Космические программы и проблемы оценки социетального воздействия проектов Big Science

Яник А.А.

doi:10.7256/2453-8817.2017.3.24860

Статья опубликована с лицензией Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) – Лицензия «С указанием авторства – Некоммерческая».

Вернуться к содержанию

Исследования космоса

Правильная ссылка на статью:

Яник А.А. Космические программы и проблемы оценки социетального воздействия проектов Big Science // Исследования космоса. 2017. № 3. С. 216-227. DOI: 10.7256/2453-8817.2017.3.24860 URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=24860

Космические программы и проблемы оценки социетального воздействия проектов Big Science

Яник Андрей Александрович

кандидат технических наук

ведущий научный сотрудник, Институт демографических исследований ФНИСЦ РАН

119333, Россия, г. Москва, ул. Фотиевой, 6, корп.1, оф. 1

Yanik Andrey Aleksandrovich

PhD in Technical Science

Leading Research Associate, Institute for Demographic Research of the Federal Center of Theoretical and Applied Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

119333, Russia, g. Moscow, ul. Fotievoi, 6, korp.1, of. 1

cpi_2002_1@yahoo.co.uk

Другие публикации этого автора

Статья из рубрики "Государственная космическая политика"

DOI:

10.7256/2453-8817.2017.3.24860

Дата направления статьи в редакцию:

28-11-2017

Дата публикации:

27-12-2017

Аннотация: Предмет исследования – деятельность инновационно развитых государств по разработке теоретических моделей, метрик и механизмов, дающих возможность оценивать социетальное воздействие крупномасштабных научных проектов (Big Sсience) и, как следствие, управлять текущими и отдаленными эффектами, которые развитие науки и инноваций оказывает на социально-экономический прогресс. Особое внимание уделяется вопросам, связанным с необходимостью оценки социетальной значимости дорогостоящих космических программ. Цель работы – выявление опыта, пригодного к трансферу в российские условия, подготовка рекомендаций по его использованию. Для решения поставленных задач применялись общенаучные теоретические и эмпирические методы исследования с использованием междисциплинарных подходов. Хотя позитивное влияние проектов Big Science на общественное развитие считается очевидным, актуальная научная литература не содержит подтверждений этого тезиса, основанных на доказательной базе. В условиях повышенного внимания общества к качеству управления национальными ресурсами приобретает особую актуальность разработка научных инструментов, позволяющих анализировать наличие связи между увеличением расходов на крупномасштабные научные проекты и ростом инновационности экономики, ускорением трансфера знаний, появлением позитивных социальных перемен. В Российской Федерации это направление находится на начальном этапе становления. Представляется целесообразным активизировать такого рода разработки в рамках реализации Стратегии научно-технологического развития Российской Федерации на 2017 - 2019 годы.

Ключевые слова:

Космос, Космическая программа, Большой научный проект, Крупномасштабное исследование, НАСА, Социетальное воздействие, Социальное последствие, Социетальная значимость, Методы оценки, Научная политика

Abstract: The research subject is the activities of innovatively developed countries in the development of theoretical models, metrics and mechanisms helping to estimate societal impact of large-scale research projects (Big Science) as, consequently, manage the current and long-term impact of the development of science and innovations on socio-economic progress. Special attention is given to the need to estimate societal impact of expensive space programs. The purpose of the research is to determine the experience that could be used in Russia and to elaborate recommendations for its using. To solve the research tasks, the author uses general theoretical and empirical methods and interdisciplinary approaches. Though the positive impact of the Big Science projects on social development seems obvious, the newest scientific works don’t provide any evidence based proofs of this thesis. In the context of increased public attention to the quality of national resources management, it becomes extremely important to develop scientific instruments helping analyze the presence of interdependence between the increase of expenditures for large scale scientific projects and the growth of innovativeness of changes. In the Russian Federation, this sphere is at the initial stage of formation. It seems reasonable to activate such projects within the Scientific and Technological Development Strategy of the Russian Federation for 2017 – 2019.

Keywords:

Space, Space Program, Big Science project, Large-scale research, NASA, Societal impact, Social impact, Societal Value, Assessment Methods, Science Policy

Библиография

1. Main Science and Technology Indicators: Volume 2017 / 1. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017. – 132 p.
2. Big Science: What’s It Worth? / P. Purton. Brussels: Science | Business Publishing Ltd, 2015. – 46 p.
3. Impact of Science 2016: Governmental and institutional methods to advance the societal impact of science. 9-10 June 2016 in De Balie, Amsterdam. Netherlands. URL: http://aesisnet.com/event/impact-of-science-2016/ (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
4. Burdge R.J., Vanclay F. Social impact assessment // Environmental and social impact assessment. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1995. P. 31-66.
5. Burdge R.J., Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series // Impact Assessment. 1996. Vol. 14. № 1. P. 59-86.
6. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between US technology and public science // Research Policy. 1997. Vol. 26. № 3. P. 317–330.
7. May R.M. The scientific investments of nations // Science. 1998. Vol. 281. № 5373. P. 49–51.
8. Beise M., Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy. 1999. Vol. 28. № 4. P. 397–422.
9. Barré R. S&T Indicators for policy making in a changing science–society relationship // Handbook of quantitative science and technology research / Eds. H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2005. P. 115–131.
10. Walter A.I., Helgenberger S., Wiek A., Scholz R.W. Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method // Evaluation and Program Planning. 2007. Vol. 30. № 4. P. 325–338.
11. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society, 2011. - 113 p.
12. Kwaliteit in verscheidenheid. 2011. URL: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/01/kwaliteit-in-verscheidenheid.html (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
13. Martin B.R. The Research Excellence Framework and the «impact agenda»: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? // Research Evaluation. 2011. Vol. 20. № 3. P. 247–254.
14. 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. Vol. 64. № 2. P. 217–233.
15. Evidence-Based Policymaking: A guide for effective government. A report from the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, 2014. - 30 p.
16. Hehenberger L., Harling A.-M., Scholten P. A Practical Guide to Measuring and Managing Impact. EVPA, 2015. - 139 p.
17. Symposium Report. Building a Scientific Narrative on Impact and Societal Value of Science, 17 November 2016. Brussels: Science Europe, 2017. - 19 p.
18. Weinberg A.M. Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States // Science. 1961. Vol. 134, № 3473. P. 161-164.
19. Price D. J. D. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. - 119 p.
20. Price D. J. de S. Little science, big science… and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. – 301 p.
21. Valentine A. J. Comment on “Big science, little science” // Embo Reports. 2010. Vol. 11. № 3. P. 152.
22. OECD Handbook on Measuring the Space Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012. – 108 p.
23. Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States / O. Hallonsten. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. – 310 p.
24. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research / Eds. P. Galison, B. Hevly. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. – 392 p.
25. Impact of Science 2017: Building Alliances for synergy between world class science and societal impact. 12-13 June 2017 Stockholm, Sweden. URL: http://aesisnet.com/event/impact-of-science-2017/ (дата обращения: 30.10.2017).
26. Asimov I. Our Future in the Cosmos – Space // The Impact of Science on Society. Langley Research Center. NASA SP-482. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. P. 79-92.
27. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended) // Pub. L. № 85-568, 72 Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958). P. 6.
28. Dick S.J. The Societal Impact of Space Flight // SpaceRef. 2008. December 2.
29. Benjamin M. Rocket Dreams: How the Space Age Shaped our Vision of a World Beyond. New York: Free Press, 2003. – 256 p.
30. Kilgore de W.D. Astrofuturism: Science, Race and Visions of Utopia in Space. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. – 294 p.
31. The Impact of Space Activities upon Society, European Space Agency BR-237. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, 2005. – 137 p.
32. Societal Impact of Spaceflight / Eds. S.J. Dick, R.D. Launius. NASA SP-2007-4801. Washington, DC: NASA History Division, 2007. – 659 p.
33. The societal footprint of big science. A literature review in support of evidence-based decision-making / Horlings E., Gurney T., Somers F., van den Besselaar P. Rathenau Instituut working paper 1206. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 2012. – 29 p.
34. Innovation from Big Science: Enhancing Big Science impact agenda / E. Autio. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. BIS/14/618. London, March 2014. – 76 p.
35. Rafols I. There’s no silver bullet for measuring societal impact // Research Europe. 2017. 12 Oct.
36. Big Science and Innovation / P. Simmonds, E. Kraemer-Mbula, A. Horvath, J. Stroyan, F. Zuijdam. Brighton: Technopolis group, 2013. – 141 p.
37. ECD Better Life Index. URL: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
38. World Value Survey. URL: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
39. The Social Progress Imperative. URL: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/ (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
40. The importance of physics to the economies of Europe. Executive summary. Mulhouse: European Physical Society, 2013. – 12 p.
41. Hertzfeld H.R. Measuring the economic returns from successful NASA life sciences technology transfers // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2002. Vol. 27. № 4. P. 311-320.
42. Pankova L. Transfer of Space Technologies Past and Present: The Russian Case // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2002. Vol. 27. № 4. P.349-360.
43. NASA Spinoff Inside 2017. URL: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2017/toc_2017.html (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
44. NASA Spinoff 2012. URL: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/toc_2012.html (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
45. NASA Assessments of Major Projects. GAO-17-303SP. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees. May 2017. – 100 p.
46. Owen R., Macnaghten Ph., Stilgoe J. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society // Science and Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 39. No 6. P. 751−760.
47. Pieczka M., Escobar O. Dialogue and Science: Innovation in Policy-making and the Discourse of Public Engagement in the UK // Science and Public Policy. 2013. Vol. 40. No 1. P. 113−126.
48. Arnaldi S., Quaglio G.-L., Ladikas M., O’Kane H., Karapiperis T., Srinivas K.R., Zhao Y. Responsible Governance in Science and Technology Policy: Reflections from Europe, China and India // Technology in Society. 2015. Vol. 42. P. 81−92.
49. United Kingdom Research Excellence Framework. REF2021. URL: http://www.ref.ac.uk/ (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
50. Standard Evaluation Protocol 2015-2021. Protocol for Research Assessments in the Netherlands. URL: https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021 (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
51. In-Depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. Commission staff working document. Brussels, 29.05.2017 SWD(2017) 220 final; Annex I. Regulation (EU) № 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
52. Making Britain the best place in the world for science: Science Minister Jo Johnson gives the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) annual lecture. 27 January 2016. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/making-britain-the-best-place-in-the-world-for-science (дата обращения: 30.10.2017).
53. The Impacts of Large Research Infrastructures on Economic Innovation and on Society: Case Studies at CERN. OECD, 2014. - 79 p.
54. Мысль (Журнал Петербургского философского общества. Вып. 19). СПб, 2015. 146 с. – тематический выпуск, посвященный проблемам эффективности научных исследований в философском и историческом контексте.
55. Грицкевич О. В. Экономический, социальный и экологический эффекты от инновационных программ в современной России // Интерэкспо Гео-Сибирь. 2014. № 1. С.113-117.
56. Подуфалов Н. Д., Ханнанов Н. К. Разработка подходов к анализу эффективности научных исследований в РАО (на примере мониторинга результатов исследований 2007-2008 гг.) // Проблемы современного образования. 2011. № 2. С.78-98.
57. Игнатьева Г.А., Крайникова М.Н., Матукина А.Н. Социальные эффекты проектно-сетевого института инновационного образования как прообразы новой общественной практики // Интеграция образования. 2014. № 3 (76). С.12-18.
58. Хайруллин В. А., Терехов И. Г., Огнева А. С. Метод расчёта социального эффекта в ходе реализации инвестиционно-строительного процесса // Интернет-журнал Науковедение. 2013. № 4 (17). С. 58.
59. Путилов В.А., Шишаев М.Г. Информатизация региона и ее социальные эффекты // Вестник Кольского научного центра РАН. 2011. № 1. С.44-54.
60. Синдяшкина Е.Н. Вопросы оценки видов социального эффекта при реализации инвестиционных проектов // Проблемы прогнозирования. 2010. № 1. С.140-147.
61. Распоряжение Правительства Российской Федерации от 24 июня 2017 г. № 1325-р // СЗ РФ. 2017. № 28. Ст. 4174.
62. «ОК 029-2014 (КДЕС Ред. 2). Общероссийский классификатор видов экономической деятельности» (утв. Приказом Росстандарта от 31.01.2014 № 14-ст) (ред. от 03.08.2017). Документ опубликован не был. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=LAW&n=283081&fld=134&dst=1000000001,0&rnd=0.7122837598277532#0 (дата обращения: 15.11.2017).
63. Пайсон Д.Б., Попова С.М. Инновационное развитие ракетно-космической промышленности в России: вызовы и возможности // Исследования космоса. 2017. № 1. С. 36-45.

References

1. Main Science and Technology Indicators: Volume 2017 / 1. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017. – 132 p.
2. Big Science: What’s It Worth? / P. Purton. Brussels: Science | Business Publishing Ltd, 2015. – 46 p.
3. Impact of Science 2016: Governmental and institutional methods to advance the societal impact of science. 9-10 June 2016 in De Balie, Amsterdam. Netherlands. URL: http://aesisnet.com/event/impact-of-science-2016/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
4. Burdge R.J., Vanclay F. Social impact assessment // Environmental and social impact assessment. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1995. P. 31-66.
5. Burdge R.J., Vanclay F. Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series // Impact Assessment. 1996. Vol. 14. № 1. P. 59-86.
6. Narin F., Hamilton K.S., Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between US technology and public science // Research Policy. 1997. Vol. 26. № 3. P. 317–330.
7. May R.M. The scientific investments of nations // Science. 1998. Vol. 281. № 5373. P. 49–51.
8. Beise M., Stahl H. Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy. 1999. Vol. 28. № 4. P. 397–422.
9. Barré R. S&T Indicators for policy making in a changing science–society relationship // Handbook of quantitative science and technology research / Eds. H. Moed, W. Glänzel, U. Schmoch. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2005. P. 115–131.
10. Walter A.I., Helgenberger S., Wiek A., Scholz R.W. Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method // Evaluation and Program Planning. 2007. Vol. 30. № 4. P. 325–338.
11. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society, 2011. - 113 p.
12. Kwaliteit in verscheidenheid. 2011. URL: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/rapporten/2011/07/01/kwaliteit-in-verscheidenheid.html (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
13. Martin B.R. The Research Excellence Framework and the «impact agenda»: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster? // Research Evaluation. 2011. Vol. 20. № 3. P. 247–254.
14. 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. Vol. 64. № 2. P. 217–233.
15. Evidence-Based Policymaking: A guide for effective government. A report from the Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative, 2014. - 30 p.
16. Hehenberger L., Harling A.-M., Scholten P. A Practical Guide to Measuring and Managing Impact. EVPA, 2015. - 139 p.
17. Symposium Report. Building a Scientific Narrative on Impact and Societal Value of Science, 17 November 2016. Brussels: Science Europe, 2017. - 19 p.
18. Weinberg A.M. Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States // Science. 1961. Vol. 134, № 3473. P. 161-164.
19. Price D. J. D. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. - 119 p.
20. Price D. J. de S. Little science, big science… and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. – 301 p.
21. Valentine A. J. Comment on “Big science, little science” // Embo Reports. 2010. Vol. 11. № 3. P. 152.
22. OECD Handbook on Measuring the Space Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2012. – 108 p.
23. Big Science Transformed. Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States / O. Hallonsten. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. – 310 p.
24. Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research / Eds. P. Galison, B. Hevly. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. – 392 p.
25. Impact of Science 2017: Building Alliances for synergy between world class science and societal impact. 12-13 June 2017 Stockholm, Sweden. URL: http://aesisnet.com/event/impact-of-science-2017/ (data obrashcheniya: 30.10.2017).
26. Asimov I. Our Future in the Cosmos – Space // The Impact of Science on Society. Langley Research Center. NASA SP-482. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. P. 79-92.
27. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (as amended) // Pub. L. № 85-568, 72 Stat. 426-438 (Jul. 29, 1958). P. 6.
28. Dick S.J. The Societal Impact of Space Flight // SpaceRef. 2008. December 2.
29. Benjamin M. Rocket Dreams: How the Space Age Shaped our Vision of a World Beyond. New York: Free Press, 2003. – 256 p.
30. Kilgore de W.D. Astrofuturism: Science, Race and Visions of Utopia in Space. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003. – 294 p.
31. The Impact of Space Activities upon Society, European Space Agency BR-237. Noordwijk: ESA Publications Division, 2005. – 137 p.
32. Societal Impact of Spaceflight / Eds. S.J. Dick, R.D. Launius. NASA SP-2007-4801. Washington, DC: NASA History Division, 2007. – 659 p.
33. The societal footprint of big science. A literature review in support of evidence-based decision-making / Horlings E., Gurney T., Somers F., van den Besselaar P. Rathenau Instituut working paper 1206. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 2012. – 29 p.
34. Innovation from Big Science: Enhancing Big Science impact agenda / E. Autio. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. BIS/14/618. London, March 2014. – 76 p.
35. Rafols I. There’s no silver bullet for measuring societal impact // Research Europe. 2017. 12 Oct.
36. Big Science and Innovation / P. Simmonds, E. Kraemer-Mbula, A. Horvath, J. Stroyan, F. Zuijdam. Brighton: Technopolis group, 2013. – 141 p.
37. ECD Better Life Index. URL: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
38. World Value Survey. URL: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
39. The Social Progress Imperative. URL: http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
40. The importance of physics to the economies of Europe. Executive summary. Mulhouse: European Physical Society, 2013. – 12 p.
41. Hertzfeld H.R. Measuring the economic returns from successful NASA life sciences technology transfers // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2002. Vol. 27. № 4. P. 311-320.
42. Pankova L. Transfer of Space Technologies Past and Present: The Russian Case // The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2002. Vol. 27. № 4. P.349-360.
43. NASA Spinoff Inside 2017. URL: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2017/toc_2017.html (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
44. NASA Spinoff 2012. URL: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/toc_2012.html (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
45. NASA Assessments of Major Projects. GAO-17-303SP. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees. May 2017. – 100 p.
46. Owen R., Macnaghten Ph., Stilgoe J. Responsible Research and Innovation: From Science in Society to Science for Society, with Society // Science and Public Policy. 2012. Vol. 39. No 6. P. 751−760.
47. Pieczka M., Escobar O. Dialogue and Science: Innovation in Policy-making and the Discourse of Public Engagement in the UK // Science and Public Policy. 2013. Vol. 40. No 1. P. 113−126.
48. Arnaldi S., Quaglio G.-L., Ladikas M., O’Kane H., Karapiperis T., Srinivas K.R., Zhao Y. Responsible Governance in Science and Technology Policy: Reflections from Europe, China and India // Technology in Society. 2015. Vol. 42. P. 81−92.
49. United Kingdom Research Excellence Framework. REF2021. URL: http://www.ref.ac.uk/ (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
50. Standard Evaluation Protocol 2015-2021. Protocol for Research Assessments in the Netherlands. URL: https://www.knaw.nl/nl/actueel/publicaties/standard-evaluation-protocol-2015-2021 (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
51. In-Depth interim evaluation of Horizon 2020. Commission staff working document. Brussels, 29.05.2017 SWD(2017) 220 final; Annex I. Regulation (EU) № 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020).
52. Making Britain the best place in the world for science: Science Minister Jo Johnson gives the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) annual lecture. 27 January 2016. URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/making-britain-the-best-place-in-the-world-for-science (data obrashcheniya: 30.10.2017).
53. The Impacts of Large Research Infrastructures on Economic Innovation and on Society: Case Studies at CERN. OECD, 2014. - 79 p.
54. Mysl' (Zhurnal Peterburgskogo filosofskogo obshchestva. Vyp. 19). SPb, 2015. 146 s. – tematicheskii vypusk, posvyashchennyi problemam effektivnosti nauchnykh issledovanii v filosofskom i istoricheskom kontekste.
55. Gritskevich O. V. Ekonomicheskii, sotsial'nyi i ekologicheskii effekty ot innovatsionnykh programm v sovremennoi Rossii // Interekspo Geo-Sibir'. 2014. № 1. S.113-117.
56. Podufalov N. D., Khannanov N. K. Razrabotka podkhodov k analizu effektivnosti nauchnykh issledovanii v RAO (na primere monitoringa rezul'tatov issledovanii 2007-2008 gg.) // Problemy sovremennogo obrazovaniya. 2011. № 2. S.78-98.
57. Ignat'eva G.A., Krainikova M.N., Matukina A.N. Sotsial'nye effekty proektno-setevogo instituta innovatsionnogo obrazovaniya kak proobrazy novoi obshchestvennoi praktiki // Integratsiya obrazovaniya. 2014. № 3 (76). S.12-18.
58. Khairullin V. A., Terekhov I. G., Ogneva A. S. Metod rascheta sotsial'nogo effekta v khode realizatsii investitsionno-stroitel'nogo protsessa // Internet-zhurnal Naukovedenie. 2013. № 4 (17). S. 58.
59. Putilov V.A., Shishaev M.G. Informatizatsiya regiona i ee sotsial'nye effekty // Vestnik Kol'skogo nauchnogo tsentra RAN. 2011. № 1. S.44-54.
60. Sindyashkina E.N. Voprosy otsenki vidov sotsial'nogo effekta pri realizatsii investitsionnykh proektov // Problemy prognozirovaniya. 2010. № 1. S.140-147.
61. Rasporyazhenie Pravitel'stva Rossiiskoi Federatsii ot 24 iyunya 2017 g. № 1325-r // SZ RF. 2017. № 28. St. 4174.
62. «OK 029-2014 (KDES Red. 2). Obshcherossiiskii klassifikator vidov ekonomicheskoi deyatel'nosti» (utv. Prikazom Rosstandarta ot 31.01.2014 № 14-st) (red. ot 03.08.2017). Dokument opublikovan ne byl. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc&base=LAW&n=283081&fld=134&dst=1000000001,0&rnd=0.7122837598277532#0 (data obrashcheniya: 15.11.2017).
63. Paison D.B., Popova S.M. Innovatsionnoe razvitie raketno-kosmicheskoi promyshlennosti v Rossii: vyzovy i vozmozhnosti // Issledovaniya kosmosa. 2017. № 1. S. 36-45.

Журналы

Книги

Космические программы и проблемы оценки социетального воздействия проектов Big Science