SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN THE NETWORK SOCIETY: A MODEL OF NORMATIVE DIFFRACTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31392/cult.alm.2026.3.25Keywords:
scientific community, network society, open science, Mertonian norms, institutional norms, Open Access, normative diffraction, epistemic governanceAbstract
The article examines the transformation of the scientific community under the influence of network structures and digital technologies through the prism of evolving institutional norms of scientific activity. The dialectical contradiction between Mertonian norms of science (CUDOS: communalism, universalism, disinterestedness, organized skepticism), formed in the context of industrial society, and new normative structures generated by the network society and the Open Science movement is analyzed. The author proposes the model of “normative diffraction” is a process whereby classical institutional norms of science do not collapse but are diffracted under the influence of network communications into a spectrum of complementary practices with varying degrees of openness and institutional legitimacy. Unlike the concepts of normative ambivalence and normative dissonance, which register a binary opposition of norm and counter-norm, the proposed model describes a multiplicity of practices at the level of institutional infrastructure and accounts for the mechanism of splitting: its configuration is set by the network structure of scientific communication. It is shown that the Open Science movement (Plan S, FAIR principles, Diamond Open Access, preprint servers) is not a simple extension of the Mertonian norm of communalism but constitutes a qualitatively new normative system where the boundaries between knowledge production, verification, and dissemination are blurred. It is argued that the key challenge for the scientific community is not the choice between closed and open models but the formation of epistemic governance as a mechanism for coordinating diffracted normative practices. The findings develop the philosophical understanding of network society and are relevant to science studies, philosophy of science, and research policy.
References
Alasuutari P., Qadir A. (2014). Epistemic governance: An approach to the politics of policy-making. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 1 (1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2014.887986.
Anderson M. S., Ronning E. A., De Vries R., Martinson B. C. (2010). Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (3), 366–393. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0095.
Barad K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information. (2024). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10958522.
Bender E. M., Gebru T., McMillan-Major A., Shmitchell S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 610–623). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
Castells M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
cOAlition S. (2019). Plan S: Principles and implementation. URL: https://www.coalition-s.org.
cOAlition S. (2025). Strategy 2026–2030. https://www.coalition-s.org.
Cole N. L., Kormann E., Klebel T., Apartis S., Ross-Hellauer T. (2024). The societal impact of Open Science: A scoping review. Royal Society Open Science, 11 (6), Article 240286. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240286.
Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy, 29 (2), 109–123.
Fraser N., Brierley L., Dey G., Polka J.K., Pálfy M., Nanni F., Coates, J.A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biology, 19 (4), Article e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959.
Funtowicz S. O., Ravetz J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25 (7), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
Gibbons M., Limoges C., Nowotny H., Schwartzman S., Scott P., Trow M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE.
Haraway D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. A. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 295–337). Routledge.
Hosseini M., Senabre Hidalgo E., Horbach S. P. J. M., Güttinger S., Penders B. (2024). Messing with Merton: The intersection between Open Science practices and Mertonian values. Accountability in Research, 31 (5), 428–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2141625.
Johnson R. (2019). From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication. Insights, 32 (1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453.
Koppel L., Lindkvist A.M., Tinghög G. (2025). Scientific normative dissonance: A large-scale survey of researchers’ subscription to scientific norms and counternorms across academic fields. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 237, Article 107140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107140.
Macfarlane B. (2024). The DECAY of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos. Oxford Review of Education, 50 (4), 468–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814.
Merton R. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In N. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press.
Mitroff I. I. (1974). Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39 (4), 579–595. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094423.
OECD. (2025). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2025: Driving change in a shifting landscape. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5fe57b90-en.
Ostrom E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
Pei G., Huang H. (2025). Open science falling behind in the era of artificial intelligence. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 10, Article 1595824. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1595824.
UNESCO. (2021). UNESCO recommendation on open science. UNESCO.
Ziman J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge University Press.
Ягодзінський С. (2016). Соціокультурний потенціал глобальних інформаційних мереж: дис. … докт. філос. наук: спец. 09.00.03. Київ.
Ягодзінський С. (2019). Філософія мережевих комунікацій. Вісник НАУ. Серія: Філософія. Культурологія, 1 (29), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.18372/2412-2157.29.13639.
