Demography, workforce economy, social and economic policy

Digital technologies in the Russians’ everyday life: analysis based on the opinion surveys

Economic Annals-XXI

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 186, Issue 11-12, Pages: 134-142

Citation information:
Kamensky, E. (2020). Digital technologies in the Russians’ everyday life: analysis based on the opinion surveys. Economic Annals-XXI, 186(11-12), 134-142. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V186-15

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, Russian Federation
kamenskyeg80@gmail.com
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1727-7167

Digital technologies in the Russians’ everyday life: analysis based on the opinion surveys

Abstract. Recently, the global COVID-19 pandemic has become the most topical matter of public consciousness. In this regard, digitalization, which offers the so called remote models of social communications, is becoming the most topical issue not only among the expert community of politicians, economists, scientists and public figures, but also among ordinary people. The global pandemic has determined both the speed and the global networked nature of the spread of the digital environment in national sociocultural contexts. This determines the special relevance of the problems of professional assessment of the digital environment in the mass consciousness of the Russians. The imperative digitalization of basic social institutions, such as medicine and education, requires the consumer to activate adaptive-compensatory reserves, master new forms of communication and interaction as well as a reflexive response. Basing on the carried out sociological empirical studies (mass surveys of the population), the article presents the results which allow us to see the current state of public reflection on digitalization against the background of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, to objectively describe the subjective assessments of the spread of the DT culture thinking patterns and practices in the socio-cultural environment of Russia. As a result, it has been revealed that in all institutional practices, except for family ones, the respondents agree with the need to promote the implementation of digital technologies. The respondents did not demonstrate a high level of negativity or put forward proposals to significantly limit digitalization for all the questionnaire items. At this stage, it can be argued with a certain degree of certainty that digitalization patterns are translated in the context of the reproduction of sociocultural relations for which they have become typical.

Keywords: Industry 4.0; Digital Technology; Public Opinion; Social and Technical Landscape; Technological Progress; Social Changes

JEL Classification: О33; Р17; Z13

Acknowledgements and Funding: The research is financed by the Russian Science Foundation, project No. 19-18-00504 «Sociotechnical environment of digital reality: ontological matrices, ethical and axiological regulative structures, roadmaps, and information support for management decision-making».

Contribution: The author contributed personally to this work.

Data Availability Statement: The dataset is available from the author upon request. Access to the statistical databases of the study is provided on the resource sociokursk.ru (http://sociokursk.ru/?page_id=4703)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V186-15

References

  1. Anthony, D., Campos-Castillo, C., & Horne, C. (2017). Toward a Sociology of Privacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 249-269.
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053643
  2. Aseeva, I. A. (2016). Anthropological and Social Measurements of Modern Technoscience [Paper presentation]. 3rd International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conferences on Social Sciences and Arts (SGEM), 2, 613-620.
    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. (2015). Socio-Anthropological Dimensions of Converged Technologies. Methodological Aspects: multi-authored monograph. University Book Publisher, Kursk (in Russ.).
  5. Boev, E., & Kamensky, E. (2015). An Innovation Civilization in the Context of the Anthroposphere Crisis of the Technogenic Society. Asian Social Science, 11(4), 328-335.
    https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n4p328
  6. 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.
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2019.1684340
  7. 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 (French Journal of Sociology), 59(3), 533-557.
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.593.0533 (in French)
  8. Colas-Bravo, P., Conde-Jimenez, J., & Reyes-de Cozar, S. (2017). Digital competences of non-university students. Revista Latinoamericana de Tecnologia Educativa-Relatec (Latin American Magazine of Educational Technology-Relatc), 16(1), 7-20.
    https://doi.org/10.17398/1695-288X.16.1.7 (in Spanish)
  9. Crowe, N., & Hoskins, K. (2019). Researching Transgression: Ana as a Youth Subculture in the Age of Digital Ethnography. Societies, 96(3), 53.
    https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030053
  10. 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.
    https://doi.org/10.17150/2308-6203.2019.8(1).20-35 (in Russ.)
  11. 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, 66, 45-52. FUTURE ACAD.
    https://science.urfu.ru/ru/publications/regional-mass-media-of-the-digital-revolution-era-effective-funct
  12. Fero, M. (2015). Digital media in perspective of sociological research of young people. Marketing Identity, 3(1/2), 314-326.
    https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=477602
  13. Grebenshchikova, E. (2016). NBIC-Convergence and Technoethics – Common Ethical Perspective. lпtеrnаtiоnаl Journal of Technoethics, 7(1), 77-84.
    https://doi.org/10.4018/IJT.2016010106
  14. Grimov, O. (2019). Marketing opportunity of social networks [Paper presentation]. International Scientific Conference «Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism», Kursk.
    https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2019.12.04.161
  15. Kamensky, E., & Grimov, O. (2019). Digitalization: public opinion landscapes (on the example of Russia). Economic Annals-XXI, 180(11-12), 48-57.
    https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V180-06
  16. Kravchenko S. A. (2012). Difficult Society: the Demand for Turns in Sociology. Sociological Research, 5, 19-28 (in Russ.).
  17. Kravchenko, S. A. (2012). The Formation of a Complex Society: Justification the Humanistic Theory of Complexity. Monograph. MGIMO-University, Moscow (in Russ.).
  18. Kurasawa, F. (2015). How Does Humanitarian Visuality Work? A Conceptual Toolkit for a Sociology of Iconic Suffering. Sociologica, 9(1).
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282936436_How_does_humanitarian_visuality_work_A_conceptual_toolkit_for_a_sociology_of_iconic_suffering
  19. Lennon, M. R., Bouamrane, 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. F. S. (2019). 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), e42.
    https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6900
  20. Lutz, C. (2016). A Social Milieu Approach to the Online Participation Divides in Germany. Social Media + Society, 2, 1-14.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115626749
  21. Lyall, B., & Robards, B. (2017). Tool, toy and tutor: Subjective experiences of digital self-tracking. Journal of Sociology, 54(1), 108-124.
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317722854
  22. Mainzer, K. (2011). Interdisciplinarity and innovation dynamics. On convergence of research, technology, economy, and society. Poiesis and Praxis, 7(4), 275-289.
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-011-0088-8
  23. 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), 58, 1351-1358.
  24. Rius-Ulldemolins, J. (2015). Against cyber-utopianism Utopian discourse «versus» sociological analysis of the transition to the digital paradigm of the cultural sphere. Politica y Sociedad, 52(1), 153-178.
    https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2015.v1.n52.45426
  25. Rius-Ulldemolins, J., Pecourt, J., & Arostegui, J. (2019). Contribution to sociological analysis of creativity and the digitization of cultural field: creation, intermediation and crises. Arbor, 195(791), a491.
    https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2019.791n1004
  26. Romanovsky, N. V. (2000). Interfaces of Sociology and Cyberspace. Sociological Research, 1, 16-23.
    http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/496/148/1217/003.ROMANOVSKIY.pdf (in Russ.)
  27. Sobolnikov, V. V. (2020). Digital transformation as a development factor virtual personality. Professional Education in the Modern World, 10(1), 3601-3610.
    https://doi.org/10.15372/PEMW20200123 (in Russ.).

Received 14.09.2020
Received in revised form 23.10.2020
Accepted 26.10.2020
Available online 28.12.2020

View Full-TextDownload PDF
In, , , ,

More Papers