Научные коммуникации и популяризация науки в задачах CS-рекрутинга
Научная статья
Для цитирования
Егерев С. В. Научные коммуникации и популяризация науки в задачах CS-рекрутинга // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2024. Том 6. № 3. С. 223-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.3.16 EDN: YQCORG
Аннотация
В статье анализируется мировая практика применения научных коммуникаций и, в частности, популяризации науки для рекрутинга добровольцев в проекты науки граждан (CS-рекрутинга). Россияне активно участвуют в глобальных трансграничных онлайн-проектах. Однако локальные российские CS-проекты развиваются менее успешно. Показано, что весьма серьёзной является проблема неудовлетворительного рекрутинга, а ключевую роль в рекрутинге и удержании добровольцев играют научные коммуникации и популяризация науки, причём роль коммуникаций особенно важна на начальном этапе проекта. Для выявления динамики мотивации добровольцев введены понятия активной и предварительной стадий CS-рекрутинга. Рассмотренный в статье опыт может быть полезен для российского научного менеджмента.
Ключевые слова:
наука граждан, общественное понимание науки, «выталкивающие» факторы, динамика мотивации добровольцев, глобальные и локальные проекты
Литература
1. Gazoyan А. G. Citizen science as an instrument of science communication: Analysis of Russian practice. NOMOTHETIKA: Philosophy. Sociology. Law. 2020;45(4): 810–817. (In Russ.). DOI 10.18413/2712-746X-2020-45-4-810-817.
2. Reddy V., Parker S., Hannan S. Public understanding of science. In: Maggino F., ed. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Cham : Springer; 2022. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_2331-2.
3. UN Environment, ed. Global environment outlook – GEO-6: Healthy planet, healthy people. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press; 2019. xxxi, 711 p. DOI 10.1017/9781108627146.
4, Sullivan B. L., Aycrigg J. L., Barry J. H. [et al.] The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation. 2014;169:31–40. DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003.
5. West S., Pateman R. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: What can be learned from the volunteering literature? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2016;1(2):15. DOI 10.5334/cstp.8.
6. He Y., Parrish J. K., Rowe Sh., Jones T. Evolving interest and sense of self in an environmental citizen science program. Ecology and Society. 2019;24(2):33. DOI 10.5751/ES-10956-240233.
7. Rotman D., Preece J., Hammock J. [et al.] Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen‐science projects. In: CSCW’12 : Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. N. Y. : Association for Computing Machinery; 2012. P. 217–226. DOI 10.1145/2145204.2145238.
8. Cox J., Oh E. Y., Simmons B. [et al.] Doing good online: The changing relationships between motivations, activity, and retention among online volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2018;47(5):1031–1056. DOI 10.1177/0899764018783066.
9. Jackson C. B., Østerlund C., Mugar G., Hassman K. D., Crowston K. Motivations for sustained participation in crowdsourcing: Case studies of citizen science on the role of talk. In: 48th Hawaii International conference on system sciences. Kauai, HI : Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2015. P. 1624–1634. DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2015.196.
10. Gharesifard M., Wehn U. To share or not to share: Drivers and barriers for sharing data via online amateur weather networks. Journal of Hydrology. 2016;535:181–190. DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.036.
11. Asingizwe D., Poortvliet P. M., Koenraadt C. J. M. [et al.] Why (not) participate in citizen science? Motivational factors and barriers to participate in a citizen science program for malaria control in Rwanda. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0237396. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0237396.
12. Hobbs S. J., White P. C. L. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2012;20(6):364–373. DOI 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002.
13. Benyei P., Pardo-de-Santayana M., Aceituno-Mata L. [et al.] Participation in citizen science: Insights from the CONECT‐e case study. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2021;46(4):755–788. DOI 10.1177/0162243920948110.
14. Bowser A., Parker A., Long A. Citizen science and COVID-19: The power of the (distanced) crowd. Wilson Center. 2020. June 22. Available at: https://wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/citizen-science-and-covid-19-power-distanced-crowd (accessed: 31.07.2024).
15. Drill S., Rosenblatt C., Cooper C., Cavalier D., Ballard H. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on participation in community and citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2022;7(1):23. DOI 10.5334/cstp.463.
16. Dubynin A. V. Biodiversity and science communication challenges: Opportunities for citizen science projects to study and conserve plants. In: Botanical gardens in modern world : A collection of scientific articles. St. Petersburg : St. Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”;2023. Issue 4. P. 30–35. (In Russ.). DOI 10.24412/cl-36595-2023-4-30-35.
17. Durant J., Evans G., Thomas G. Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1(2):161–182. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/002.
18. Bauer M. W. The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society. 2009;14(2):221–240. DOI 10.1177/097172180901400202.
19. Devonshire I. M., Hathway G. J. Overcoming the barriers to greater public engagement. PLoS Biology. 2014;12(1):e1001761. DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761.
20. Weingart P., Joubert M., Connoway K. Public engagement with science – origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0254201. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0254201.
2. Reddy V., Parker S., Hannan S. Public understanding of science. In: Maggino F., ed. Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Cham : Springer; 2022. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-69909-7_2331-2.
3. UN Environment, ed. Global environment outlook – GEO-6: Healthy planet, healthy people. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press; 2019. xxxi, 711 p. DOI 10.1017/9781108627146.
4, Sullivan B. L., Aycrigg J. L., Barry J. H. [et al.] The eBird enterprise: An integrated approach to development and application of citizen science. Biological Conservation. 2014;169:31–40. DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.003.
5. West S., Pateman R. Recruiting and retaining participants in citizen science: What can be learned from the volunteering literature? Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2016;1(2):15. DOI 10.5334/cstp.8.
6. He Y., Parrish J. K., Rowe Sh., Jones T. Evolving interest and sense of self in an environmental citizen science program. Ecology and Society. 2019;24(2):33. DOI 10.5751/ES-10956-240233.
7. Rotman D., Preece J., Hammock J. [et al.] Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen‐science projects. In: CSCW’12 : Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. N. Y. : Association for Computing Machinery; 2012. P. 217–226. DOI 10.1145/2145204.2145238.
8. Cox J., Oh E. Y., Simmons B. [et al.] Doing good online: The changing relationships between motivations, activity, and retention among online volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2018;47(5):1031–1056. DOI 10.1177/0899764018783066.
9. Jackson C. B., Østerlund C., Mugar G., Hassman K. D., Crowston K. Motivations for sustained participation in crowdsourcing: Case studies of citizen science on the role of talk. In: 48th Hawaii International conference on system sciences. Kauai, HI : Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2015. P. 1624–1634. DOI 10.1109/HICSS.2015.196.
10. Gharesifard M., Wehn U. To share or not to share: Drivers and barriers for sharing data via online amateur weather networks. Journal of Hydrology. 2016;535:181–190. DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.036.
11. Asingizwe D., Poortvliet P. M., Koenraadt C. J. M. [et al.] Why (not) participate in citizen science? Motivational factors and barriers to participate in a citizen science program for malaria control in Rwanda. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0237396. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0237396.
12. Hobbs S. J., White P. C. L. Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording. Journal for Nature Conservation. 2012;20(6):364–373. DOI 10.1016/j.jnc.2012.08.002.
13. Benyei P., Pardo-de-Santayana M., Aceituno-Mata L. [et al.] Participation in citizen science: Insights from the CONECT‐e case study. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2021;46(4):755–788. DOI 10.1177/0162243920948110.
14. Bowser A., Parker A., Long A. Citizen science and COVID-19: The power of the (distanced) crowd. Wilson Center. 2020. June 22. Available at: https://wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/citizen-science-and-covid-19-power-distanced-crowd (accessed: 31.07.2024).
15. Drill S., Rosenblatt C., Cooper C., Cavalier D., Ballard H. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions on participation in community and citizen science. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 2022;7(1):23. DOI 10.5334/cstp.463.
16. Dubynin A. V. Biodiversity and science communication challenges: Opportunities for citizen science projects to study and conserve plants. In: Botanical gardens in modern world : A collection of scientific articles. St. Petersburg : St. Petersburg Electrotechnical University “LETI”;2023. Issue 4. P. 30–35. (In Russ.). DOI 10.24412/cl-36595-2023-4-30-35.
17. Durant J., Evans G., Thomas G. Public understanding of science in Britain: The role of medicine in the popular representation of science. Public Understanding of Science. 1992;1(2):161–182. DOI 10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/002.
18. Bauer M. W. The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society. 2009;14(2):221–240. DOI 10.1177/097172180901400202.
19. Devonshire I. M., Hathway G. J. Overcoming the barriers to greater public engagement. PLoS Biology. 2014;12(1):e1001761. DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001761.
20. Weingart P., Joubert M., Connoway K. Public engagement with science – origins, motives and impact in academic literature and science policy. PloS ONE. 2021;16(7):e0254201. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0254201.
Статья
Поступила: 05.08.2024
Опубликована: 25.09.2024
Форматы цитирования
Другие форматы цитирования:
APA
Егерев, С. В. (2024). Научные коммуникации и популяризация науки в задачах CS-рекрутинга. Управление наукой: теория и практика, 6(3), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2024.6.3.16
Раздел
В поисках утраченного жанра: популярная наука
