Student Involvement in Science in the Focus of Sociological Analysis

Introduction. The relevance of the topic is due to the following contradiction. According to comparative international studies, in a number of developed countries there is a decline in the interest of young people in scientific activities. In this regard, Russia is an exception, since young Russians are more loyal to science than, for example, their peers in Europe and highly value the impact of scientific achievements on society. At the same time, the problem of «worn-out» scientific personnel in Russia has not been completely resolved. The aging process has slowed down, but it is too early to talk about a massive influx of young personnel into science. Against the background of this contradiction, the authors put forward hypotheses about the lack of involvement of engineering students in scientific research and the dissatisfaction of representatives of the digital generation with the formats of scientific communication that they encounter.

Methodology and sources. To develop the research methodology, the authors relied on the concept of the influence of the university on the student (E. Pascarella, P. Terenzini); the theory of the determination of student success by its academic and social integration into various spheres of university life (V. Tinto). To clarify the concept of «scientific communication» the authors turned to the conceptual model of M. Buki and B. Trench, which differentiates the channels and methods of public access to scientific information.

Results and discussion. The purpose of the study was to determine the degree of student involvement in the scientific activities of the university and to analyze the conditions for the formation of communication strategies that promote involvement. Students of 1–3 years of bachelor's degree in technical specialties (N = 304) participated in the research.

Conclusion. The following results were obtained. Firstly, although students view science as a highly significant activity, they do not recognize it as a model of their professional identity. Secondly, although science is of interest to many respondents, it remains at the level of plans, not action. Respondents see an obstacle to this in their own lack of confidence in their scientific and technical training. Third, research has identified communication strategies that both arouse interest in science and provide students with a sense of progress in mastering research competencies.

1. Bondarenko, N., Voynilov, Yu., Volkova, G. et al. (2017), Rossiiskaya molodezh': obrazovanie i nauka [Russian Youth: Education and Science], HSE, Moscow, RUS.

2. Kazarina, L.A. and Kazarina, M.V. (2018), “Tendencies and problems of development of the Russian academic science in modern conditions”, Business. Education. Law, no. 2 (43), pp. 130–134. DOI: 10.25683/VOLBI.2018.43.246.

3. Pascarella, E.T. (2001), “Identifying Excellence in Undergraduate Education: Are We Even Close?”, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 18–23. DOI: 10.1080/00091380109601796.

4. Terenzini, P. and Reason, R. (2010), “Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of College Effects on Student Learning”, Annual Conference of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), June 2010, Center for the Study of Higher Education, Oslo, NOR.

5. Astin, A. (1984), “Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education”, J. of College Student Development, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 297–308.

6. Krause, K. and Coates, H. (2008), “Students’ engagement in first-year university”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 33, iss. 5, pp. 493–505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701698892.

7. Mann, S.J. (2001), “Alternative perspectives on the student experience: Alienation and engagement”, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 26, iss. 1, pp. 7–19. DOI: 10.1080/03075070020030689.

8. Martin, A.J. and Dowson, M. (2009), “Interpersonal Relationships, Motivation, Engagement, and Achievement: Yields for Theory, Current Issues, and Educational Practice”, Review of Educational Research, vol. 79, iss. 1, pp. 327–365. DOI: 10.3102/0034654308325583.

9. Tinto, V. (1997), “Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence”, J. of Higher Education, vol. 68, iss. 6, pp. 599–623. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.1997.11779003.

10. Bramming, P. (2007), “An argument for strong learning in higher education”, Quality in Higher Education, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. 45–56. DOI: 10.1080/13538320701272722.

11. Pace, R. (1984), Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. An Account of the Development and Use of the College Student Experience Questionnaire, Univ. of California, LA, USA.

12. Bucchi, M. and Trench, B. (2016), “Science communication and science in society: A conceptual review in ten keywords”, Tecnoscienza: Italian J. of Science & Technology Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 151–168.

13. Strogetskaya, E.V. and Betiger, I.B. (2023), “Motivational Portrait of Digital Generation Applicant”, DISCOURSE, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 97–115. DOI: 10.32603/2412-8562-2023-9-1-97-115.

14. Lapteva, M.P. (2008), “The Intellectual Challenge as the Basic Element of Intellectual Culture”, Imagines mundi: almanah issledovaniy vseobschey istorii XVI-XX. Ser. Intellektualnaya istoriya [Imagines mundi: almanac of studies of general history XVI-XX. No. 5. Ser. Intellectual history. Vol. 3], Izd-vo Ural. un-ta, Ekaterinburg, RUS, pp. 9–16.