과학기술학연구 (Journal of Science and Technology Studies)

  • 제19권1호
  • /
  • Pages.137-179
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 1738-9291(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2713-9832(eISSN)
한국과학기술학회 (Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies)
권호 표지

시민참여형 초학제적 연구의 성격: 비판적 문헌연구

Characteristic of Citizen Participatory Transdisciplinary Research: A Critical Literature Review

  • 임홍탁 (부경대학교 과학기술정책협동과정) ;
  • 송위진 (과학기술정책연구원)
  • 투고 : 2018.10.31
  • 심사 : 2019.03.20
  • 발행 : 2019.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구는 아직까지는 생소한 초학제적 연구, 특히 시민참여형 초학제적 연구의 기본 성격을 체계적으로 정리하고 일반시민이 참여하는 과학기술지식생산의 방식, 성과물의 성격을 파악하고 정책적 함의를 도출하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 논문의 두 가지 핵심질문 중 첫 번째 질문은 지식의 생산방식에 관한 것으로서 일반시민들과 과학자들이 어떤 방식을 통해 지적인 측면의 공동작업을 하는지 살펴보는 것이며, 두 번째 질문은 초학제적 연구의 결과물에 관한 것으로서 기존 R&D는 논문과 특허 등이 기대되는 주요 성과물이라 할 수 있는데, 초학제적 연구에서는 다른 결과물도 발생하는 지 살펴보는 것이다. 모드 2 논의, 지식의 종류와 학습방식, 과학기술지식이 종종 새로운 사회질서와 함께 만들어진다는 공동생산 논의 등 기존의 연구들을 비판적으로 검토하여 일반시민, 현장종사자들의 입장에서 초학제적 연구의 성격을 밝히고 정책적 함의를 제시한다.

This paper aims to uncover and discuss characteristics of citizen participatory transdisciplinary research which has been gaining momentum in recent years in the form of social-problem solving R&D program and sustainability science research. Two key questions are examined. One is related to the mechanism of cooperation in knowledge production among participants, namely scientists and citizens(extra-academics), while the other is examining whether the output of participatory research activity is more than journals or patents. Diverse strands of literature on knowledge and knowledge production including Mode 2, Learning modes and the notion of co-production of knowledge and social order are drawn and critically reviewed to elucidate the characteristics of citizen participatory transdisciplinary research.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 변순천 외 (2015), 사회문제해결형 기술개발사업: 2015년도 사업계획 적정성 재검토 보고서, 한국과학기술기획평가원.
  2. 성지은 (2018), 연구개발-사회-대학의 혁신모델로서 리빙랩활동의 현황과 과제, 동명대 리빙랩 포럼, 2018.10.25.
  3. 성지은.송위진.박인용 (2014), 사용자 주도형 혁신모델로서 리빙랩 사례 분석과 적용 가능성 탐색, 기술혁신학회지, 17권 2호, 309-333쪽.
  4. 성지은.한규영.정서화 (2016), 지역문제해결을 위한 국내리빙랩 사례 분석, 과학기술학연구, 16권 2호, 65-98쪽.
  5. 송위진 (2015), 사회문제 해결형 혁신정책과 혁신정책의 재해석, 과학기술학연구, 15권 2호, 135-162쪽.
  6. 송위진 엮음 (2017), 사회.기술시스템 전환: 이론과 실천, 한울아카데미.
  7. 임홍탁 (2014), 국민의 창의성과 사용자/현장중심 혁신, 기술혁신연구 22권 3호. 135-166쪽. https://doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2014.22.3.135
  8. 주은경 (2017), 지자체와 사회혁신 "독산4동 2023 독산행복마을", 제 3회 한국리빙랩네트워크 세미나 발표자료, 2017. 7. 12.
  9. 한국과학기술기획평가원 (2018), 제2차 과학기술 기반 국민생활(사회) 문제해결 종합계획(2018-2022) 주요내용, KISTEP InI, 26권 가을호, 38-47쪽.
  10. 한국에너지기술평가원 (2017), '16년 에너지기술 수용성 제고 및 사업화 촉진사업 1차 성과공유 워크숍, 발표자료, 전략컨설팅집현, 2017. 4.
  11. Benham, C. & K.A. Daniell. (2016), "Putting transdisciplinary research into practice: A participatory approach to understanding change in coastal social-ecological systems", Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 128, pp. 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.005
  12. Brandt, P., Ernst, A, Gralla, F., Luederitz, G., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., Reinert, F., Abson, D. J. & H. von Wehrden. (2013), "A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science", Ecological Economics, Vol. 92. pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.04.008
  13. Brister, E., (2016), "Disciplinary capture and epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research: Lessons from central African conservation disputes", Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 56. pp. 82-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.001
  14. Bunders, J. & Leydesdorff, L. (1987), "The Causes and Consequences of Collaborations between Scientists and Non-scientific Groups", in Blume, S., Bunders, J., Leydesdorff, L. and Whitley, R. ed., The Social Direction of the Public Sciences. pp. 331-348, D. Reidel Publishing Company.
  15. Bush, V. (1945), Science - The Endless Frontier: A report to the President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research, National Science Foundation reprint in 1960.
  16. Collins, H. M. & Evans, R. (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
  17. Darbellay, F. (2015), "Rethinking inter-and transdisciplinarity: Undisciplined knowledge and the emergence of new thought style", Futures, Vol. 65, pp. 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.009
  18. de Jong, S.P.L., T. Wardenaar & E. Horlings. (2016), "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes", Research Policy, Vol. 45(7), pp. 1397-1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.008
  19. Efstathiou, S. (2016), "Is it possible to give scientific solutions to Grand Challenges? On the idea of grand challenges for life science research", Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 56, pp. 48-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.009
  20. Felt, U., J. Igelsbock, A. Schikowitz & T. Volker. (2016), "Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research in Practice: Between Imagainaries of Collective Experimentation and Entrenched Academic Value Order", Science, Technology & Human Value, Vol. 4(4), pp. 732-761.
  21. Geels, F. W. (2004), "From sectoral system of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory", Research Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 897-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
  22. Gibbons, M., Nowonty, H., Limoges, C., Trow, M., Schwartzman, S. & Scott, P. (1994), The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage.
  23. Gibbons, M. (1999), "Scienceʼs new social contract with society", Nature, Vol. 402, C81-C84 https://doi.org/10.1038/35011576
  24. Guston, D. H. (2000), Between Politics and Science, Cambridge University Press: New York & Cambridge.
  25. Hess, D. J. (2005), "Technology- and Product-oriented Movements: Approximating Social Movements Studies and Science and Technology Studies", Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 30, pp. 515-535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905276499
  26. Jasanoff (2004), "The idiom of co-production", in Jasanoff, S. ed. pp. 1-12, States of Knowledge. Routledge: London & New York.
  27. Jensen, M.B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, & Lundvall B.A. (2007), "Forms of Knowledge and modes of innovation", Research Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
  28. Lenhard, J., Lucking, H. & Schwechheimer, H. (2006), "Expert Knowledge, Mode-2 and Scientific disciplines: Two contrasting views", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 33(5), pp. 341-350. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778876
  29. Maasen, S. & Lieven, O. (2006), "Transdisciplinarity: a new mode of governing science?", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 33(6), pp. 399-410. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154306781778803
  30. Mangenatin, V. & Callon, M. (1995), "Technological competition, strategies of the firms and the choice of the first users: the case of road guidance technologies", Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 441-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)00776-P
  31. Mitchell, C., D. Cordell & D. Fam. (2015), "Beginning at the end: The outcome spaces framework to guide purposive transdisciplinary research", Futures, Vol. 65, pp. 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.007
  32. Molina, A. H. (1994), "Understanding the emergence of a large-scale European initiative in technology", Science and Public Policy, Vol. 21, pp. 31-41.
  33. Nowonty, H., P. Scott & M. Gibbons (2001), Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty, Polity Press.
  34. Ostrom, E., (1990), Governing the commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press.
  35. Parks, R.B., Baker, P.C., Kiser, L., Oakerson, R., Ostrom, E., Ostrom, V., Percy, S., Vandivort, M., Whitaker, G., & Wilson, R., (1981), "Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional considerations", Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 9(7), pp. 1001-1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x
  36. Pinch, T. & Bijkeer, W. (1987), "The social construction of Facts and Artifacts: or How the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other," in Bijker, W., Hughes, T. & Pinch, T. ed. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. pp. 17-50, Cambridge, MIT Press.
  37. Polanyi, M. (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Anchor Books.
  38. Rosendahl, J., M.A. Zanella, S. Rist & J. Weigelt. (2015), "Scientistsʼsituated knowledge: Strong objectivity in transdisciplinarity", Futures, Vol. 65, pp. 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.10.011
  39. Schot, J. & E. Steinmueller. (2018), "Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change", Research Policy, Vol. 47, pp. 1554-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
  40. Shinn, T. (2002), "The Triple Helix and New Production of Knowledge: Prepackaged Thinking on Science and Technology", Social Studies of Science, Vol.32, pp. 599-614. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631202128967271
  41. Thoren, H. & L. Breian. (2016), "Stepping Stone or stumbling block? Mode 2 knowledge production in sustainability science", Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 56, pp. 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.11.002
  42. Vargo, S. L. & R. F. Lusch. (2004), "Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68, pp. 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036