Preview

Communicology

Advanced search

Science Art as Science and Innovation Communication to the Society

https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2019-7-4-169-181

Abstract

Popularization of scientific knowledge is important both for personal growth in particular, and for the formation of an innovative society as a whole. In parallel with the development of science and technology, it is necessary to introduce new ways of communication. Science Art can be considered as such, as it is known as a movement of contemporary art, closely interacting with science and technology, while being accessible to a broad audience. In this paper the author’s definition of Science Art as a communication channel between science, technology, innovation (STI) and society is developed. The author’s empirical research is conducted to see if it can be such channel. In the process of preparing the research, we develop a way of comparing the STI communication channels between each other, the analysis of management experience is used. Despite its connection with the scientific area, our qualitative research has shown that Science art cannot be fully used for science communication, because it does not have a proper level of «scientificity», and does not currently cover a large percentage of the audience due to its specifics. However, Science art, with proper support and interaction with other means of communication of science, can have a strong emotional impact on the audience. This leads to an increase in interest in the scientific field. Science art’s emotional message can also change negative emotions towards innovation, which often arise for potential users due to innovations’ novelty and often uncertain consequences of their use.

About the Author

E. A. Komleva
Maastricht University
Russian Federation


References

1. Булатов Д. (2009). Искусство и наука в эпоху постбиологии. Калининград: КФ ГЦСИ.

2. Aiken M., Hage, J. (1971). The organic organization and innovation. Sociology, 5(1), 63-82.

3. Barnett P.G., Liston, M.I. (1967). Dimensions and Differentials of Home Economists’ Images of Consumer Roles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 79-88.

4. Burgelman J.C. (2001). How social dynamics influence information society technology: Lessons for innovation policy. In: Social Sciences and Innovation. P. 215-222. Paris: OECD.

5. Campbell N.R. (1921). What is Science? London: Methuen.Gilbert S.W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-79.

6. Hutter M., Knoblauch H., Rammert W., Windeler A. (2015). Innovation society today: the reflexive creation of novelty. Historical Social Research, 40(3), 30-47.

7. Owen R., Macnaghten, P., Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and public policy, 39(6), 751-760.

8. Rogers E.M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Simon and Schuster.

9. Roland A. (1992). Secrecy, technology, and war: Greek fire and the defense of Byzantium, 678-1204.

10. Technology and Culture, 33(4), 655-679.

11. Willems J. (1991). Science popularization in motion. In: 2nd International Conference on Public communication of Science and Technology (PCST) [access mode]: https://www.pcst.co/archive/paper/1520 (accessed: 04.02.2019).

12. Zaltman G., Duncan R., Holbek J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. John Wiley & Sons.


Review

For citations:


Komleva E.A. Science Art as Science and Innovation Communication to the Society. Communicology. 2019;7(4):169-181. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2019-7-4-169-181

Views: 153


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2311-3065 (Print)
ISSN 2311-3332 (Online)