과학기술학연구 (Journal of Science and Technology Studies)

  • 제16권2호
  • /
  • Pages.99-147
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 1738-9291(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-9832(eISSN)
한국과학기술학회 (Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies)
권호 표지

참여적 과학기술 거버넌스의 전개와 전망

The Past and Future of Public Engagement with Science and Technology

  • 투고 : 2016.11.29
  • 심사 : 2016.12.26
  • 발행 : 2016.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

이 논문에서는 과학기술학에서 공중의 과학기술 관여가 논의되어온 방식이 갖는 유용성과 한계를 정당화와 실질적 수용의 측면에서 살펴보고자 한다. 이를 위해 우선 과학기술 전문가의 지식 체계가 포함하는 불확실성과 비전문가의 일반인 지식에 관한 STS의 통찰이 왜 그동안 참여적 거버넌스의 양적, 질적 확산으로 충분히 이어지지 못했는지의 문제를 이론적, 실질적 층위에서 논의하였다. 이어서 어떤 전문성이 참여적 거버넌스의 구성과 지속을 지지할 수 있는 것인가에 대한 답을 찾기 위한 예비적인 시도로서 한 사례-제주도 풍력 발전시설 개발과 제도 정비 과정에서 나타난 비전문가의 활동-에 주목하였다. 논문의 주장은 다음과 같이 요약된다. 첫째, 참여적 거버넌스를 정당화할 수 있는 근거는 시민/비전문가라는 사회 집단이 갖는 어떤 본질적 특성에서 도출할 수 없다. 둘째, 참여의 정당한 조건으로 수용될 수 있는 전문성의 형식과 내용은 사실 진술과 가치 판단의 경계를 재구성하는 수행의 결과로서 사후적으로 부여된다. 셋째, 제주도 풍력자원 공유화 과정에서 복잡한 사회-기술 체제의 실질적 재구성에 기여했던 것은 새롭게 유통될 수 있는 사물-사람의 관계를 만드는 '연계적 전문성'이었다. 넷째, 시민과 전문가의 전문성은 모두 대체가 아닌 보완을 필요로 한다. 궁극적으로 이 논문은 참여적 거버넌스에 대한 STS 논의가 실제로 갈등이 발생하고 결정이 이루어지고 있는 현장에 주목하여, 과거와 현재, 사실과 가치, 과학기술과 사회의 경계를 재구성하는 행위자들의 구체적 수행을 분석하는 작업으로 확장되어야 할 필요성을 강조한다.

This paper critically reviews the previous discussion over public engagement with science and technology by Science and Technology Studies literatures with a focus on justification and acceptance. Recent studies pointed out that the "participatory turn" after the late 1990s was followed by confusion and disagreement over the meaning and agency of public engagement. Their discussion over the reproduction of the ever-present boundary between science and society along with so-called late modernity and post-normal science and sometimes through the very processes of public engagement draws fresh attention to the old problem: how can lay participation in decision-making be justified, even if we agree that privileging the position of experts in governance of science and technology is no longer justified? So far STS have focused on two conditions for participatory turn-1) uncertainties inherent in experts' ways of knowing and 2) practicability of lay knowledge. This paper first explicated why such discussion has not been logically sufficient nor successful in promoting a wide and well-thought-out acceptance of public engagement. Then the paper made a preliminary attempt to explain what new types of expertise can support the construction and sustainment of participatory governance in science and technology by focusing on one case of lay participation. The particular case discussed by the paper revolves around the actions of a civil organization and an activist who led legal and regulatory changes in wind power development in Jeju Special Self-governing Province. The paper analyzed the types of expertise constructed to be effective and legitimate during the constitution of participatory energy governance and the local society's support for it. The arguments of this paper can be summarized as follows. First, an appropriate basis of the normative claim that science and technology governance should make participatory turn cannot be drawn from the essential characteristics of lay publics-as little as of experts. Second, the type of 'expertise' which can justify participatory governance can only be constructed a posteriori as a result of the practices to re-construct the boundaries between factual statements and value judgment. Third, an intermediary expertise, which this paper defines as a type of expertise in forming human-nonhuman associations and their new pathways for circulations, made significant contribution in laying out the legal and regulatory foundation for revenue sharing in Jeju wind power development. Fourth, experts' conventional ways of knowing need to be supplemented, not supplanted, by lay expertise. Ultimately, the paper calls for the necessity to extend STS discussion over governance toward following the actors. What needs more thorough analysis is such actors' narratives and practices to re-construct the boundaries between the past and present, facts and values, science and society. STS needs a renewed focus on the actual sites of conflicts and decision-making in discussing participatory governance.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 강윤재 (2011), 광우병 위험과 촛불집회: 과학적인가 정치적인가?, 경제와 사회, 제89권, pp. 269-297.
  2. 강윤재.김지연.박진희.이영희.정인경 (2015), 한국사회에서 과학기술 시 티즌십의 현주소와 전망: <과학기술에 대한 시민의식 조사> 결과 분석을 중심으로, 과학기술학연구, 제15권 제1호, pp. 3-43.
  3. 권순덕 외 (2014), 풍력발전단지 설치에 따른 산지관리방안 연구, 국립산림과학원.
  4. 김동주 (2009), 풍력발전단지 건설 갈등과 바람자원의 공유화, 제주학회 제33차 전국학술대회 자료집. 제주학회, 2009년 11월 20일, 제주.
  5. 김동주 (2012), 제주도 바람의 사회적 변형과 그 함의: 자원화와 공유화, ECO, 제16권 제1호, pp. 106-204.
  6. 김동주 (2015), 자연의 사회적 변형과 풍력발전: 제주도 바람의 자본화와 공유화운동, 제주대학교사회학과 박사학위논문.
  7. 김종영 (2011), 대항지식의 구성: 미 쇠고기 수입반대 촛불운동에서의 전문가들의 혼성적 연대와 대항논리의 형성, 한국사회학, 제45권 제1호, pp. 109-152.
  8. 김혜정. (2011), 후쿠시마 이후의 한국 반핵운동과 시민사회의 역할, 시민과 세계, 제19권 제1호, pp. 136-150.
  9. 박진희(2008), 시스템 전환, 기후 변화 담론 그리고 재생가능에너지: 한국의 재생가능에너지 정책의 발달, 환경철학, 제7권, pp. 99-135.
  10. 박희제 (2009), 미국산 쇠고기 파동과 대중의 위험인식의 합리성: 대중의 과학이해 (PUS) 관점, 현상과 인식, 제33권 제4호, pp. 91-116.
  11. 박희제 . 김은성 . 김종영 (2014), 한국의 과학기술정치와 거버넌스, 과학기술학연구, 제14권 제2호, pp. 1-47.
  12. 에너지기후정책연구소 (2015), 재생가능에너지 보급에서의 갈등과 해결 방안 연구.
  13. 염미경 (2008), 풍력발전단지 건설과 지역수용성, 사회과학연구, 제47권, pp. 59-85.
  14. 염미경 (2009), 신재생에너지시설 입지에 대한 지역주민들의 태도: 풍력발전단지 입지지역 사례를 중심으로, 인문논총, 제24 권, pp. 181-221.
  15. 염미경 . 허종철 (2009), 풍력발전시설 입지과정에 나타난 갈등양상과 시사점, 지역사회학, 제10권 제2호, pp. 197-223.
  16. 이영희 (2002), '기술사회'에서의 참여민주주의의 가능성 연구: 과학 기술정책 관련 시민참여 모델 평가를 중심으로, 동향과전망, 제7호, pp. 142-171.
  17. 이영희 (2012), 전문성의 정치와 사회운동: 의미와 유형, 경제와사회, 제93호, pp. 13-41.
  18. 이영희 (2014), 과학기술 시티즌십의 두 유형과 전문성의 정치: 과학기술 대중화 정책과 '차일드세이브'의 활동을 중심으로, 동향과 전망, 제10권, pp. 174-211.
  19. 정태석 (2012), 방폐장 입지선정에서 전문성의 정치와 과학기술적 안전성 담론의 균열, 경제와사회, 제3권, pp. 72-103.
  20. 최경숙 (2012), 시민들이 방사능 오염을 감시한다, 핵발전과 전문성의 정치 시민과학센터 , 가톨릭대 SSK 연구팀 공동주최 토론회 자료집.
  21. 최미진 (2014), 방사능에 대한시민사회의 위험인식과 대응, 가톨릭 대학교 사회학과 석사학위논문.
  22. 현재환 . 홍성욱 (2012), 시민참여를 통한 과학기술 거버넌스: STS의 '참여적 전환' 내의 다양한 입장에 대한 역사적 인식론, 과학기술학연구, 제12권 제2호, pp. 33-79.
  23. 홍덕화 . 이영희 (2014), 한국의 에너지 운동과 에너지 시티즌십. 유형과 특징, ECO, 제18권 제1호, pp. 7-44.
  24. Barnett, J., K. Burningham, G. Walker and N. Cass (2012), "Imagined Publics and Engagement around Renewable Energy Technologies in the UK", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 21, pp. 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510365663
  25. Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  26. Collins, H. (1985), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, London: Sage.
  27. Collins, H. and R. Evans (2002), "The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, pp. 235-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003
  28. Department of Trade and Industry (2000), Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century, London: The Stationery Office.
  29. Department of Trade and Industry (2003), GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate, London. http://www.gmnation.org.uk.
  30. De Vries, G. (2007), "What is Political in Sub-politics?: How Aristotle Might Help STS", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, pp. 781-809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706070749
  31. Du Plessis R, R. Hindmarsh and K. Cronin (2010), "Engaging across Boundaries: Emerging Practices in 'Technical Democracy'", East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 475-482.
  32. Delgado, A., K. Kjolberg, and F. Wickson (2011), "Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 20, pp. 826-845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510363054
  33. Elam, M. and M. Bertilsson. (2003) "'Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship", European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 233-251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368431003006002005
  34. Felt, U. (2008), "Visions and Versions of Governing Biomedicine: Narratives of Power Structures, Decision-making and Public Participation in the Field of Biomedical Technology in the Austrian Context," Social Studies of Science, Vol. 38, pp. 233-257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707083489
  35. Functowicz, S. and J. Ravetz (1999), "Post-Normal Science: an Insight Now Maturing", Futures, Vol. 31, pp. 641-646. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(99)00023-3
  36. Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghton, S. Mayer, and B. Wynne (1997), Uncertain World. Genetically Modified Organisms, Food and Public Attitudes in Britain, Lancaster, UK: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
  37. Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B. Wynne (2000), Wising up: The Public and New Technologies, Lancaster, UK: Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Lancaster University.
  38. Guston, D. H. (2000), Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Horst, M. (2014), "On the Weakness of Strong Ties", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 43-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512473392
  40. House of Lords (2000), Science and Society, London, House of Lords.
  41. Hughes, T. (1987), "The Evolution of Large Technological Systems", in W. Bijker, T. Hughes, and T. Pinch, eds., The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 51-82.
  42. Irwin, A. (1995), Citizen science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
  43. Irwin, A. (2006), "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific Governance", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 36, pp. 299-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350
  44. Irwin A, T. Jensen and K. Jones (2013), "The Good, the Bad and the Perfect: Criticizing Engagement Practice", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 43, pp. 118-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312712462461
  45. Irwin, A. and M. Michael (2003), Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
  46. Jasanoff, S. (2003a), "Breaking the Waves in Science Studies: Comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, 'The Third Wave of Science Studies'", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 33, pp. 389-400. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127030333004
  47. Jasanoff, S. (2003b), "Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science", Minerva, Vol. 41, pp. 226-227.
  48. Jasanoff, S. (2005a), Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  49. Jasanoff, S. (2005b), "In the Democracies of DNA: Ontological Uncertainty and Political Order in Three States", New Genetics and Society, Vol. 24, pp. 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636770500190864
  50. Jasanoff, S. (2014), "A Mirror for Science", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 21-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513505509
  51. Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley, and S. Tutton. (2006), "'Shifting Subject Positions Experts and Lay People in Public Dialogue", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, pp. 385-411.
  52. Kim, H. (2014), "Reconstructing the Public in Old and New Governance: A Korean Case of Nuclear Energy Policy", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 268-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514524087
  53. Kim, J. (2014), "The Networked Public, Multitentacled Participation, and Collaborative Expertise: US Beef and the Korean Candlelight Protest", East Asian Science, Technology, and Society, Vol. 8, pp. 229-252. https://doi.org/10.1215/18752160-2650927
  54. Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  55. Marres, N. (2007), "The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, pp. 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706077367
  56. McLeod, C. and P. Hobson-West (2016), "Opening up Animal Research and Science-society Relations? A Thematic Analysis of Transparency Discourses in the United Kingdom", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 25, pp. 791-806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515586320
  57. Michael, M. and N. Brown (2004), "The Meat of the Matter: Grasping and Judging Xenotransplantation", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 13, pp. 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504044558
  58. Michael, M. (2011), "What are We Busy Doing? Engaging the Idiot", Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 37, pp. 528-554.
  59. Nahuis, R. and H. Van Lente (2008), "Where are the Politics? Perspectives on Democracy and Technology", Science, Technology & Human Values, Vol. 33, pp. 559-581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907306700
  60. Phillips, L., Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith, M. (2000), The BSE Inquiry: The Report, London: The Stationery Office.
  61. Rowe, G., T. Horlick-Jones, J. Walls and N. Pidgeon (2005), "Difficulties in Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives: Reflections on an Evaluation of the UK GM Nation Public Debate about Transgenic Crops," Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 14, pp. 331-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662505056611
  62. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998), Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report, London: The Stationery Office.
  63. Shapin, S. and S. Schaffer (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  64. Stilgoe, J., S. Lock and J. Wilsdon (2014), "Why should We Promote Public Engagement with Science?", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513518154
  65. Stirling, A. (2003), "Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution: Some Instrumental Implications from the Social Sciences", in F. Berkhout, M. Leach and I. Scoones, eds., Negotiating Change, London: Elgar, pp. 33-76.
  66. Wakeford, T. (2001), "A Comparison of Deliberative Processes", PLA Notes, Vol. 40, pp. 7-19.
  67. World Health Organization (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise.
  68. Wynne, B. (1992), "Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, pp. 281-304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
  69. Wynne, B. (2002), "Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?", Current Sociology, Vol. 50, pp. 459-477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392102050003010
  70. Wynne, B. (2006), "Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science-Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?", Community Genetics, Vol. 9, pp. 211-220.
  71. Wynne, B. (2007), "Public Participation in Science and Technology: Performing and Obscuring a Political-Conceptual Category Mistake," East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 99-110.
  72. Wynne B (2011), "Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes", Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 791-800. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9316-9