On the Issue of Using Analysis of Variance to form Objective Information when Providing Services in Real Estate Agencies

The article presents new approaches to the development of the strategic management system for the socio-economic and scientifictechnological spheres of Russia, as well as to the development of the respective strategic goals in view of new challenges associated with the rapid S&T progress, comprehensive digitalization of society, which, in turn, inevitably brings new, unpredictable risks. The need to improve the management of socio-technological development in the changing world is shown, which is especially relevant for Russia in view of the current confrontation with the united West and the intensification of the competition for the Russia’s future. The article explores the role of the Q-methodology in selecting scientifically based strategic management goals. It demonstrates its potential to combine qualitative and quantitative approaches, determine the internal structure of attitudes and opinions, identify their similarities and differences, and reduce them to a few «significant Factors» reflecting the common ways of thinking. Relying on modern understanding of the two key issues – scientific research for management and scientific expertise in management – an attempt is made to rethink the interaction and mutual trust between science and public management.

The purpose of the research. Substantiation of the need to use new approaches and scientific instruments for the strategic management of socio-technological development and the formation of socially agreed and scientifically based goals for such development in the new multipolar intellectual world, where digital innovations shape the most important of evolutions – the evolution of human beings. Strategic visions, goals, and decisions developed by different teams and organizations are often based on differing values, methodologies, approaches, models, and methods. Recommended development paths and problem solutions typically differ and represent conflicting points of view. The difference in subjective assessments makes it difficult to reach consensus and take strategic decisions. This research aims to improve strategic management and scientific expertise.

Materials and methods. The research was carried out based on the study of the results of the relevant scientific research; a review of systematic studies, conditions and factors influencing the development of scientific research; the framing theory and the frame analysis. The authors carried out the generalization of the obtained local results on the example of forming scientifically based development goals.

Results. The authors carried out an analysis of the feasibility to apply the new approach in making scientifically grounded decisions and in formulating strategic goals for innovation development, given existing constraints and expert opinions. Using the Q-methodology to improve mutual understanding of the participants’ positions and professional cultures the authors examined the possibility of grouping the proposed solutions with respect to key opinions on the existing problems of all participants of the strategic goals forming system.

Conclusion. The proposed approach to organizing strategic development management and formulating scientific grounded goals facilitates the process of forming a consensus of decisions by using the comparison of conservative and innovative options for formulating strategic goals. The application of the Q-methodology allows the improvement of the quality of strategic management in conditions of high uncertainty, diversity of approaches and assessments, delays in making research of complex systems, as well as of innovative technologies and processes. This expands the potential for using science for the development of public policy, stimulating improvements in its quality, and clarifying the directions of necessary scientific research.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Automated Research Workflows for Accelerated Discovery: Closing the Knowledge Discovery Loop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2022. DOI: 10.17226/26532.

2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Toward a New Era of Data Sharing: Summary of the US-UK Scientific Forum on Researcher Access to Data. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2024. DOI: 10.17226/27520.

3. Sasha Quahe, Sarah E. Cornell, Simon West Framing science-based targets: Reformist and radical discourses in an Earth system governance initiative. Earth System Governance. 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.esg.2023.100196.

4. Zachesova I.A. Lines of discussion development and the communicative structure of environmental online discourse. Innovatsionnaya nauka = Innovative science. 2022; 9-2: 44-48. (In Russ.)

5. Gofman I. Analiz freymov: esse ob organizatsii povsednevnogo opyta = Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of everyday experience. Moscow: Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences; 2004. 752 p. (In Russ.)

6. Fischer F. and Gottweis H. (ed.) The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice / Introduction – 2012. Duke University Press, Durham & London. 2012. 400 p.

7. Watts S., Stenner P. Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2005; 2: 67-91. DOI: 10.1191/1478088705qp022oa.

8. Kay Irie Q methodology for post-socialturn research in SLA. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching. 2014; 4(1): 13-32. DOI: 10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.1.2.

9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022. Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. DOI: 10.17226/26647.

10. Bernhard A. Sabel, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc. Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production. DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563.

11. Jamal Abdul Nasir, Osama Subhani Khan, Iraklis Varlamis Fake news detection: A hybrid CNN-RNN based deep learning approach. International Journal of Information Management. 2021: 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jjimei.2020.100007.

12. Denis B. Karcher, Christopher Cvitanovic, Rebecca Shellock, Alistair J. Hobday, Robert L. Stephenson, Mark Dickey-Collas, Ingrid E. van Putten More than money - The costs of knowledge exchange at the interface of science and policy. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2022: 225 (15). DOI: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106194

13. Lightowler C., Knight, C. Sustaining knowledge exchange and research impact in the social sciences and humanities: Investing in knowledge broker roles in UK universities. Evidence and Policy. 2013; 9(3). DOI: 10.1332/174426413X662644.

14. Bratchenko S.A. Inconsistency of goals in public administration. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk = Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2023; 6: 78-108. DOI: 10.52180/2073-6487_2023_6_78_108. (In Russ.)

15. Bratchenko S.A. Inconsistency of goals in the development of government programs: a review of practice and analysis of situations. Vestnik Instituta ekonomiki Rossiyskoy akademii nauk = Bulletin of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2024; 1: 28-46. DOI: 10.52180/2073-6487_2024_1_28_46. (In Russ.)

16. Denis B. Karcher, Christopher Cvitanovic, Rebecca M. Colvin, Ingrid E. van Putten, Mark S. Reed Is this what success looks like? Mismatches between the aims, claims, and evidence used to demonstrate impact from knowledge exchange processes at the interface of environmental science and policy. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021; 125: 202-218 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.08.012.

17. Eszter Kelemen, György Pataki, Zoi Konstantinou, Liisa Varumo, Riikka Paloniemi, Tânia R. Pereira, Isabel Sousa-Pinto, Marie Vandewalle, Juliette Young Networks at the sciencepolicy- interface: Challenges, opportunities and the viability of the ‘network-of-networks’ approach. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021; 123: 91-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.008.

18. Susan A. Thompson, Robert L. Stephenson Robert, George A. Rose, Stacey D. Pau. Collaborative fisheries research: the Canadian Fisheries Research Network experience. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 2019. DOI: 10.1139/cjfas-2018-0450.