UDC

001.92(045)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V517

Authors

Marina D. Krynzhina - Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Assoc. Prof., Assoc. Prof. at the Department of International Journalism
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: m.krynzhina@inno.mgimo.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9956-4521

Abstract

The article analyzes the trends in the development of citizen science in Russia in the context of the influence of the neoliberal socio-economic order on the formation of this concept and the transformation of its practices. Despite widespread criticism of neoliberalism, due to the global spread of the ideas and values that form the basis of this doctrine, the domestic system of organizing scientific activities remains significantly influenced by it. The development of citizen science is analyzed within the framework of the concept of scientific communication models–the “deficit model”, the “dialogue model”, and the “engagement” or “participatory model”. Emphasis is placed on the differences in approaches to defining the concept of “citizen science” among representatives of natural and social sciences. It is shown that Russian researchers theoretically consider citizen science as a benefit and an effective tool for strengthening social solidarity and popularizing scientific knowledge, thus sharing Anglo-Saxon approaches and calling for the development of this direction. However, in real practice, the development of citizen science in Russia faces serious obstacles: examples of the implementation of citizen science projects are few, public involvement is minimal, and due attention is not given to the popularization of the phenomenon among the general public. It is shown that international experience in attracting volunteer researchers in science is insufficiently manifested in the Russian scientific and informational space. Emphasis is placed on the role of citizen science practices in a sovereign state. The conclusion is made that citizen science in Russia, as a social institution designed to popularize science among the general public, does not seem to function.

Keywords

citizen science, science communication, science policy, popularization of science, sovereign science, neoliberal science, open science

References

1. Antyukhova E.A., Krynzhina M.D. Tsennostnye osnovaniya praktik tsifrovogo i tekhnologicheskogo suvereniteta ES [The Value Foundations of the EU's Digital and Technological Sovereignity Practices]. Abyss (Voprosy filosofii, politologii i sotsial’noy antropologii), 2025, no. 4, pp. 134–147. https://doi.org/10.33979/2587-7534-2025-4-134-147
2. Ablazhey A.M. Kontseptsiya neoliberal’noy nauki v zapadnoy sotsial’noy mysli [The Concept of Neoliberal Science in Western Social Thought]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya, 2012, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 74–81.
3. Vostrikova E.V., Kusliy P.S. Neoliberalizm v nauke: podkhod STS [Neoliberalism in Science: STS Approach]. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 2015, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 105–127
4. Ablazhey A.M. Neoliberal’naya transformatsiya sovremennoy nauki: rossiyskaya versiya [Neoliberal Transformation of Contemporary Science: the Russian Version]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Filosofiya, 2014, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 40–46.
5. Mirowski P. The Future (s) of Open Science. Soc. Stud. Sci, 2018, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 171–203.
6. Popper K.R. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Vol. 2. The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath. Princeton, 1963. 439 p. (Russ. ed.: Popper K.R. Otkrytoe obshchestvo i ego vragi. Vol. 2. Vremya lzheprorokov: Gegel’, Marks i drugie orakuly, 1992. 528 p.).
7. Fecher B., Friesike S. Open Science: One Term, Five Schools of Thought. Opening Science. Cham, 2014, pp. 17–47 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8_2
8. Vohland K., Weißpflug M., Pettibone L. Citizen Science and the Neoliberal Transformation of Science – An Ambivalent Relationship. Citiz. Sci.: Theory Pract., 2019, vol. 4, no. 1. pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.186
9. Grishechkina N.V., Tikhonova S.V. Grazhdanskaya ekspertiza i nauchnoe znanie v tsifrovuyu epokhu Civil Expertise and Scientific Knowledge in the Digital Era]. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, 2018, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 123–138.
10. Bylieva D.S., Lobatyuk V.V., Rubtsova A.V. Citizen Science: Concept, Problems and Prospects. Sociology of Science and Technology, 2021, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 49–70.
11. Irwin A. Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences. Publ. Underst. Sci., 2001, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1–18.
12. Busygina T.V. Analiz literatury po probleme «grazhdanskaya nauka» na osnove bazy dannykh Scopus [Analysis of the Literature on Citizen Science Based on Scopus Database]. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy, 2022, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 169–201.
13. Romashkina G.F., Lisitsa A.V. Grazhdanskaya nauka – za i protiv [Citizen Science – Pros and Cons]. Siberian Socium, 2022, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 39–59. https://doi.org/10.21684/2587-8484-2022-6-3-39-59
14. Haklay M., Dörler D., Heigl F., Manzoni M., Hecker S., Vohland K. What is Ctizen Science? The Challenges of Definition. The Science of Citizen Science. Springer, 2021, pp. 13–33.
15. Neustroeva S.L. Nauchnaya kommunikatsiya: global’nyy trend ili novaya akademicheskaya distsiplina? [Scientific Communication: a Global Trend or a New Academic Discipline?]. Sotsial’noe prostranstvo, 2018, no. 5, pp. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2018.5.17.12
16. Krynzhina M.D. Vliyanie neoliberalizma na modeli nauchnoy kommunikatsii [The Impact of Neoliberalism on Models of Science Communication]. Kontsept: filosofiya, religiya, kul’tura, 2022, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 119–137.
17. Berneys E. Propaganda [Propaganda]. M., 2024. 192 p.
18. Bucchi M. Of Deficits, Deviations and Dialogues: Theories of Public Communication of Science. Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge, 2008, pp. 71–90. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240-11
19. Romashkina G.F., Davydenko V.A. Grazhdanskaya nauka kak sposob rasshireniya uchastiya v nauchnykh issledovaniakh [Civil Science As a Way to Increase Participation in Scientific Research]. XXIII Ural’skie sotsiologicheskie chteniya. Lichnost’, kul’tura, obshchestvo: nasledie LN Kogana i sovremennost’. Ekaterinburg, 2023, pp. 75–78.
20. Busygina T.V. Rossiyskaya «grazhdanskaya nauka», otrazhenie v BD Scopus: naukometricheskiy analiz [Citizen Science in Russia Through the Lens of the Scopus Database: Scientometric Analysis]. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy, 2024, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 126–159.
21. Muravyeva A.A., Oleynikova O.N. The Universities’ Role in Developing Citizen Science Discourse. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2021, vol. 25, pp. 45–55. (In Russ.).
22. Abdurazakov O.R., Ledovskaya E.V. «Grazhdanskaya nauka» kak novyy vektor publichnoy politiki [Citizen Science As a New Vector of Public Policy]. Problemy nauki, 2021, no. 8, pp. 62–64.
23. Volkova A.V. Grazhdanskaya nauka: vyzovy i uroki [Citizen Science: Challenges and Lessons]. Vzaimodeystvie nauki i obshchestva – istoriya i sovremennost’. Moscow, 2020, pp. 19–23.
24. Volkova A.V. Potentsial «grazhdanskoy nauki» v obshchestvenno-politicheskom razvitii [Potential of Citizen Science in Political and Social Development]. Sotsial’no-politicheskie issledovaniya, 2019, no. 1, pp. 41–50.
25. Krynzhina M.D., Dedocheva A.A. Media v epokhu «postpravdy»: o ponyatiyakh «lzhenauka», «konspirologiya» i «feyk» [Media in the Post-Truth Era: the Concepts of Pseudoscience, Conspiracy and Fake News]. Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennoy filologii i zhurnalistiki, 2023, no. 2, pp. 84–89. https://doi.org/10.36622/aqmpj.2023.38.72.013
26. Davi H., Modicom P.Y., Durand J.L., Eldin C. How Has Neoliberalism Weakened Science? Nat. Sci. Soc., 2021, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 356–359. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2021053
27. Porus V.N., Bazhanov V.A. Postnormal’naya nauka: mezhdu Stsilloy neopredelennosti i Haribdoy politizatsii znaniya [Post-Normal Science: Passing the Scylla of Uncertainty and the Charybdis of the Politicization of Knowledge]. Filosofiya. Zhurnal vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, 2021, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 15–33.
28. Gazoyan A.G. Grazhdanskaya nauka kak instrument nauchnoy kommunikatsii: analiz rossiyskoy praktiki [Citizen Science as a Tool of Science Communication: Analysis of Russian Practice]. Nomothetika: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Pravo, 2020, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 810–817. https://doi.org/10.18413/2712-746x-2020-45-4-810-817
29. Il’ina A.A. Natsional’naya sistema otsenki rezul’tativnosti nauchnykh issledovaniy i razrabotok: Novaya povestka importozameshcheniya [National Performance Evaluation System of Research and Development: A New Agenda of Import Substitution]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 21. Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obshchestvo), 2022, no. 3, pp. 63–79.
30. Shumkoski G. Global’nyy transfer neoliberal’nykh modeley i doktrina suverennogo gosudarstva [Global Dissipation of Neoliberal Models and the Sovereign State Doctrine]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2022, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 771–787.
31. Rassolova E.N., Galkin K.A. Tsifrovizatsiya sfery grazhdanskoy nauki v Rossii. Perspektivy i bar’ery razvitya [Digitalization of the Sphere of Citizen Science in Russia. Prospects and Barriers to Development]. Tsifrovaya sotsiologiya, 2023, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 12–19.