An Interpretation of Digitalization of Science: A Comparative Outline of the Main Analytical Approaches

Research Article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.8
EDN: VFDXRQ
How to Cite
Sokolov D.V. An Interpretation of Digitalization of Science: A Comparative Outline of the Main Analytical Approaches. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2024. Vol. 6. No. 1. P. 147-164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.8

Abstract

The article attempts to summarize the most significant approaches to understanding the digitalization of science. We proceed from the assumption that the development of theoretical models for assessing the “digital turn” will not only help to clarify the changes taking place in science, but will also allow us to better understand them, as well as possibly regulate various aspects of digitalization. We can say that by the 2010s at least four categories (or clusters) of approaches to the conceptualization of digitalization have developed, and each category often operates with its own definitions and a separate conceptual framework. This refers to scientometric, economic, information technology (IT) and sociological approaches to understanding the process of digitalization in science. Even a cursory comparison of their specific characteristics allows us to say that all the paradigms listed above have a number of common features and are based on several fundamental premises regarding the trends in the development of science and education, although an assessment of these trends, as well as an emphasis within each approach can differ significantly. We can single out three most large-scale complexes of phenomena that are in the focus of researchers in the field of digitalization of science: this is the formation of a global academic community thanks to digital services (1), the personalization of higher education (2) and the problem of digital inequality (3). The juxtaposition of these processes, thus, significantly changes several important features of science in general, forcing the academic community to raise questions about the definitions and essence of scientific knowledge once again.
Keywords:
digitalization of science, global academic community, sociology of science, digital divide, researchers’ adaptation to digitalization, personalization of higher education

References

1. Solla Price de D. J. Little science, big science. In: The science of science [Nauka o nauke]. Moscow : Progress; 1966. P. 281–384. (In Russ.).

2. Bell D. The coming of post-industrial society: A venture of social forecasting. Transl. from English, ed. by V. L. Inozemtsov. Moscow : Academia; 1999. CLXX, 783, [3] p. (In Russ.). ISBN 5-87444-070-4.

3. Castells M. The information age: Economy, society and culture. Transl. from English, ed. by O. I. Shkaratan. Moscow : HSE Publishing House; 2000. 608 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 5-7598-0069-8.

4. Nalimov V. V., Mul’chenko Z. M. Scientometrics: Study of the development of science as an information process [Naukometriya: izuchenie razvitiya nauki kak informatsionnogo protsessa]. Moscow : Nauka; 1969. 192 p. (In Russ.).

5. Srnicek N. Platform capitalism. Transl. and ed. by M. Dobryakova. Moscow : HSE Publishing House; 2019. 128 p. (In Russ.). ISBN 978-5-7598-1786-4.

6. Dushina S. A., Khvatova Т. Yu., Nikolaenko G. A. Academic Internet networks: A platform for scientific exchange or Instagram for scientists? (The case of ResearchGate). Sociological Studies=Sociologicheskie issledovaniya. 2018;(5):121–131. (In Russ.). DOI 10.7868/S0132162518050112.

7. Ershova T. V., Hohlov Yu. E. Digital research & development platforms. Information Society. 2017;(6):17–24. (In Russ.).

8. Nikulina T. V., Starichenko E. B. Information and digital technologies in education: Concepts, technologies, management. Pedagogical Education in Russia. 2018;(8):107–113. (In Russ.). DOI 10.26170/po18-08-15.

9. Semenov E. V., Sokolov D. V. Methodological problems of complex researches of a digital transformation in scientific communication. Science Management: Theory and Practice. 2021;3(2):75–98. (In Russ.). DOI 10.19181/smtp.2021.3.2.4.

10. Bernal J. D. The social function of science. London : George Routledge and Sons, Ltd; 1939. xvi, 482 p.

11. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science. 1955;122(3159):108–111. DOI 10.1126/science.122.3159.108.

12. McAfee A., Brynjolfsson E. Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. New York : W. W. Norton and Company; 2017. 402 p. ISBN 978-0-3932-54297.

13. Gawer A. Platform dynamics and strategies: From products to services. In: Gawer А., ed. Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham ; Northampton : Edward Elgar Publishing; 2009. P. 45–76. DOI 10.4337/9781849803311.00009.

14. Capurro R. Digitization as an ethical challenge. AI & Society. 2017;32(2):277–283. DOI 10.1007/s00146-016-0686-z.

15. Ammon U. Linguistic inequality and its effects on participation in scientific discourse and on global knowledge accumulation – With a closer look at the problems of the second-rank language communities. Applied Linguistics Review. 2012;3(2):333–355. DOI 10.1515/applirev-2012-0016.

16. Titarenko L. G. Adaptation to accelerated digitalization in the context of a pandemic: Comparative study of higher education systems in Russia and Belarus. Higher Education in Russia. 2022;31(3):58–68. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31992/0869-3617-2022-31-22-3-58-68.

17. Zhou X., Smith C. J. M., Al-Samarraie H. Digital technology adaptation and initiatives: a systematic review of teaching and learning during COVID-19. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 2023;April. DOI 10.1007/s12528-023-09376-z.

18. Slaughter S., Leslie L. L. Expanding and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization. 2001;8(2):154–161. DOI 10.1177/1350508401082003.

19. Johnston B., MacNeill S., Smyth K. Conceptualising the digital university: The intersection of policy, pedagogy and practice. Cham : Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. xxi, 265 p. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-99160-3.

20. García-Morales V. J, Garrido-Moreno A., Martín-Rojas R. The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:616059. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059.

21. Fredricks-Lowman I., Smith-Isabell N. Academic capitalism and the conflicting ideologies of higher education as a public good and commodity. New Directions for Higher Education. 2020;2020(192):21–27. DOI 10.1002/he.20388.

22. Kuhn C., Khoo S. M., Czerniewicz L. [et al.] Understanding digital inequality: A theoretical kaleidoscope. Postdigital Science and Education. 2023;5(3):894–932. DOI 10.1007/s42438-023-00395-8.

23. Gruzdeva M. A. Inclusion of population in digital space: Global trends and inequality of Russian regions. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2020;13(5):90–104. (In Russ.). DOI 10.15838/esc.2020.5.71.5.

24. Ivakhnenko E. N., Nikolskiy V. S. ChatGPT in higher education and science: A threat or a valuable resource? Higher Education in Russia. 2023;32(4):9–22. (In Russ.). DOI 10.31992/0869-3617-2023-32-4-9-22.

25. Igumnov O. A. Knowledge economy: Formation and development problems. ETAP: Economic. Theory. Analysis. Practice. 2016;(5):113–122. (In Russ.).
EDN QR Сode VFDXRQ
Article

Received: 18.07.2023

Accepted: 25.03.2024

Citation Formats
Other cite formats:

APA
Sokolov, D. V. (2024). An Interpretation of Digitalization of Science: A Comparative Outline of the Main Analytical Approaches. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 6(1), 147-164. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.1.8
Issue
Vol 6 No 1 (2024): Science Management: Theory and Practice
Section
Digital Environment and Problems Of Digitalization