Browse > Article

The discourse on how to integrate society and science: the applicability of participatory evaluation  

Kim, Tae Hee (한국연구재단)
Publication Information
Journal of Science and Technology Studies / v.15, no.2, 2015 , pp. 163-189 More about this Journal
Abstract
While Science tries to be far from Society, it actually does yearn for the trust from Society, on the other side. Its efforts getting back the trust has been witnessed with its fast evolution, consistent distrust from Society and Scientists' accountability with investment of public fund. Furthermore, many scholars have argued that there is the need to integrate science and society. In this regards, this paper explores how to integrate both spheres by participatory evaluation. To identify how the participatory evaluation works and should be, three main issues are mentioned. One is about evaluation methods; Objective-oriented and Behaviour aspects. Second is about prerequisite factors; sharing scientific language and changed recognition between civil society and scientists. Third is about challenge to be tackled; epistemological gap among evaluators and complex index. Under these issues, this paper sets out that the participatory evaluation should adopt the appropriate evaluation methodology. Last but not least, self-recognition and motivation by evaluators themselves are important factors, along with societal system which can take participatory evaluation.
Keywords
Science and Society; Participatory Evaluation; Evaluation Methods; Evaluation Index;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 김동광 (2002), 생명공학과 시민참여: 재조합 DNA 논쟁에 대한 사례 연구, 과학기술학연구, 제2권 제1호
2 김명수 (1993), 공공정책평가론, 박영사
3 김왕동, 성지은, 송위진 (2014), 사회문제 해결형 R&D를 위한 출연연의 평가시스템 개선방향, 과학기술학연구, 제14권 제1호
4 김왕동, 송위진, 성지은 (2013), 과학기술혁신을 통한 창조경제와 국민행복의 선순환, 과학기술정책연구원 Issue & Policy, 67: 1-17
5 김태희 (2012), 국가연구개발사업을 통한 국제공동연구 성과 제고 방안에 대한 연구, 기술혁신학회지, 제15권 제2호: 400-420
6 박성민 (2011), R&D 프로젝트의 성과평가를 위한 DEA 효율성 지수와 정규화지표의 합치도 분석, 대한경영학회지, 제24권 제4호
7 성지은, 김미, 임홍탁, 김은정 (2014), 연구개발사업의 사회적 파급효과 분석 가능성과 과제, 과학기술학 연구, 제14권 제2호, 한국과학기술학회
8 성지은 (2012), 과학기술조정체계의 변화 분석: 일본, 미국, 핀란드 과학기술조정체계를 중심으로, 한국정책과학학회보, 제16권 제2호: 213-238
9 송성수 (2001), 과학기술과 사회의 채널 구축을 위한 정책방향, 과학기술정책, 131, 과학기술정책연구원
10 송위진, 성지은, 임홍탁, 장영배 (2013), 사회문제 해결형 연구개발사업 발전방안 연구, 정책연구, 과학기술정책연구원
11 송위진 (2014), 사회문제 해결형 연구개발사업의 의의와 과제, 과학기술정책, 제24권 제2호, 과학기술정책연구원
12 송위진 (2005), 국가연구개발사업과 시민참여; 현황과 의의, 경제와 사회, 67
13 양희승 (2004), 연구평가지표의 개선방안: 국가연구개발사업을 중심으로, 2004 동계학술대회, 한국행정학회
14 이영희 (2014), 과학기술 시티즌십의 두 유형과 전문성의 정치, 동향과 전망, 92
15 이영희 (2000), 과학기술의 사회학: 과학기술과 현대사회에 대한 성찰, 한울아카데미
16 이영희 (1995), 과학기술과 사회의 상호관계, 연구보고, 95-25, 과학기술정책관리연구소
17 이우성, 송치웅, 현성재, 김보현 (2010), 과학기술의 선진화를 위한 지표개발 연구, 정책연구, 2010.12
18 정인숙 (2008), 디지털전환 정책에 대한 형성평가 분석, 한국방송학보, 제22권 제5호
19 Arnason, V. (2012), "Scientific citizenship in a democratic society", Public Understanding of Science, 22(8): 927-940   DOI
20 한재각 (2004), 국가연구개발사업 개혁을 위한 시민사회의 시각: 분석틀과 평가기준의 제안, 과학기술학연구, 제4권 제2호, 한국과학기술학회
21 Bammer, G. (2005), "Integration and Implementation Sciences: Building a new Specialization", Ecology and Society, 10(2)
22 Banthien, H and Herz, J. (2001), "Evaluation of internet-based discourses concerning innovation and technical analyses", discussion paper, conference e-society, Berlin.
23 Berman, P., & M. McLaughlin (1977), Federal programs supporting educational change, Santa Monica, Rand Corporation
24 Callon, M. (1989), Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis, in Bijker et al. 83-103
25 Callon, M. (1999), "The Role of Lay People in the Production and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge", Science, Technology and Society, 4: 81-94   DOI
26 COPUS (1995), Wolfendale Report, http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/ostbusiness/index.htm
27 Cousins, J. & Earl, L. (1992), "The case for participatory evaluation", Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4): 397-418   DOI
28 Cousins, J. & Whitmore, E. (1998), "Framing Participatory Evaluation, In E. Whitmore, Ed, Understanding and Practicing Participatory Evaluation", New Directions for Evaluation 80.
29 Cullen, A. (2009), The politics and consequences of stakeholder participation in international development evaluations, doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo
30 Daigneault, P. & Jacob, S. (2009), "Toward Accurate Measurement of Participation: Rethinking the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Participatory Evaluation", American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3): 330-348   DOI
31 Damasio, A. (1995), Decartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. New York: Harpercollins
32 Delanty, G. (2001), "The University in the Knowledge Society", Organization, 8(2): 149-153   DOI
33 Delemarle, A. (2014), "A rationale for public intervention in disruptive technological development: public policy tools as trust-enabling mechanisms", Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 26(1)
34 Delvenne, P., Fallon, C. and Brunet, S. (2011), "Parliamentary Technology Assessment as Indications of Reflexive Modernization", Technology in Society, 33: 36-43   DOI
35 Derrick, G. & Pavone, V. (2013), "Democratising research evaluation: Achieving greater public engagement with bibliometrics-informed peer review", Science and Public Policy, 40: 563-575   DOI
36 Dryzek, J. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics and Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press
37 Fawcett, S., Lewis A., Andrews, A, Francisco, V., Richter, K., Williams E. & Copple, B. (1997), "Evaluating Community Coalitions for Prevention of Substance Abuse: The Case of Project Freedom", Health Education and Behaviour, 24(6): 812-828   DOI
38 Feenberg, A. (1999), Questioning Technology, London and New York: Routledge
39 Fetterman, D, Kaftarian, S. & Wandersman, A. (1996), Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Accountability, London: Sage
40 Felt, U., Fochler, M. & Winkler, P. (2010), "Coming to terms with biomedical technologies in different technopolitical cultures: A comparative analysis of focus groups on organ transplantation and genetic testing in Austria, France and the Netherlands", Science, Technology & Human Values, 35: 525-553   DOI
41 Flora, J., Maccoby, N. and Farquahar, J. (1989), Communication campaigns to prevent cardiovascular disease, The Stanford studies, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA
42 Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. (1993), "Science for the post-normal age", Futures, 25: 739-755   DOI
43 Genus, A. & Coles, A. (2005), "Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions", research policy, 37: 1436-1445
44 Geurts, J. and Mayer, I. (1996), Methods for participatory policy analysis: Towards a conceptual model for research and development. Work and Organization Research Centre Report, 96.12.008/3, Tilburg
45 Glenn, J. (2003), Framing Democracy, Civil Society and Civic Movements in Eastern Europe, Stanford: Stanford University Press
46 Gouldner, A. (1976), The dialectic of ideology and technology, New York: Oxford University Press
47 Greene, J. (2013), "Logic and evaluation theory", Evaluation and Program Planning, 38: 71-73   DOI
48 Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, SAGE
49 Irwin, A. (2006), "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with New Scientific Governance", Social Studies of Science, 36(2): 299-320   DOI
50 Hrzonsky, J. and Houghton, K. (2001), "The meaning of a defined accounting concept", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2): 123-139   DOI
51 Isin, E. F. & Turner, B.S. (2002), Citizenship studies: An introduction, Handbook of Citizenship Studies, London: SAGE
52 Jacques Ellul, (1964), The Technological Society, trans. John Wilkinson, New York
53 Jasanoff, S. (2004), States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order, London, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
54 Krimsky, S. (1984), Beyond Technocracy: New Routes for Citizen Involvement in Social Risk Assessment, Univ. Mass. Press
55 Lengwiler, M. (2008), "Participatory approaches in science and technology", Science, Technology and Human Values, 33: 186-200   DOI
56 Lotter, D. (2008), "The genetic engineering of food and the failure of science, part 2: Academic capitalism and the loss of scientific integrity", International Journal of the Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 16: 50-68
57 March, J. & Sevon, G. (1988), "Gossip, Information and Decision-making", in James G. march(ed.), Decisions and Organizations, pp 429-424, Cambridge, Basil Blackwell
58 Mark, M. & Henry, G. (2004), "The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence", Evaluation, 10(1): 35-57   DOI
59 Mathison, S. (2005), Encyclopedia of evaluation, Thousand Oaks, Sage
60 Mejlgaard, N. & Stares, S. (2010), "Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship", Public Understanding of Science, 19(5): 545-561   DOI
61 Mejlgaard, N., Ravn, T. and Degn, L. (2010), Monitoring Policy and Resaerch Activities on Science in Society in Europe, The Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, 17 s.
62 Mertens D. & Wilson, A. (2012), Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide, New York: Guilford
63 Murray, T. and Mehlman, M. (2000), Encyclopedia of ethical, legal, and policy issues in biotechnology, New York: John Wiley & Sons, volumes 2
64 Nelkin D. (1978), "Threats and Promises: Negotiating the Control of Research", Daedalus 107: 191-209
65 Nowotny, H. (2003), "Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge", Science and Public Policy, 30: 151-156   DOI
66 Patton, M. (1997), Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications
67 Rask M, and Worthington, R. (2011), Towards a new concept of global governance. In: Worthington R, Rask M, Lammi M (eds) Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance, London: Verso, pp. 1-19
68 Rask, M. (2013), "The Tragedy of Citizen Deliberation - Two Cases of Participatory Technology Assessment", Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 25(1): 39-55   DOI
69 Rose, H. and Rose, S. (1976), The Political Economy of the Natural Sciences, London: Macmillan
70 Rossi, P., Lipsey, M. and Freeman, H. (2004), Evaluation: A System Approach, London: Sage
71 Schwartzenberg, R. G. (2001), Dix mesures pour rapprocher scienc e et societe, http://www.recherche.gouv.fr/discours/2001/voeux.htm
72 Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2005), "A typology of public engagement mechanism", Science, Technology and Human Values, 30: 251-290   DOI
73 Rowe, G. & Fewer, L. (2004), "Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda", Science, Technology and Human Values, 29: 512-556   DOI
74 Saurugger, S. (2010), "The social construction of the participatory turn: The emergence of a norm in the European Union", European Journal of Political Research, 49: 471-495   DOI
75 Scriven, M. (2001), "Evaluation: Future tense", American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3): 301-307   DOI
76 Shadish, W. & Epstein, R. (1987), "Patterns of program evaluation practice among members of the evaluation research society and evaluation network", Evaluation Review, 11: 555-590   DOI
77 Touraine, A. (1971), The Post-Industrial Society: Tomorrow's Social History: Classes, Conflicts and Culture in the Programmed Society, New York: Random House
78 Van Oudheusden, M. (2014), "Where are the Politics in Responsible Innovation? European Governance, Technology Assessment, and Beyond", Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1(1): 67-86   DOI
79 von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing innovation, Cambridge: The MIT Press
80 Walter, A., Helgenberger, S., Wiek, A., and Scholz, R. (2007), "Measuring Societal Effects of Transdisciplinary Research Projects", Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4): 325-338   DOI
81 Wynne, B. (1989), "Sheepfarming after Chenobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information", Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31:10-39
82 Weiss, C. (1998), "Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?", American Journal of Evaluation, 19:21-33   DOI
83 Weiss, C. (1999), "The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy", Evaluation, 5(4): 468-486   DOI