G. (2019). Academic libraries and public engagement with science and technology. Chandos Publishing. doi: 10.1016/C2016-0-03503-9.
6. Hennessy, S. (2014). Bridging between research and practice: Supporting professional development through collaborative studies of classroom teaching with technology. Rotterdam; Boston.
7. Jones, R.A.L. (2014). Reflecting on public engagement and science policy. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 27-31. doi: 10.1177/0963662513482614.
8. Lindgreen, A., Koenig-Lewis, N., Kitchener, M., John, D., Brewer, M., & Meynhardt, T. (Eds.). (2019). Public Value: Deepening, Enriching and Broadening the Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
9. Lytvynko, A.S., & Ponomarenko, L.P. (2012). Annual conferences for youth in science and technology history: Organization experiences. Science and Science of Science, 1, 71-80.
10. Martinez-Vargas, C. (2022). Democratising participatory research: Pathways to social justice from the south. doi: 10.11647/OBP.0273.
11. Mede, N., & Schäfer, M. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 484-500. doi: 10.1177/0963662520924259.
12. Mede, N., Schäfer, M., & Füchslin, T. (2021). The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 273-293. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edaa026.
13. Merkley, E. (2020). Anti-intellectualism, populism, and motivated resistance to expert consensus. Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(1), 24-48. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfz053.
14. Ryzhko, L., Onoprijenko, V., Bessalova, T., Zhyvagha, O., & Borozdykh, N. (2019). Scientist in postmodern culture. Kyiv: Feniks.
15. Schneegans, S., Lewis, J., & Straza, T. (Eds.). (2021). UNESCO science report: The race against time for smarter development – executive summary. UNESCO Publishing.
16. Selin, C., Rawlings, K.C., de Ridder-Vignone, K., Sadowski, J., Altamirano Allende, C., Gano, G., Davies, S.R., & Guston, D.H. (2017). Experiments in engagement: Designing public engagement with science and technology for capacity building. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 634-649. doi: 10.1177/0963662515620970.
17. Vovchenko, O.V., Zhyvagha, O.V., & Petrenko, N.S. (2021). Popularization of science and education in the era of new social media. Kyiv: KROK University of Economics and Law.
18. Zakon.rada. (2022). On the Approval of the National Plan of Open Science. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/892-2022-р#Text.
