Lada Vladimirovna Shipovalova DSc in Philosophy, Professor, Saint Petersburg University

1. Lada Vladimirovna Shipovalova DSc in Philosophy, Professor, Saint Petersburg University l.shipovalova@spbu.ru Reassembling the Science Communication The reported study was funded by RHSF according to the research project № 15-3-00572 and by RFBR - the research project № 18-011-00281 My thanks to Saint Petersburg University RC “Center for Sociological and Internet Research” for organizing sociological survey.

2. Key terms: • Science communication is the interaction between different actors concerning the creation, distribution, and usage of scientific knowledge. • Reassembling is the process of re-establishing connections between actors participating in science communication. • Main steps: • Clarification of the motive, or finding the answer to the question, "Why it is necessary to reassemble science communication?" – Wondering and problemitizing science communication in both narrow and broad senses. • Defining the roles of those who are invited to this event of reassembling: practitioners and theoreticians of philosophy and other areas of science studies. • Describing the major goals of reassembly as well as a number of concrete processes and procedures currently in use or will be in the future.

3. Science communication in a narrow sense is public science communication The field, where scientific concepts, theories and results enter public space and are disseminated among those who are interested but are not experts. Science communicator – a mediator between scientists and outsiders of all sorts. Wonderof public science communication: Is the role of a mediator, whose objective is interaction alone, possible to fulfill?

4. Problematization of public science communication • If a science communicator has his own vested interests, a problem of «the thirdperson» arises, i.e. a need for another mediator between the communicator and scientists, as well as between him and other actors. • If a science communicator has no interests of his own, whose interests does he represent in the organized communication? To which extent can he represent interests of others (scientists) if he knows only results of their activity? • If a science communicator represents interests of other scientists, there originates a problem of «the dominant view of popularization» and communication follows a deficit model (top to bottom). To which extent does this representation of science really facilitate the interests of scientists?  • Problem – the indeterminacy of scientists’ interests and their motives to participate in science communication.

5. Dramatis personae of science communication in a broad sense • Scientists and science communities • Students of science • Managers of science • Consumers of the results of scientific or cognitive activity • Universe and its elements as the objects of scientific research • Science communicators as mediators in different activities (not in public communication alone)

6. The roles of a philosopher and other researchers of science in the science communication (hybrid identity) • a scientific community member • a science communicator (mediator) • an author of the science communication picture and the one in charge of its problematization

7. Types of science communication in a broad sense (from the standpoint of hybrid identity) Internal communication, including -        mechanical (intradisciplinary) and organic (interdisciplinary) solidarity -        informal and formal communication (latter is used in science management) External communication is communication with managers, public, students, objects of research Wonder of science communication in a broad sense Equal access to internal communication and a hierarchy of positions within external communication General form of hierarchy Structures managing science Experts “Weak” outsiders (lay people, students, objects of research)

8. Problematization of science communication in broad sense • Hierarchic differentiation of internal and external communications has two different effects: • positive: preserving the identity of the scientific community • negative: • reducing: • the legitimacy of scientific community in the face of public consciousness • the acknowledgement of interests of scientific community by science management • limitation of the falsifiability principle and the neglect of external criticism, which induces dogmatization rather than the development of scientific knowledge.  • legitimization and application of hierarchy within one of the forms of social communication, which maintains social inequality in general.

9. Strategies of reassembling science communication: sublation of the abstract contradistinction of internal and external, alignment of levels of participation.  Scientists’ interests – objectivity, social justice, recognition. Shattering the stable identity of the scientific community, casting doubt upon the uniformity of its interests. Creating (clearing) a general external communication field due to accentuating its elements, i.e. successful hybrid identities, such as scientists-managers, scientists-popularizers, amateurs participating in scientific activity. Actual practices of participation and mediation: discussions and collaboration at the crossroads of interests of actors of scientific communication.

10. Thank you for your attention.