DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-293-301

Ethos of communication and understanding in project activity (an editorial)

Larisa P. Kiyashchenko (guest editor)
Doctor of Philosophy, Leading Researcher

Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences,
12/1, Goncharnaya st. Moscow, 109240, Russia;
e-mail: larisakiyashchenko@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4244-5732
ResearcherID: J-4925-2018

Anastasia V. Golofast
researcher-intern

Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences,
12/1, Goncharnaya st. Moscow, 109240, Russia;
e-mail: nastya.golofast@iph.ras.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8689-687X
ResearcherID: W-2494-2017

Nowadays, the problematization of a person as an unfinished project takes place as a cross-cutting thematization of the interdisciplinary approach, which presupposes a holistic, complex study that «throws light on both the meaning of all scientific activity and the unified basis of the mechanisms of imagination operating here» (G. Holton). The article draws attention to the peculiarities of project activity, its aspiration for the possible embodiment of a community of interests in solving urgent problems. The creative complementarity of the personal and the collective as well as internal and external factors in the changing norms and values of the scientific community is reshaping the ethos of communication and understanding. The agenda includes the need to address the current ambivalence of scientific communication taking into account the response to the demands of society to work out the updated principles of assembling scientific teams based on trust and solidarity. The procreative, generative function of scientific activity is prescribed in the context of team building. The problematization of the academic community assembly is growing as it is becoming more open and accountable to society. The culture of skills of critical but empathic mutual trust in communication is actualized, this trust including the heuristics of the scientific dispute of the interest-based ethos. Repetitive successful practices of pro-creative communication can, over time, acquire the character of an institutionally formed tradition, a conventionally fixed norm of creative cooperation. The authors suggest the possibility of achieving this goal grounded not only on the primary impulse of the community of interest but on prolonged communication strategies. The basis for such an outcome is the symmetrical contribution of participants in problem-oriented scientific communication to the achievement of the collective good in the form of innovative approaches to solving fundamental problems of our time which have confirmed practical application in multiple specific cases. Convergence of expectations resulting from the emergence of trust in the ethos of the scientific community can be built «in between» behavioral choice options in the ternary matrix of «loyalty–voice–exit». The preadaptive academic activity of the group can be sustainable in the presence of «protective valves» channeling dissatisfaction with the parameters of order, renewed understanding and communication patterns in the project activity of the group.

Keywords: ethos, procreation, mutual understanding, project activity, solidarity, scientific group formation, scientific communication, reciprocity, trust.

Acknowledgements

Work on the special issue and writing an introductory article was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project № 20-011-00609 «Procreation: fundamental and applied aspects of socio-cultural norms — the language of interdisciplinary discourse».

References

Alpatov, A.S. (2009). [Gnoseological interest as expression of gnoseological subjectness]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika [Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy]. Vol. 9, iss. 1, pp. 3–7.

Arshinov, V.I. and Svirskiy, Ya.I. (2016). [World of complexity and its observer. Pt. 2]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [Philosophy of Science and Technology]. Vol. 21, pp. 78–91.

Asmolov, A.G. (2001). Psikhologiya lichnosti: printsipy obschepsikhologicheskogo analiza [Psychology of personality: principles of general psychological analysis]. Moscow: Smysl Publ., 416 p.

Bogataya, L.N. (2010). Na puti k mnogomernomu myshleniyu [Towards multifaceted thinking]. Odessa: Pechatnyy Dom Publ., 372 p.

Bennett, M., Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. Journal of Investigate Media. Vol. 60, iss. 5, pp. 768–775. . DOI: https://doi.org/10.2310/jim.0b013e318250871d

Coser, L. (1964). The functions of social conflict. New York: Free Press, 192 p.

Davis Cross M. (2015). Crisis & catharsis in EU integration. European Union Studies Association (EUSA) Fourteenth Biennial Conference. Available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/78922/1/Cross.pdf (accessed 16.08.2021).

Delanda, M. (2018). Novaya filosofiya obschestva. Teoriya assamblyazhey i sotsial’naya slozhnost’ [New philosophy of society. Assemblage theory and social complexity]. Perm: Gile Press Publ., 170 p.

Druckman, J. and Lupia, A. (2017). Using frames to make scientific communication more effective. Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/~jnd260/pub/Druckman%20and%20Lupia%20Using%20Frames%20to%20Make%20Scientific%20Communication%20Effective.pdf (accessed 16.08.2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.38

Dubois, Zh., Edelin, F., Klinkenberg, J.-M. et al. (eds.) (1998). Obschaya ritorika [General rhetoric]. Blagoveshchensk: BРC named after I.A. Baudouin de Courtenay Publ., 392 p.

Frankl, V. (2021). Skazat’ zhizni «Da!». Psikholog v kontslagere [Say «Yes» to life: a psychologist experiences the concentration camp]. Moscow: Al’pina Non-Fiction Publ., 239 p.

Goffman, E. (2000). Predstavleniye sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni [The presentation of self in everyday life]. Moscow: Kanon-press-TS Publ., Kuchkovo pole Publ., 304 p.

Habermas, J. (1990). [Cognition and interest]. Filosofskie nauki [Philosophical Sciences]. No. 1, pp. 90–99.

Heidegger, M. (2006). Chto zovetsya myshleniyem? [What is called thinking?]. Moscow: Territotiya Buduschego Publ., 320 p.

Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 176 p.

Holton, G. (1981). Tematicheskiy analiz nauki [Thematic analysis of science]. Moscow: Progress Publ., 384 p.

Kiyaschenko, L.P. (2005). [Ethos of postnonclassical science]. Filosofiya nauki. Vyp. 11: Etos nauki na rubezhe vekov [Philosophy of Science. Iss. 11: Ethos of Science at the Turn of the Century]. Moscow: IP RAS Publ., pp. 29–53.

Kiyaschenko, L.P. and Maylenova, F.G. (eds.) (2020). Mezhdistsiplinarnye issledovaniya kul’turnogo transfera [Interdisciplinary studies of cultural transfer: philosophy, linguistics, medicine]. Moscow: MHU Publ., 220 p.

Laszlo, E. (1995). [The age of bifurcation: understanding the changing world]. Put’ [Path]. No. 7, pp. 3–129.

Lauth, H.-J. (2000). Informal institutions and democracy. Democratization. Vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 21–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340008403683

Luhmann, N. (2004). Obschestvo kak sotsial’naya sistema [Society as a social system]. Moscow: Logos Publ., 232 p.

Luhmann, N. (1979). Trust and power. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Inc Publ., 208 p.

Ostrom, E. and Walker, J. (2003). Trust and reciprocity: interdisciplinary lessons for experimental research. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation Publ., 424 p.

Pirozhkova, S.V. (2016). [Prediction, forecast, scenario: on question about diversity of prognostic research’s results]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki [Philosophy of Science and Technology]. Vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 111–129.

Poyzner, B.N. (1994). [Becoming as a gnoseological object]. Izvestiya Vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Prikladnaya nelineynaya dinamika [Izvestiya VUZ. Applied Nonlinear Dynamics]. Vol. 2, no. 3–4, pp. 101–110.

Roeder, Ph. (2007). Where nation-states come from: institutional change in the age of nationalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 440 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400842964

Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences. No. 21, iss. 2–3, pp. 129–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136406

Shelling, Th. (2007). Strategiya konflikta [Strategy of conflict]. Moscow: IRISEN Publ., 375 p.

Tomz, M. (2008). Reputation and international cooperation: sovereign debt across three centuries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 328 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400842926

Zohlnhöfer, R. and Rüb, F. (eds.) (2016). Decision-making under ambiguity and time constraints. Assessing the multiple-streams framework. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press, 298 p.

Received: 01.08.2021. Accepted: 31.08.2021

For citation:

Kiyashchenko L.P., Golofast A.V. [Ethos of communication and understanding in project activity (an editorial)]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofia. Psihologia. Sociologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 2021, issue 3, pp. 293–301 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2021-3-293-301