По всем вопросам звоните:

+7 495 274-22-22

УДК: 338.432 DOI:10.33920/pol-01-2108-03

Political science and digital society: some issues in contemporary political science research (the EU experience)

Elena Stepanovna Ustinovich PhD in Political Sciences, Associate Professor; Head of the Department of Economics, Management and Humanities, Kursk State Agricultural Academy named after I. I. Ivanov 70, Karl Marx St., Kursk, 305004, Russia, Е-mail: lenausti@mail.ru; +7 960 694 5656, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-7690-8504

A course in political science in higher education is often taught largely as a theoretical course and involves studying issues and problems in the formation and development of political institutions, processes, and technologies. The focus is usually on the history of politics, the state as the central institution of the political system, political parties, political consciousness, culture, political relations, etc. However, it is very important that, when students take a political science course, they understand the contemporary political processes going on around them. Some of these are well-established, democratic processes, such as the electoral process. Others are related to the impact on the political sphere of the society of modern innovation processes. And in this case, political science as science once again demonstrates its value in an applied format. For a deep understanding of these kinds of political processes, additional aggregated information is needed, the knowledge that should be distinguished by such characteristics as relevance, novelty, and relevance to current developments. In today's digital age, it is necessary to master further the digital transformation of political institutions, processes, and technologies, including types of public policy, the most important of which is social policy. And it's not just the digital economy. This is primarily the digitalization of public administration (State Web): Big Date management, blockchain, etc., and the digitalization of business: the emergence and development of digital enterprises, etc. Obviously, the use of digital technologies will be possible for the development of predictive political science. This article is largely a translation of German publications by scholars concerned with the development of modern political science education in the European Union, in Germany particularly. The focus is on the impact of digitalization on the teaching of theoretical and applied political science.

Литература:

1. Bergemann, Benjamin et al. (Hg.) (2016): Entstehung von Politikfeldern. Vergleichende Perspektiven und Theoretisierung. Ergebnisse des Workshops am 25. November 2015. WZB. Berlin (WZB Discussion Paper, SP IV 2016–401). Bimber, Bruce (2016): Three Prompts for Collective Action in the Context of Digital Media. In: Political Communication 34 (1), pp. 6–20.

2. Busch, Andreas (2019): Untersuchungsgegenstand Internet. In: Busch/Breindl/Jakobi (Hg.): Netzpolitik. Ein einführender Überblick. Wiesbaden, pp. 17–51.

3. Dohle, Marco/Jandura, Olaf/Vowe, Gerhard (2014): Politische Kommunikation in der Online-Welt. Dimensionen des strukturellen Wandels politischer Kommunikation. In: ZfP 61 (4), pp. 414–436.

4. Gorwa, Robert (2019): What is platform governance? In: Information, Communication & Society 22 (6), pp. 854– 871.

5. Haunss, Sebastian/Hofmann, Jeanette (2015): Entstehung von Politikfeldern — Bedingungen einer Anomalie. In: Der Moderne Staat — Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 8 (1), pp. 29–49.

6. Helmond, Anne (2015): The Platformization of the Web: Making Web Data Platform Ready. In: Social Media + Society 1 (2), pp. 1–11.

7. Hilbert, Martin/López, Priscila (2011): The World’s Technological Capacity to Store, Communicate, and Compute Information. In: Science, 332 (6025), pp. 60–65.

8. Hofmann, Jeanette/Katzenbach, Christian/Gollatz, Kirsten (2017): Between coordination and regulation: Finding the governance in Internet governance. In: New Media & Society 19 (9), pp. 1406–1423.

9. Howard, Philip N./Kollanyi, Bence (2016): Bots, #StrongerIn, and #Brexit. Computational Propaganda during the UK-EU Referendum. In: The Computational Propaganda Project. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=2798311 (15.04.2019).

10. Jacob, Daniel/Thiel, Thorsten (Hg.) (2017): Politische Theorie und Digitalisierung. Internationale Politische Theorie. Band 5. Baden-Baden.

11. Kersting, Norbert (2012): The Future of Electronic democracy. In: Kersting (Hg.): Electronic democracy. Leverkusen, pp. 11–54.

12. Kersting, Norbert (2019a): Digitalisation and Political Science in German. In: Kneuer/Millner (Hg.): Political Science and Digitalization — Global Perspectives. Opladen, pp. 146–162.

13. Kersting, Norbert (2019b): E-Governance und Online-Partizipation. Reformpfade, Akteure, Blockaden. In: Borucki/ Schünemann (Hg.): Internet und Staat. Baden Baden, (im Druck).

14. Kneuer, Marianne (2013): Bereicherung oder Stressfaktor? Überlegungen zur Wirkung des Internets auf die Demokratie. In: Kneuer (Hg.): Das Internet: Bereicherung oder Stressfaktor für die Demokratie? 1. Auflage. BadenBaden, pp. 7–31.

15. Lemke, Matthias/Wiedemann Gregor (Hg.) (2015): Text Mining in den Sozialwissenschaften: Grundlagen und Anwendungen zwischen qualitativer und quantitativer Diskursanalyse. Wiesbaden. Mackenzie, Adrian (2015) The production of prediction: What does machine learning want? In: European Journal of Cultural Studies 18 (4/5), pp. 429–445.

16. Margetts, Helen (2019): Rethinking Democracy with Social Media. In: The Political Quarterly 19 (1), pp. 107–123.

17. Misgeld, Manuel, 2019: in: Vom Onlinezugangsgesetz zum One-Stop-Government. In: Schünemann/Kneuer (Hg.): E-Government und Netzpolitik im europäischen Vergleich. 2. Auflage. Baden-Baden, pp. 17–49.

18. Morozov, Evgeny (2011): The Net delusion. The dark side of internet freedom. New York.

19. Nassehi, Armin (2019): Muster: Theorie der digitalen Gesellschaft. München. Nationaler Normenkontrollrat (2017): Bürokratieabbau. Bessere Rechtsetzung. Digitalisierung. Erfolge ausbauen — Rückstand aufholen. Jahresbericht 2017 des Nationalen Normenkontrollrates. URL: https://www.normenkontrollrat. bund.de/Webs/NKR/Content/ DE/Publikationen/Jahresberichte/2017-07-12-nkr-Jahresbericht-2017.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 (3.10.2018). Negroponte, Nicholas (1995): Being digital. New York.

20. Norris, Pippa (2012): Political mobilization and social networks. The example of the Arab spring. In: Kersting (Hg.) 2012: Electronic democracy. Opladen, pp. 55–76.

21. Reiberg, Abel (2017): The Construction of a New Policy Domain in Debates on German Internet Policy. In: Eur Policy Anal 3 (1), pp. 146–167.

22. Schünemann, Wolf J. (2019): E-Government und Netzpolitik — eine konzeptionelle Einführung. In: Schünemann/ Kneuer (Hg.): E-Government und Netzpolitik im europäischen Vergleich. 2. Auflage. Baden-Baden, pp. 17–49.

23. Shirky, Clay (2008): Here comes everybody. The power of organizing without organizations. New York.

24. Thimm, Caja/Bächle, Thomas (2019): Die Maschine: Freund oder Feind. Mensch und Technologie im digitalen Zeitalter. Wiesbaden. Tufekci, Zeynep (2014): Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. In: First Monday 19 (7), pp. 1–39.

The article was received on May 12, 2021.

As German researchers Jeanette Hofmann, Norbert Kersting, Claudia Ritzi und Wolf J. Schünemann [10; 11, 54, 146–162; 12; 23, 17–49] note, digital changes have long taken over the sphere of scientific publications: scientific documents circulate electronically, become available on digital platforms, are algorithmically filtered and bibliometrically processed and evaluated. IT racks are used in libraries. Computer workstations have long been established. And publishers are increasingly selling downloadable versions instead of individual book titles. On the contrary, in this period, publishing a collection of publications and even creating a series of books on «Politics in the Digital Society» may seem like a completely outdated idea.

Although individual volumes, both print and «open access,» are released simultaneously, it is believed that this series of formats has a future. It is intended to create a space where current and meaningful work on «Politics in the Digital Society» is made available to the broad (social) scholarly community. These can be the key outcomes of major research projects, dissertations and other monographs, or even conference volumes. This can be research in political fields and political investigation, research of participation, political communication from other fields of political science, sociology, or communication science because the study of digital technology also crosses the boundaries of established disciplines and fields of study.

Among other things, this boundary condition may be due to the fact that about twenty years after the beginning of the «digital era» in German-speaking countries only now an autonomous field for such research is emerging.

Through an analysis of new technologies and their social and political implications, the following has been discovered (see Kersting) [10, 11–54; 11, 146–162; 12]: even publication forums where one could delve into scientific discourses were long lacking.

Для Цитирования:
Elena Stepanovna Ustinovich, Political science and digital society: some issues in contemporary political science research (the EU experience). Социальная политика и социальное партнерство. 2021;8.
Полная версия статьи доступна подписчикам журнала
Язык статьи:
Действия с выбранными: