10.10.2017
Problems of science popularization in Ukraine: opinions of scientists
- According to a study conducted by Rating Group in September 2017 on behalf of the Ukrainian Partnership Forum, among researchers working in scientific institutions in Dnipro, Kyiv, Lviv, Odesa, and Kharkiv, 86% believe that scientists should engage in science communication and public outreach, such as giving public lectures, publishing in non-academic outlets, providing media commentary, and participating in television programs. Only 5% expressed the opposite view, while 9% were unable to answer.
- At the same time, 45% said they personally engage in science popularization, including 21% on a regular basis and 24% occasionally, while more than half do not. The longer a respondent’s scientific career and the higher their academic degree, the more likely they are to engage in outreach.
- Among those who have experience in science popularization, 85% said they did so on a voluntary basis, and only 6% received financial compensation. However, 41% of all surveyed scientists believe this work should be paid, 37% think it should remain voluntary, and 22% were undecided.
- Half of respondents said their scientific institution encourages them to take part in science popularization, while 35% said it does not and 14% were unsure.
- More than half of respondents (55%) believe it is difficult for scientists to communicate information about their inventions through the media, while 26% think it is not difficult and 19% were undecided. The longer a person’s scientific career, the more likely they are to see this as a problem. The main obstacles named were the media’s preference for entertainment over science (59%), lack of government funding for science communication (56%), the absence of a culture of science popularization in Ukraine (42%), the need to pay to access media outlets (35%), and the complexity of scientific information for most people (36%). About one fifth said that the public is simply not interested in scientific innovations, and only 4% believed there are no serious barriers.
- Universities received the highest ratings for effectiveness in science popularization, with 57% saying they are effective and 35% ineffective. Research institutes were rated effective by 48% and ineffective by 42%, the National Academy of Sciences by 43% and 48% respectively, and the media by 32% effective versus 54% ineffective. The Ministry of Education and Science was rated effective by only 28% and ineffective by 63%, the worst among all institutions assessed. NGOs, business structures, and secondary schools were also more often rated ineffective than effective.
- Nearly 90% support the idea of creating a national center in Ukraine dedicated to science popularization and support for domestic research, providing technical assistance to scientists and startups, shaping a positive image of scientists and science-based entrepreneurs, and disseminating news about science and innovation. Only 7% oppose this idea and 4% were undecided.
- The most desired services from such a center include lectures by prominent scientists, startup founders, and science communicators (60%), foreign language courses (46%), roundtables, workshops, and master classes (42%), interactive exhibitions of innovations (30%), help in preparing professional project presentations (23%), science media museums and video production (22%), professional support with press releases and articles (21%), science journalism training (14%), coworking spaces and press briefings (13% each), and hackathons (7%).
- As additional infrastructure, 56% would like access to modern presentation equipment, 47% to computer workstations with internet access, 31% to a mini-printing facility, 21% to 3D installations, 13% to a professional video studio, and 9% to a dedicated rapid-recording area.
- Fifty-seven percent of respondents collaborate with foreign colleagues, while 37% do not. International cooperation is most common in Kyiv and Odesa, and among doctors of science and those with long scientific careers.
- Only 2% say their research is adequately funded, 55% say it is partially funded, and 35% say it is not funded at all. Funding conditions are relatively better in Kyiv, among doctors of science, and among those with more than 20 years of experience, and worse among respondents in Dnipro, those without an academic degree, and those with shorter careers.
- More than half (54%) have additional employment beyond their scientific work, and 72% of them say this work is related to their main job. Researchers without an academic degree more often report that their additional work is unrelated to their scientific activity.
- Only 28% are considering leaving the scientific profession, while 55% are not and 17% are undecided. Such intentions are more common in Lviv, among researchers without an academic degree, and among those with five to ten years of experience. Among those who want to leave, the main reasons are low pay (87%), insufficient funding of research (57%), disappointment in the development of Ukrainian science (41%), a desire to work in another field (19%), and the perceived irrelevance of their research (10%).
- At present, 60% say the main thing they get from their scientific work is satisfaction from doing what they love, while 14% cite scientific recognition, 10% practical implementation of results, and only 5% financial reward. In contrast, when asked what they would like to receive in the near future, 46% said financial compensation, 24% practical implementation of their results, 13% scientific recognition, and only 9% satisfaction from their work.
- More than half (56%) do not consider moving abroad for scientific work, while 26% do and 18% were undecided. Among those who consider “scientific emigration,” the main expected benefit is financial reward (43%), followed by practical implementation of results (28%), scientific recognition (14%), and moral satisfaction (10%).
- Ninety-three percent believe it is important that the results of their research have practical application. Forty-seven percent said their work has already been applied in practice, while 38% said it has not. Practical application is most common among doctors of science and those with more than 20 years of experience.
- The main reason for the lack of practical implementation is lack of funding (48%), followed by the theoretical nature of research (27%), lack of interest from institutional leadership, or lack of relevance to current realities (7–9%). Very few cited fear of mistakes, lack of media support, or lack of public interest.
- Two thirds of respondents have not applied for government or international research grants over the past five years, while about one third have. More than 80% have not applied for grants from civic initiatives. About one fifth received grants from the state or international organizations, while only 3% received grants from civic initiatives. Among those who applied, more than half succeeded in obtaining state or international grants, compared to 36% for civic grants. Success rates are highest in Kyiv, Kharkiv, and Lviv and among senior researchers.
- International grant programs are seen as the most transparent, while government and civic grants are viewed as much less transparent.
- When choosing a grant program, respondents say the most important factors are relevance to their research topic, opportunities to find investors, and the size of funding. Fewer prioritize the opportunity to popularize their research, and very few see emigration as a key motive.
- Nearly half believe it is difficult to win international grants, and even more think it is difficult to win government grants. Those who have applied for grants are twice as likely to say it is easy.
- Three quarters receive information about science and innovation from specialized websites and journals, over half from colleagues, and many from events, social networks, and lectures. Most use the internet daily, with Facebook being the most common social network. Most prefer to receive information in text or visual form rather than audio. Finally, 76% would like to receive more information about innovation and new opportunities for scientists in Ukraine.
Methodology
- Respondents: scientists of 35 scientific institutions in 5 cities (Kyiv, Kharkiv, Dnipro, Odesa, Lviv). Total sample: 1000 respondents.
- Personal formalized interview (face-to-face).
- Fieldwork dates: 4-30 September 2017.
The survey conducted on request of the Public Association «Ukrainian Partnership Forum»
.webp)