Discretization Method for Describing Complex Objects that are Difficult to Formalise

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2024.02.034

Keywords:

discretization, complex object, difficult to describe object, formalization, syntactic formalization, biosphere, noosphere, quasi-physical object

Abstract

The emergence of complex, hard-to-describe objects is a characteristic trend in modern science. To build a model of such an object, its preliminary description is required, which is a rather serious problem. Therefore, the search for methods to describe such objects is an urgent task. For physical objects, this process is well described and researched. For complex, difficult to formalize non-physical objects, the emergence of which is often caused by the development of society, such approaches are absent. The article presents the results of a discretization method developed by the authors based on the approach of M. Bunge to describe complex, difficult-to-formalize objects that occur in many economic, social, environmental and other systems. The sources of the study are scientific works of leading Ukrainian and foreign scientists, general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, method of analogies, etc.), as well as special methods of analysis: hypothetical-deductive, logical, structural. It is established that the method of discretization for describing complex objects allows to move on to modelling complex socio-economic processes. The article defines the concepts of the quasi-physical world and quasi-physical objects introduced by the authors; it is substantiated that the study of the quasi-physical world should be accompanied by the study of quasi-physical objects, which differ from physical objects in that they are specially constructed objects. The article provides examples from various subject areas where the concept of a quasi-physical (synthetic) object plays a major role, and provides a generalized description of such an object. It is proposed to use the quasi-physical approach to analyze the problems of solid waste disposal and assess the general condition of an enterprise (company). It is noted that the author’s approach will help scientists: (i) more accurately define the scope of research; (ii) specify the object and subject of research, structure its characteristics and, on this basis, put forward hypotheses and set research objectives; (iii) better understand what knowledge and assumptions underlie the object under study and how they are interrelated, as well as clearly formulate the problem and purpose of the research; (iv) choose relevant procedures and methods to achieve the goal when analyzing data.

References

Ярошенко Т.О., Жарінова А.Г. Наукове цитування: історичний і теоретичний ландшафт. Наука та наукознавство. 2023. № 3 (121). С. 41—67. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2023.03.041

Ярошенко Т., Сербін, О., Ярошенко О. Відкрита наука: роль університетів та бібліотек у сучасних змінах наукової комунікації. Цифрова платформа: інформаційні технології в соціокультурній сфері. 2022. № 5 (2). С. 277—292. https://doi.org/10.31866/2617-796X.5.2.2022.270132

Garfield E. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. New York, NY: Wiley, 1979. xiii, 274 p.

Elkana Y. Toward a Metric of Science: The Advent of Science Indicators. New York, NY: Wiley, 1978. xiv, 354 p.

Curry S., Gadd E., Wilsdon J. Harnessing the Metric Tide: indicators, infrastructures & priorities for UK responsible research assessment. Report of The Metric Tide Revisited panel, December 2022. [S. l.]: Research on Research Institute, 2022. 1 online resource. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.fi gshare.21701624

Добров Г. М. Наука о науке. Введение в общее науковедение. Киев: Наук. думка, 1989. 301 с.

Малицкий Б.А. Кто и как должен оценивать научные результаты ученого. Наука та наукознавство. 2017. № 3. С. 34—53. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2017.03.034

Маліцький Б.А. Прикладне наукознавство. Київ: Фенікс, 2007. 464 с.

Малицький Б.А., Попович О.С., Соловйов В.П., Єгоров І.В., Булкін І.О. Раціональне фінансування науки як передумова розбудови знаннєвого суспільства в Україні. Київ: Фенікс, 2004. 32 с.

Попович О.С., Рижко Л.В. Сучасні виклики науці і шляхи їх подолання. Наука та наукознавство. 2022. № 1 (115). С. 88—104. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2021.01.088

Рибачук В.П. Методологічні проблеми оцінювання продуктивності наукової діяльності. Наука та наукознавство. 2013. № 2. С. 46—52.

Індикатори науки та інновацій: міжнародні стандарти та практика їх використання в Україні / За наук. ред. І.Ю. Єгорова. Київ: ДУ «Інститут економіки та прогнозування НАН України», 2016. 156 с.

Gasanov, S., Kotlyarevsky, Y., Melnikov, O., Kniaziev, S., Shtangret, A., Semenyuk, E. Methodological approaches to labor norming in scholarly research and development. Science and Innovation. 2019. No. 15 (1). P. 5—24. https://doi.org/10.15407/scine15.01.005

Горовий В.М. Критерії якості наукових досліджень у контексті забезпечення національних інтересів. Вісник НАН України. 2015. № 6. С. 74—80.

Павлюк К.В., Камінська О.С. Зарубіжний досвід оцінки якості наукової діяльності. Наукові праці НДФІ. 2019. № 3. С. 25—40. https://doi.org/10.33763/npndfi2019.03.025

Пилипенко Г.М., Федорова Н.Є. Наука як фактор соціально-економічного розвитку суспільства. Дніпро: НТУ «ДП», 2020. 213 с.

Ярошенко Т., Ярошенко О. Високоцитовані документи науковців України в базах даних цитувань: кореляція бібліометричних індикаторів. Український журнал з бібліотекознавства та інформаційних наук. 2020. № 5. С. 108—126. https://doi.org/10.31866/2616-7654.5.2020.205734

Reed M. The research impact handbook. 2nd ed. Huntly, Aberdeenshire: Fast Track Impact, 2018. 380 р.

Reed M., Cairney P. Using research to influence policy: a handbook for researchers. Leeds: University of Leeds, 2021.

Vutsova A., Yalamov T., Arabadzhieva M. In search of excellent research assessment. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2023. 176 p. https://doi.org/10.5771/9783748937203

Alstete J.W., Beutell N.J., Meyer J.P. Evaluating scholarship and research impact: history, practices, and policy development. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781787563872

Roemer R.C., Borchardt R. Meaningful Metrics: A 21st Century Librarian’s Guide to Bibliometrics, Altmetrics, and Research Impact. Chicago: Association of College and Research Libraries, A division of the American Library Association, 2015. vii, 241 p.

Bornmann L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013. No. 64 (2). P. 217—233. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22803

Servaes J. On impact factors and research assessment. Telematics and Informatics. 2014. Vol. 31. No. 1. Р. 1—2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.09.005

Samuel G.N., Derrick G.E. Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation. 2015. Vol. 24. Issue 3. P. 229—241. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv007

Peruginelli J., Pölönen J. The legal foundation of responsible research assessment: An overview on European Union and Italy. Research Evaluation. 2023. Vol. 32. Issue 4. P. 670—682. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad035

MacFadden B. Broader Impact of Science on Society, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2019. 304 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108377577

Molas-Gallart J. Research Governance and the Role of Evaluation. A Comparative Study. American Journal of Evaluation. 2012. Vol. 33. P. 583—598. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214012450938

Hammarfelt B., Haddow G. Conflicting Measures and Values: How Humanities Scholars in Australia and Sweden Use and React to Bibliometric Indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2018. Vol. 69. P. 924—935. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24043

Wouters P., Thelwall, M., Kousha, K., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., Rushforth, A., et al. The Citation: From Culture to Infrastructure. B. Cronin, C.R. Sugimoto (Eds.). Beyond Bibliometrics: Harnessing Multidimensional Indicators of Scholarly Impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2014. P. 47—66. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9445.003.0006

Hinze S., Butler L., Donner P., McAllister I. Different Processes. Similar Results? A Comparison of Performance Assessment in Three Countries. Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators. Cham: Springer, 2019. P. 465—484. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_18

Kostoff R.N. Handbook of research impact assessment. 7th ed. Arlington: NTIS, 1997. 537 p.

Pontika N., Klebel T., Correia A., Metzler H., Knoth P., Ross-Hellauer T. Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness, and responsibility in institutional review, promotion, and tenure policies across seven countries. Quantitative Science Studies. 2022, No. 3 (4). P. 888—911. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00224

Локтєв В.М. Чи має фундаментальна наука незалежний статус в Україні? Вісник НАН України. 2021. № 6. С. 52—58. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2021.06.052

Samuel G.N., Derrick G.E. Societal impact evaluation: Exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014. Research Evaluation. 2015. Vol. 24. Issue 3. P. 229—241. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv007

Jiménez-Contreras E., de Moya Anegón F., Delgado-López-Cózar E. The Evolution of Research Activity in Spain: The Impact of the National Commission for the Evaluation of Research Activity (CNEAI). Research Policy. 2003. Vol. 32. P. 123—142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2

Feenstra R., López-Cózar E. The footprint of a metrics-based research evaluation system on Spain’s philosophical scholarship: An analysis of researchers’ perceptions. Research Evaluation. Vol. 32. Issue 1. P. 32—46. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac020

Orfila M. Spain wants to change how it evaluates scientists — and end the “dictatorship of papers”: Officials aim to use wider range of research outputs to assess researchers at public universities. Science. 29 November 2023. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zehwqlq

Published

2024-10-07

How to Cite

Shevchenko, G., Bilozubenko, V., & Marchenko О. (2024). Discretization Method for Describing Complex Objects that are Difficult to Formalise. Science and Science of Science, 2(124), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2024.02.034

Issue

Section

Vital Problems of Modern Science