Society

Digitalization: public opinion landscapes (on the example of Russia)

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 180, Issue 11-12, Pages: 48-57

Citation information:
Kamensky, E., & Grimov, O. (2019). Digitalization: public opinion landscapes (on the example of Russia). Economic Annals-XXI, 180(11-12), 48-57. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V180-06

View Full-TextDownload PDF

Evgeny Kamensky
PhD (Sociology),
Associate Professor,
Department of Philosophy and Sociology,
Faculty of Economics and Management,
Southwest State University
94, 50 Let Oktyabrya Str., Kursk, 305040, Russia
kamenskyeg80@gmail.com
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-7167

Oleg Grimov
PhD (Sociology),
Associate Professor,
Department of Philosophy and Sociology,
Faculty of Economics and Management,
Southwest State University
94, 50 Let Oktyabrya Str., Kursk, 305040, Russia
grimoleg@yandex.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6883-9898

Digitalization: public opinion landscapes (on the example of Russia)

Abstract. The authors determine and verify the systems of indicators of public reflection regarding the issues of digitalization in Russia, construct and empirically describe their landscapes. The representatives of the Russian and Belarusian scientific expert communities and ordinary citizens of the Russian Federation were the main nominal groups of respondents in the study undertaken in 2019. The research is of an exploratory nature and serves as a tool for testing techniques for studying the problems posed in the article in the context of the technological «hype» of digitalization.

The perception of a number of mass digitalization mythologemes by the experts are of particular interest. A list of mythologemes under estimation goes as follows: «enslaving humanity with artificial intelligence»; «saving humanity by means of artificial intelligence»; «total surveillance is the goal of modern data technology (DT)»; «DT is a way of enriching elites»; Industry 4.0 is just a form of global capitalism»; «DT creates nature and society of the «third-order»; «achieving technological singularity through digitalization»; «reaching the stage of the Posthuman»; «the imminent creation of human-machine symbiots, «cyborgs».

As a result of studying the problem of social reflection of digital declarations which are politically imperative for the national economy and sociocultural life of Russia, we can argue that in reality they do not come to the forefront of partnership dialogue in the institutions of the society. Despite the relevance of consolidating social efforts to achieve a technological breakthrough and the marketability of the topic of digitalization, it is not provided with either the political request of elite groups or the research interest of social sciences or understanding of the essence of the issue by the main groups of the population.

Keywords: Digitalization; Industry 4.0; Digital Economy; Data Technology (DT); Public Opinion; Social Landscape; Technological Progress; Social Changes; Political Elite; Digital State

JEL Classification: О33; Р17; Z13

Acknowledgements and Funding: The research is financed by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 19-18-00504 «Sociotechnical Landscapes of Digital Reality: Ontological Matrices, Ethical and Axiological Regulative Structures, Roadmaps, and Information Support for Management Decision-Making».

Contribution: The authors contributed equally to this work.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V180-06

References

  1. Anthony, D., Campos-Castillo, C., & Horne, C. (2017). Toward a sociology of privacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 249-269.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053643
  2. Aseeva, I. A. (2016). Anthropological and social measurements of modern technoscience. In 3rd International multidisciplinary scientific conferences on social sciences and arts (SGEM), Book 3, vol. 2 (pp. 613-620).
    Retrieved from https://www.sgemsocial.org/ssgemlib/spip.php?article3116&lang=en
  3. Aseeva, I. A. (2017). Social technologies: problems and functioning contradictions in new technological way. Social and Humanitarian Knowledge, 9, 7-13 (in Russ.).
  4. Aseeva, I. A., & Budanov, V. G. (Eds.). (2015). Socio-anthropological dimensions of converged technologies. Methodological aspects: multi-authored monograph. Kursk: University book publisher (in Russ.).
  5. Cakici, B., & Ruppert, E. (2019). Methods as forces of subjectivation: experiments in the remaking of official statistics. Journal of Cultural Economy, 13(2), 221-235.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2019.1684340
  6. Cointet, J-P., & Parasie, S. (2018). What Big data does to the sociological analysis of texts? A review of recent research. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 59(3), 533-557.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.593.0533
  7. Colas-Bravo, P., Conde-Jimenez, J., & Reyes-de Cozar, S. (2017). Digital competences of non-university students. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnologia Educativa-relatec, 16(1), 7-20.
    Retrieved from https://relatec.unex.es/article/view/2909
    doi: https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.16.1.7
  8. Crowe, N., & Hoskins, K. (2019). Researching transgression: Ana as a youth subculture in the age of digital ethnography. Societies, 9(3), 53.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030053
  9. Dunas, D. V., & Gureeva, A. N. (2019). Media studies in Russia: defining its academic status. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism, 8(1), 20-35.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.17150/2308-6203.2019.8(1).20-35
  10. Fedorovich, O. V., & Vladimirovich, O. E. (2019). Regional mass media of the digital revolution era: effective functional-activity models. III Post mass media in the modern informational society (PMMIS 2019) journalistic text in a new technological environment: achievements and problems. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 66, 45-52.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.08.02.6
  11. Fero, M. (2015). Digital media in perspective of sociological research of young people. Marketing Identity, 1-2, 314-326.
    Retrieved from https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=477602
  12. Grebenshchikova, E. (2016). NBIC-convergence and technoethics: common ethical perspective. In Biomedical Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications (pp. 323-331). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-3158-6.ch013
  13. Kamensky, E. G., & Boev, E. I. (2015). An innovation civilization in the context of the anthroposphere crisis of the technogenic society. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 328-335.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p328
  14. Kravchenko, S. A. (2012a). Difficult society: the demand for turns in sociology. Sociological Research, 5, 19-28 (in Russ.).
  15. Kravchenko, S. A. (2012b). The formation of a complex society: justification the humanistic theory of complexity. Moscow: MGIMO-University (in Russ.).
  16. Kurasawa, F. (2015). How does humanitarian visuality work? A conceptual toolkit for a sociology of iconic suffering. Sociologica, 9(1).
    doi: https://doi.org/10.2383/80396
  17. Lennon, M. R., Bouamrane, M.-M., Devlin, A. M., O’Connor, S., O’Donnell, C., Chetty, U., Agbakoba, R., Bikker, A., Grieve, E., Finch, T., Watson, N., Wyke, S., & Mair, S. F. (2017). Readiness for delivering digital health at scale: lessons from a longitudinal qualitative evaluation of a national digital health innovation program in the United Kingdom. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(2).
    doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6900
  18. Lutz, Ch. (2016). A social milieu approach to the online participation divides in Germany. Social Media + Society, 2(1),
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115626749
  19. Lyall, B., & Robards, B. (2018). Tool, toy and tutor: Subjective experiences of digital self-tracking. Journal of Sociology, 54(1), 108-124.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317722854
  20. Mainzer, K. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and innovation dynamics. On convergence of research, technology, economy, and society. Poiesis & Praxis, 7(4), 275-289.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0088-8
  21. Matveeva, A. I., & Sarapul’tseva, A. V. (2019). Problem areas in corporate culture formation in higher education system. Social and cultural transformations in the context of modern globalism (SCTCGM 2018). The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences, 58, 1351-1358.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.03.02.156
  22. Rius-Ulldemolins, J. (2015). Against cyber-utopianism. Utopian discourse versus sociological analysis of the transition to the digital paradigm of the cultural sphere. Política y Sociedad, 52(1), 153-178.
    doi: https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v1.n52.45426 (in Spanish)
  23. Rius-Ulldemolins, J., Pecourt, J., & Arostegui, J. A. R. (2019). Contribution to sociological analysis of creativity and the digitization of cultural field: creation, intermediation and crises. Arbor-Ciencia Pensamiento y Cultura, 195(791).
    doi: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2019.791n1004
  24. Romanovsky, N. V. (2000). Interfaces of sociology and cyberspace. Sociological Research, 1, 16-23 (in Russ.).

Received 10.10.2019
Received in revised form 21.10.2019
Accepted 24.10.2019
Available online 30.12.2019

View Full-TextDownload PDF

In, , , , , , , , , ,

More Papers