Science Communication and Education of Future Researchers. To the Question of Teaching the History and Philosophy of Science at University
https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2019-28-6-115-127
Abstract
The article aims to legitimate teaching the history and philosophy of science at contemporary Russian university. It assumes to contribute to the answering the questions of what and how should future researchers and science teachers be taught. It attempts to complement the relevant researches with one aspect connected with the communication of scientists as a subject of study and education. The author argues that the theory and practice of communication can be an important element of teaching the history and philosophy of science courses for future researchers. She explains this importance by two reasons. Firstly, the communication of scientists is problematic; secondly, it can be interpreted as a condition for innovative research. The author makes a distinction between professional communication in science and science communication of scientists with other public actors. The main problem of communication between scientists is an ambiguous connection between the goals of these two types of communication. The article answers the following issues: why and how future researchers should be taught the theory and practice of these two types of communication. In the last part of the article the author analyzes the method of teaching and describes three educational strategies: historical critique, philosophical assembling and experience of dialogue. All of them can be an integral part of teaching the history and philosophy of science for future researchers.
Keywords
history and philosophy of science course,
professional communication in science,
science communication,
dialogue,
historical critique,
philosophical assembling strategy
Supporting agencies: The study was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research project (No. 18-511-00009 Бел-а) “Science leadership and its transformation features in the conditions of innovation economy development in post-Soviet countries (on the examples of Russia and Belarus)”.
About the Author
L. V. Shipovalova
St. Petersburg University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lada V. Shipovalova – Dr. Sci. (Philosophy), Prof., Department of Philosophy of Science and Technology
7/9 Universitetskaya emb., St. Petersburg, 199034
References
1. Bednyi, B.I., Sapunov, M.B. et al. (2019). A New Model of Russian Doctoral Education: Problems and Prospects (round table). Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii =Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 28. No. 1, pp. 130-146. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
2. Kasatkin, P.I., Inozemtsev, M.I. (2016). Current Issues of Arranging Post-Graduate Education for Academic Staff Training. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii =Higher Education in Russia. No. 4 (200), pp. 123-127. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
3. Porus, V.N. (2007). Philosophy of Science for Post-Graduated Students: Experimentum Crucis. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki = Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. Vol. XIV, No. 4, pp. 63-79. (In Russ.)
4. Kuznetsova, N.I. (2018). Higher School and Science: Values and Meanings (To the Question of a Status of the Course “History and Philosophy of Science”). Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27. No. 6, pp. 140-151. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
5. Mirsky, E.M., Sadovsky, V.N. (Eds.) (1976). Kommunikatsiya v sovremennoi nauke[Communication in Contemporary Science]. Мoscow: Progress Publ., 440 p. (In Russ.)
6. Bucchi, M., Trench, B. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. London: Routledge. 263 p.
7. Galison, P. (2010). Trading with the Enemy. In: Gorman, M.E. (Ed). Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise: Creating New Kinds of Collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 25-52.
8. Hilgartner, S. (1990). The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 20, pp. 519-539.
9. Perrault, S.T. (2013). Communicating Popular Science: From Deficit to Democracy. Palgrave Macmillan, 201 p.
10. Besley, J.C., Dudo, A., & Yuan, S. (2017). Scientists’ Views about Communication Objectives. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 27(6), pp. 708-730.
11. Rozov, M.A. (1996). [Traditions and Innovations in the Development of Science. Scientific Revolutions]. In: Kuptsov, V.I. (Ed). Filosofiya i metodologiya nauki[Philosophy and Methodology of Science]. Moscow: Aspect Press, pp. 202-250. (In Russ.)
12. Dmitriev, I.S. (2018). “Tempus Spargendi Lapides” The Fuzzy Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki =Epistemology & Philosophy of Science. Vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 189-205. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
13. Cohen, I.B. (1987). Revolution in Science. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 732 p.
14. Sapunov, M.B., Polonnikov, A.A. (2018). Academic Subject Problem: Epistemological Crisis and Its Overcoming. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii = Higher Education in Russia. Vol. 27. No. 12, pp. 144-157 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
15. Popper, К. (2000). [The Logic of the Social Sciences]. In: Sadovsky, V.N. (Ed.) Evolyutsionnaya epistemologyya i logika sotsial’nykh nauk: Karl Popper i ego kritiki [Evolutionary Epistemology and Logic of Social Sciences: Karl Popper and His Critics]. Moscow: Editorial URSS Publ., pp. 289-313. (In Russ.)
16. Birger, P.A., Dmitriev, I.S., Kupriyanov, V.A., Shipovalova, L.V. (2016). Nauka: ispytanie effektivnost’yu[Science: The Challenge of Effectiveness]. St. Petersburg: Fond razvitija konfliktologii Publ. 212 p. (In Russ.)
17. Bernal, J.D. (1957). Science in History. 2nd ed. London: Watts, 984 p.
18. Yudin, G. (2010). [Illusion of Scientific Community]. Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie = Russian Sociological Review. Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 57-88. (In Russ.)
19. Garfield, E. (2007). Tracing the Influence of J.D. Bernal on the World of Science through Citation Analysis. In: Irish Association for Crystal Growth Conference and Bernal Symposium on Pro-tein Crystallization. Dublin. Available at: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/bernaldublin0907.pdf
20. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 320 p.
21. Wynne, B. (1996). May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide. In: Lash, S., Szerszynski B., Wynne, B. (Eds). Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. London: Sage, pp. 44-83.
22. Iles, A. (2007). Identifying Environmental Health Risks in Consumer Products: Non-Governmental Organizations and Civic Epistemology. Public Understanding of Science. Vol. 16(4), pp. 371-392.
23. Priest, S. (2013). Critical Science Literacy: What Citizens and Journalists Need to Know to Make Sense of Science. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 33(5-6), pp. 138-145.
24. Idei i chisla. Osnovaniya i kriterii otsenki rezul’tativnosti filosofskikh i sotsiogumanitarnykh issledovaniy. (2016). [Ideas and Numbers. Foundations and Criteria for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Philosophical and Socio-humanitarian Research]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya Publ., 272 p. (In Russ.)
25. Bornmann, L., Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a Changing Research Landscape. EMBO reports. Vol. 15. No. 12, pp. 1228-1232.
26. Elliott, D.B. (2013). Salami Slicing and the SPU: Publish or Perish? Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. No. 33 (6), pp. 625-626.
27. Fuller, S. (2009). The Sociology of Intellectual Life. The Carrier of Mind in and around the Academy. Sage Publications Ltd. 178 p.
28. Boaventura, S.S., Nunes J.A., Meneses, M.P. (2007). Introduction: Opening Up the Canon of Knowledge and Recognition of Difference. In: de Boaventura, S.S. (Ed.). Another Knowledge Is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies. London: Verso. 447 p.
29. Kant, I. Critique of Judgment.(Russian translation: Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1994. 376 p.)
30. Kuznetsova, N.I. (2009). Presentism and Antiquarism – Two Pictures of the Past. Arbor Mundi. No. 15, pp. 164-196. (In Russ.)
31. Granovskiy, Yu.V. (2000). [Can Science Be Measured?]. Naukovedenie [Science Studies]. No. 1. (In Russ.)
32. Shapin, S. (1990). Science and the Public. In: Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R., Hodge, M.J.S. (Eds.). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Rout1edge, pp. 991-1007.
33. Law, J. (1973). The Development of Specialties in Science: The Case of X-Ray Protein Crystallography. Science Studies. Vol. 3(3), pp. 275-303.
34. Trufanova, E.O., Yakovleva, А.F. (2015). [Social Roles of a Scientist – From “Escapist” to “Manager”]. Voprosy filosofii = Russian Studies in Philosophy. No. 3, pp. 72-82. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
35. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Science and Citizenship: a New Synergy. Science and Public Policy. Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 90-94.
Review
Views:
842
Email this article 