Scientific Communities in High-Tech Product Promotion: A Conceptual Model of Cultural and Institutional Moderators

High-tech products are promoted under heightened uncertainty and information asymmetry: prior to purchase or implementation, audiences often lack the hands-on experience needed to independently assess the claimed effects. Expert interpretation, trust building, and the market legitimation of innovations are therefore critical to high-tech marketing. This article conceptualizes scientific communities as epistemic networks that produce and validate knowledge, establish standards of evidence, and disseminate expert assessments through professional communication channels. Based on a synthesis of the literature on innovation and high-tech marketing, technology acceptance and diffusion, the sociology of science, and institutional theory, the article proposes a conceptual model of how scientific communities influence high-tech product promotion. The model identifies three mechanisms: the translation of expert knowledge and the resulting reduction in information asymmetry, trust building through scientific authority, and product legitimation within professional and market fields. The article also highlights a research gap: high-tech marketing, research on epistemic communities, and institutional theory have largely developed in isolation, and the connections among them remain underexplored. Scientific communities are therefore viewed not as a passive resource but as independent actors in their own right in process of recognition, with their own logic of interpretive and reputational competition. The proposed model links the three mechanisms to the cultural and institutional conditions that determine their effectiveness and helps explain variations in marketing outcomes across different settings. The strength of these mechanisms depends on cultural norms concerning technology interpretation and trust, as well as on institutional rules of recognition, incentive systems, and infrastructures supporting interaction between science and business. The model may provide a basis for further empirical testing and for operationalizing the role of scientific communities in high-tech product promotion.

1. Aleshina I.V. (2023). High-Tech Marketing: Problems and Opportunities for the Russian Federation. Management, 11(2): 124-136. DOI: 10.26425/2309-3633-2023-11-2-124-136. (In Russ.)

2. Volchik V.V., Fursa E.V. (2022). Narrative Analysis of Demand for Innovations in the Russian Economy. Universe of Russia, 31(4): 122-150. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2022-31-4-122-150. (In Russ.)

3. Dezhina I.G. (2023). Science Policy in Russia in 2018–2022: Contradictory Signals. Sociological Journal, 29(2): 132-149. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2023.29.2.10. (In Russ.)

4. Egerev S.V. (2024). Scientific Communication and Science Popularization in CS Recruitment Tasks. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 6(3): 223-235. DOI: 10.19181/smtp.2024.6.3.16. (In Russ.)

5. Zhukovskaya I.E. (2025). Interaction between Innovative Infrastructures of Universities and Industrial Enterprises as a Unified Ecosystem. Ars Administrandi, 17(4): 650-671. DOI: 10.17072/2218-9173-2025-4-650-671. (In Russ.)

6. Zaichenko S., Kuznetsova T., Rud V. (2014). Features of Interaction between Russian Enterprises and Research Organizations in the Innovation Sphere. Foresight-Russia, 8(1): 6-22. DOI: 10.17323/1995-459x.2014.1.06.23. (In Russ.)

7. Zarubina N.N. (2017). Respect for the Scientific Community as a Prerequisite for Trust in the Institution of Science in Contemporary Russia. Sociological Science and Social Practice, 5(1): 89-107. DOI: 10.19181/snsp.2017.5.1.4994. (In Russ.)

8. Zarubina N.N. (2018). Trust in Science in Contemporary Russia in the Context of the Plurality of Forms of Knowledge. Sociological Studies, 5: 110-120. DOI: 10.7868/S0132162518050100. (In Russ.)

9. Zarubina N.N., Noskova A.V., Temnitsky A.L. (2018). Trust in Social Science in Russia as a Research Problem. Sociological Studies, 7: 105-114. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250000172-2. (In Russ.)

10. Kasavin I.T. (2020). Science as a Political Actor. Sociological Studies, 7: 3-14. DOI: 10.31857/S013216250009293-5. (In Russ.)

11. Kolmogorova A.V. (2018). Legitimation as a Sociopolitical Phenomenon and an Object of Discourse Analysis. Political Linguistics, 1(67): 33-40. (In Russ.)

12. Kopylova P.S. (2023). Features of Epistemic Communities as an Actor of Political Influence. The Authority, 2: 117-123. (In Russ.)

13. Lobareva N.V., Sigankov A.A. (2020). Assessment of the Effectiveness of Relationships with Consumers of High-Tech Enterprise

14. Products. Russian Journal of Innovation Economics, 10(1): 585-600. DOI: 10.18334/vinec.10.1.100681. (In Russ.)

15. Markova V.D. (2013). Marketing in the Field of Innovation: Classification of Tasks and Tools. Issues of Contemporary Economics, 4(4): 25-37. (In Russ.)

16. Mikhailova O.V. (2018). Epistemic Communities in the Process of Promoting Ideas onto the Public Administration Agenda. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 46: 167-175. DOI: 10.17223/1998863X/46/19. (In Russ.)

17. Panina V.Z., Ponikarova A.S. (2025). Technological Marketing Tools in Forming Competitive Advantages of Knowledge-Intensive Organizations under Digitalization. Financial Management, 10: 481-488. (In Russ.)

18. Ryzhkova M.V., Eremin V.V., Bauer V.P. (2021). Consumer Resistance on a Digital Platform: Deployment and Overcoming. Information Society, 6: 24-41. DOI: 10.52605/16059921_2021_06_24. (In Russ.)

19. Savchenko I.V. (2016). Bringing Innovative Products to Market: Features and Problems. MIR (Modernization. Innovation. Research), 7(4): 97-102. DOI: 10.18184/2079-4665.2016.7.4.97.102. (In Russ.)

20. Sychev A.A. (2024). In Search of Reliability: Transformation of Trust in the Era of Digital Technologies. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, 5: 37-59. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2024.5.2595. (In Russ.)

21. Tambovtsev V.L. (2018). Innovations and Culture: The Importance of Methodology of Analysis. Voprosy Еkonomiki, 9: 70-94. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2018-9-70-94. (In Russ.)

22. Aparecido-Tomaz P., Fischer B., Meissner D., Rücker-Schaeffer P. (2022). The Dynamics of University-Industry Interactions in Peripheral Contexts: Evidence from Brazil. Foresight and STI Governance, 16(4): 59-69. DOI: 10.17323/2500-2597.2022.4.59.69.

23. Bykova O.N., Garnov A.P., Kamchatova E.Yu., Starovoitov V.G., Zubakov G.V., Malakhova E.V. (2022). Marketing Communications of Scientific and Educational Organizations in the Context of Digital Technologies and Artificial Intelligence Implementation. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 25(1): 1-12.

24. Davis F.D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3): 319-340. DOI: 10.2307/249008.

25. DiMaggio P.J., Powell W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160. DOI: 10.2307/2095101.

26. Haas P.M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1): 1-35. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818300001442.

27. Morgan R.M., Hunt S.D. (1994). The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3): 20-38.

28. Nasedkina T.I., Chernykh A.I., Demesheva I.A., Molchanova L.A. (2024). The Role of Commercialization of High Technologies in Scientific and Production Cooperation. BIO Web of Conferences, 82: 05005. DOI: 10.1051/bioconf/20248205005.

29. Rogers E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York, The Free Press.

30. Scott R.W. (2014). Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications.

31. Suchman M.C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 571-610. DOI: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.