DOI: https://doi.org/10.32515/2663-1636.2020.5(38).9-17

The Latest Forms and National Models of Regulation by Fundamental Scientific Research

Oleksandr Levchenko, Amin Al-Ghazali

About the Authors

Oleksandr Levchenko, Professor, Doctor in Economics (Doctor of Economic Sciences), Pro-rector of Scientific Work, Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Kropyvnytskyi, Ukraine, ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5452-7420, e-mail: om_levchenko@ukr.net

Amin Al-Ghazali, Intern, Department of Economics, Management and Commercial Activities, Central Ukrainian National Technical University, Kropyvnytskyi, Ukraine, ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4524-7360, e-mail: abosultan711@hotmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of the publication is to generalize approaches to understanding the essence of the processes of fundamental scientific research in the context of studying the peculiarities of the use of traditional and modern forms of their regulation, as well as national emphases of administrative administration models in academic fields. The form of public regulation of fundamental scientific research is considered as a means of influencing the subject of regulation on its object, which is embodied in a specific way of exercising powers to streamline the activities of social networks to encourage the desired model for the formation of fundamental cognitive social competences and inclusive competences. Social capital within the functioning of innovation-oriented sociovital ecosystems of the post-industrial economy. The national varieties of neoliberal, conservative-corporatist (continental), social-democratic and paternalistic models of fundamental scientific research optimization in the context of the implementation of the state's socio-economic policy on the regulation of intellectual services markets are studied. The functions of the process of formation and application of forms and models of fundamental scientific research regulation are the constant expansion of public consumption resources and the formation of knowledge-intensive sources of increasing the level of collective welfare; management of the design and structure of the complex of unproduced assets of national wealth, goods produced by the real sector of the national economy/services provided by the social sector of the national economy, tangible and intangible assets with high potential for value added; formation of high-tech services based on the use of basic concepts and meeting consumer expectations in them; development of logically substantiated fundamental scientific theories of formation, updating and use of fundamental scientific knowledge, concepts and sensory-image models of the scientific picture of the world with the possibility of further use in social practice.

Keywords

fundamental scientific research, forms of regulation, national models, organizational and economic mechanism of regulation

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Bogush, L.G.(2010). Sotsialʹnyy capital I sotsiohumanitarnyy prostir: metodolohiya vyznachennya, vzayemozvyazky, vektory rozvytku [Social capital and socio-humanitarian space: methodology of definition, relationships, vectors of development]. Ekonomika ta derzhava – Economy and state, 4, 15-20.Retrieved from http://www.economy.in.ua/pdf/4_2010/5.pdf [inUkrainian].

2. Gassler, H., &Shibani, A. (2011). Nepraktichnaya nauka. Kak otsenit' rezul'tativnost' fundamental'nykh issledovaniy [Impractical science. How to evaluate the performance of fundamental research]. Forsait – Foresight, 5, 1, 40-47 [in Russian].

3. Kuhn, T. (2014). Posle struktury nauchnykh revolyutsiy [After the structure of scientific revolutions]. Moscow: AST; Minsk: Harvest [in Russian].

4. Kuhn, T. (2001). Struktura naukovykh revolyutsiy [The structure of scientific revolutions]. Kyiv: Port-Royal. Izbornik. izbornyk.org.ua. Retrieved from http://izbornyk.org.ua/kuhn/kuhn.htm [in Russian].

5. Lakatos, I. (2008). Selected Works on Philosophy and Methodology of Science. (I.N. Veselovsky, A.L. Nikiforova, V.N. Porusa, Trans). Moscow: Academic Project; Tricksta.

6. Panin, A.V. (1981). Dialekticheskiy materialism I postpozitivizm (kriticheskiy analiz nekotorykh sovremennykh burzhuaznykh kontseptsiy nauki) [Dialectical materialism and post-positivism (a critical analysis of some modern bourgeois concepts of science)]. Moscow: Publishing house Mosk. University [in Russian].

7. Popper, K. (1983). Logika I rost nauchnogo znaniya [Logic and the growth of scientific knowledge]. Moscow: Progress [in Russian].

8. Popper, K. (2002). Objective knowledge. Evolutionary approach. (D.G. Lakhuti, Trans.; V.N. Sadovsky, Eds). Moscow: Editorial URSS.

9. Stryukovsky, V.I. (1985). Istoriya i logika razvitiya nauchno-tekhnicheskoy deyatel'nosti [History and logic of development of scientific and technical activities]. Moscow: Mysl [in Russian].

10. Shtraks, G.M., & Shtraks, M.G. (1985). Dialektika formirovaniya nauchnykh ubezhdeniy [Dialectics of the formation of scientific beliefs]. Moscow: Moscow University Publishing House [in Russian].

11. Drobyazko, S., Malakhovskyi, Yu., Zhovnovach, R., & Mohamed, M. (2020). The concept of the mechanism of managing the intellectual resources of the innovative active enterprises’ employees (experience of Great Britain). Economics. Ecology. Socium, 4, 1, 24-32 [in English].

12. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: Verso. monoskop.org. Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf [in English].

13. Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books [in English].

14. Lacatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Criticism and Growth of Knowledge. I. Lacatos, A. Musgrave (Eds.). Cambridge University Press. Springer Link. doi.org. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 [in English].

15. Malakhovskyi, Yu., Zhovnovach, R., & Nabulsi, H. (2020). Features of public-private partnership as a means of regulating the development of the social sphere of innovative ecosystems. PIRETC. Proceeding of The International Research Education & Training Centre, 8, 01, 13-22. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved= 2ahUKEwjnhcudwd3uAhURmYsKHZMLCtEQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.kntu.kr.ua%2Fjspui%2Fhandle%2F123456789%2F9394&usg=AOvVaw00TmqQiYGxWxV8almC4QZr.[in English].

16. OECD/Eurostat (2005), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris. doi.org. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en [in English].

17. Popper, K. (1956). Three views concerning human knowledge. Contemporary British philosophy. H.D. Lewis. (Ed.). L.-N.Y.: Allen & Unwin [in English].

18. R&D (n.d.). cebglobal.com. Retrieved from https://www.cebglobal.com/innovation-strategy/research-development/activity-map.html [in English].

Пристатейна бібліографія

  1. Богуш Л.Г. Соціальний капітал і соціогуманітарний простір: методологія визначення, взаємозв’язки, вектори розвитку. Економіка та держава. 2010. № 4. С. 15-20. URL: http://www.economy.in.ua/pdf/4_2010/5.pdf (дата звернення15.11.2020).
  2. Гасслер Х., Шибани А. Непрактичная наука. Как оценить результативность фундаментальных исследований. Форсайт. 2011. Т. 5. № 1. С. 40-47. URL: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/2011-5-1/28506086.html (дата звернення 10.11.2020)
  3. Кун Т. После структуры научных революций. Москва: АСТ; Минск: Харвест, 2014. 510 с.
  4. Кун Т. Структура наукових революцій. Київ: Port-Royal, 2001. Ізборнік. URL: http://izbornyk.org.ua/kuhn/kuhn.htm(дата звернення12.11.2020).
  5. Лакатос И. Избранные произведения по философии и методологии науки / пер. с англ. Веселовского И.Н., Никифорова А.Л., Поруса В.Н. Москва: Академический Проект; Трикста, 2008. 475 с.
  6. Панин А.В. Диалектический материализм и постпозитивизм (критический анализ некоторых современных буржуазных концепций науки). Москва: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1981. 240 с.
  7. Поппер К. Логика и рост научного знания. Москва: Прогресс, 1983. 605 с.
  8. Поппер К. Объективное знание. Эволюционный подход / пер. с англ. Лахути Д.Г.; отв. ред. Садовский В.Н. Москва: Эдиториал УРСС, 2002. 384 с.
  9. Стрюковский В.И. История и логика развития научно-технической деятельности. Москва: Мысль, 1985. 160 с.
  10. Штракс Г.М., Штракс М.Г. Диалектика формирования научных убеждений. Москва: Издательство Московского университета, 1985. 168 с.
  11. Drobyazko S., Malakhovskyi Yu., Zhovnovach R., Mohamed M. The concept of the mechanism of managing the intellectual resources of the innovative active enterprises’ employees (experience of Great Britain). Economics. Ecology. Socium. 2020. Vol. 4, No. 1. P. 24-32. DOI: 10.31520/2616-7107/2020.4.1-3(датазвернення15.11.2019).
  12. Feyerabend P. Against Method. London: Verso, 1975. 279 p. URL: https://monoskop.org/images/7/7e/Feyerabend_Paul_Against_Method.pdf (дата звернення11.11.2020).
  13. Feyerabend P. Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Books, 1978. 221 p.
  14. Lacatos I. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Criticism and Growth of Knowledge / eds. Lacatos I. & Musgrave A. Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pp. 91-195. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14 (дата звернення12.11.2020).
  15. Malakhovskyi Yu., Zhovnovach R., Nabulsi H. Features of public-private partnership as a means of regulating the development of the social sphere of innovative ecosystems. PIRETC. Proceeding of The International Research Education & Training Centre. 2020. Vol. 8. Issue 01. P. 13-22. URL: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjnhcudwd3uAhURmYsKHZMLCtEQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdspace.kntu.kr.ua%2Fjspui%2Fhandle%2F123456789%2F9394&usg=AOvVaw00TmqQiYGxWxV8almC4QZr (дата звернення 15.11.2020).
  16. Oslo Manual: The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition. URL: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264013100-en.pdf?expires=1603171707&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A9451010DECB2EA8CC91EFF9D2BF2EFA (дата звернення 10.11.2020)
  17. Popper K. Three views concerning human knowledge. Contemporary British philosophy / ed. H.D. Lewis. L.-N.Y.: Allen & Unwin, 1956. 366 p.
  18. R&D. Gartner. URL: https://www.cebglobal.com/innovation-strategy/research-development/activity-map.html (дата звернення 13.11.2020).
Copyright (c) 2020 Oleksandr Levchenko, Amin Al-Ghazali