FORMING A POSITIVE IMAGE OF A SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTION IN THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Objective: to determine, study and systematize methods of forming and maintaining an attractive brand of a Humanities research organizations under the present conditions in Russia.Methods: abstract-logical.Results: the article analyzes the value of information on scientific research results and the mechanisms of its propagation under the conditions of reducing the financing of scientific organizations. The problem is establishing relationships of Humanities research organizations with potential users. It is shown that the solution to this problem may be found in the formation of a positive image of a research organization in the form of a brand that can ensure effective dissemination of information about the achievements of the research organizations and possible ways of their commercial applications in the practical work of production and educational institutions.The article studies the approaches to definition of a research organization brand, including the notions of authority and reputation; based on them, the author’s approach to this term is formulated. It is shown that a significant role in the formation of the brand is played by infocommunicational environment, which is a necessary condition for the formation of the positive image of a research organization. The concept of target audience of a research organization is defined; its segmentation is carried out into several groups according to types of interaction, types of cooperation and the expected results of partnership. The ways are identified to attract attention of the target audience, as well as the principles of interaction with other research organizations and potential consumers of research results. Recommendations on brand development of a research organization are formulated, on the basis of temporal and spatial approach.Scientific novelty: the paper for the first time presents the structure of the target audience of the brand of a research organization in sociological and humanitarian sphere; modern tools are considered aimed at positioning research organizations in the scientific, business, and other environments.Practical significance: the obtained results can be applied in the practical work of research organizations functioning under the conditions of significant reduction of state support, for the search of additional sources of research funding in the long term.

экономика и управление народным хозяйством, научная организация, бренд научной организации, целевая аудитория, результаты научной деятельности, научная продукция, позиционирование бренда научной организации

1. Judson K. M., Aurand T. W., Gorchels L., Gordon G. L. Building a university brand from within: university administrators' perspectives of internal branding // Services Marketing Quarterly. 2008. Vol. 30, № 1. Pp. 54-68.

2. Jevons C. Universities: a prime example of branding going wrong // Journal of Product & Brand Management. 2006. Vol. 15, № 7. Pp. 466-467.

3. Baker S. M., Faircloth J. B., Simental V. Perceptions of university-corporate partnership influences on a brand // Journal of Marketing Theory and practice. 2005. Vol. 13, № 2. Pp. 32-46.

4. Chapleo C. Interpretation and implementation of reputation/brand management by UK university leaders // International Journal of Educational Advancement. 2004. Vol. 5, № 1. Pp. 7-23.

5. Chapleo C. Exploring rationales for branding a university: Should we be seeking to measure branding in UK universities? // Journal of Brand Management. 2011. Vol. 18, № 6. Pp. 411-422.

6. Rose M., Rose G., Merchant A. Developing a Scale to Measure University Brand Heritage: An Abstract // Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative Future Marketing TrendsSpringer, 2017. P. 1315.

7. Bieger T., Sonderegger P. Getting University brand Management right // Global Focus: the EFMD business magazine. 2017. Vol. 11, № 1. Pp. 52-55.

8. Sojkin B. Determinant factors of the marketing activity of scientific and research institutions // Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych. 2015. № 1 (15). Pp. 19-32.

9. Pluta-Olearnik M. Implementing new marketings strategies in scientific and research institutions // Prace Instytutu Lotnictwa. 2012. № 2 (223). Pp. 83-96.

10. Sung M., Yang S.-U. Toward the model of university image: The influence of brand personality, external prestige, and reputation // Journal of public relations research. 2008. Vol. 20, № 4. Pp. 357-376.

11. Mirskaya E. Z., Rabkin Y. M. Russian academic scientists in the first post-Soviet decade: empirical study // Science and Public Policy. 2004. Vol. 31, № 1. Pp. 2-14.

12. Gulbrandsen M., Slipersaeter S. The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model // Universities and strategic knowledge creation. 2007. Pp. 112-143.

13. Morschheuser P., Redler J. Reputation Management for Scientific Organisations - Framework Development and Exemplification // Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych. 2015. № 4 (18). Pp. 1-36.

14. Borchelt R., Nielsen K. H. Public relations in science // Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. 2014. Pp. 58-69.

15. Hartomo T., Cribb J. Sharing knowledge: A guide to effective science communication. Clayton: Csiro Publishing, 2002.

16. Redler J. Brand alliance. Building block for scientific organisations´ marketing strategy // Marketing of scientific organisations. 2016. Vol. 1, № 19. Pp. 60-94.

17. Петровский В. Бренд научного учреждения как измеритель стоимости научно-технической продукции // Экономический анализ: теория и практика. 2011. № 36. С. 41-51.

18. Бендиков М. А., Джамай Е. В. Идентификация и измерение интеллектуального капитала инновационно активного предприятия // Экономическая наука современной России. 2001. № 4. С. 83-107.

19. Амблер Т. Практический маркетинг. СПб.: Питер, 1999. 400 с. (Серия: Теория и практика менеджмента).

20. Fombrun C. J., Van Riel C. B. The reputational landscape // Corporate reputation review. 1997. Vol. 1, № 2. p. 5.

21. Fombrun C. J., Rindova V. Who’s tops and who decides? The social construction of corporate reputations // New York University, Stern School of Business, Working Paper. 1996. Pp. 5-13.

22. Анисимов А. Честь, достоинство, деловая репутация под защитой закона. М.: Норма, 2004. 224 с.

23. Alperin J. P. Science that is not seen, does not exist: a review of the RedALyC. org Web Portal // Access to Knowledge: A Course Journal. 2011. Vol. 3, № 1. Pp. 1-10.

24. Hamel G., Prahalad C. K. Competing for the Future. Harvard Business Press, 1996.

25. Ягольницер М., Казанцев К. Сила бренда и ее измерение (на примере IT-компаний) // Экономика и менеджмент систем управления. 2014. Vol. 14, № 4.2. С. 322-331.

26. Качалов Р. М., Кобылко А. А. Роль маркетинга научной продукции в эволюции исследовательской организации экономического профиля // Новые исследования в гетеродоксальной экономике: российский вклад: монография / под ред. В. И. Маевского, С. Г. Кирдиной. М.: ИЭ РАН, 2016. С. 424-441.

27. Клейнер Г. Б. Системная экономика как платформа развития современной экономической теории // Вопросы экономики. 2013. № 6. С. 4-28.

28. Щедровицкий Г. Оргуправленческое мышление: идеология, методология, технология. М.: Студия Артемия Лебедева, 2014. 480 p.

29. Ясин Е. Г. Структура российской экономики и структурная политика: вызовы глобализации и модернизация // Модернизация экономики и глобализация: в 3 кн. Кн. 1. М.: Издательский дом ГУ - ВШЭ, 2009. С. 7-169.

30. Bercovitz J., Feldman M. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level // Organization Science. 2008. Vol. 19, № 1. Pp. 69-89.

31. Thursby M., Jensen R. Proofs and prototypes for sale: the licensing of university inventions // American Economic Review. 2001. Vol. 91, № 1. Pp. 240-259.

32. Jonsson L., Baraldi E., Larsson L.-E., Forsberg P., Severinsson K. Targeting academic engagement in open innovation: tools, effects and challenges for university management // Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2015. Vol. 6, № 3. Pp. 522-550.

33. Shane S. A. Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2004.

34. Келлер К., Котлер Ф. Маркетинг менеджмент. Экспресс-курс. М.: Питер, 2001.

35. Arnott D. C. Positioning: redefining the concept // Warwick Business School Researcher Papers, 1993, No. 81.

36. Перция В. Позиционирование vs. Брендинг // Энциклопедия маркетинга. 2003. URL: http://www.marketing.spb.ru/ conf/2002-05-brand/07.htm (дата обращения: 23.03.2017).

37. Андреев В. Брендинг и позиционирование // Писали.ру. 2009. URL: http://pisali.ru/smresearch/17333/ (дата обращения: 23.03.2017).

38. Perkmann M., Tartari V., McKelvey M., Autio E., Broström A., D’Este P., Fini R., Geuna A., Grimaldi R., Hughes A. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations // Research policy. 2013. Vol. 42, № 2. Pp. 423-442.

39. Mitton C., Adair C. E., McKenzie E., Patten S. B., Perry B. W. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature // The Milbank Quarterly. 2007. Vol. 85, № 4. Pp. 729-768.