Browse > Article

The Past and Future of Public Engagement with Science and Technology  

Kim, Hyomin (UNIST 기초과정부)
Cho, Seung Hee (KAIST 과학기술정책대학원)
Song, Sungsoo (부산대학교 물리교육과)
Publication Information
Journal of Science and Technology Studies / v.16, no.2, 2016 , pp. 99-147 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
Public engagement with science and technology; renewable energy; lay expertise; intermediary expertise;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 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.   DOI
2 Jasanoff, S. (2014), "A Mirror for Science", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 21-26.   DOI
3 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.
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
7 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.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 Michael, M. and N. Brown (2004), "The Meat of the Matter: Grasping and Judging Xenotransplantation", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 13, pp. 379-397.   DOI
10 Michael, M. (2011), "What are We Busy Doing? Engaging the Idiot", Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 37, pp. 528-554.
11 박진희(2008), 시스템 전환, 기후 변화 담론 그리고 재생가능에너지: 한국의 재생가능에너지 정책의 발달, 환경철학, 제7권, pp. 99-135.
12 박희제 (2009), 미국산 쇠고기 파동과 대중의 위험인식의 합리성: 대중의 과학이해 (PUS) 관점, 현상과 인식, 제33권 제4호, pp. 91-116.
13 박희제 . 김은성 . 김종영 (2014), 한국의 과학기술정치와 거버넌스, 과학기술학연구, 제14권 제2호, pp. 1-47.
14 에너지기후정책연구소 (2015), 재생가능에너지 보급에서의 갈등과 해결 방안 연구.
15 염미경 (2008), 풍력발전단지 건설과 지역수용성, 사회과학연구, 제47권, pp. 59-85.
16 염미경 (2009), 신재생에너지시설 입지에 대한 지역주민들의 태도: 풍력발전단지 입지지역 사례를 중심으로, 인문논총, 제24 권, pp. 181-221.
17 염미경 . 허종철 (2009), 풍력발전시설 입지과정에 나타난 갈등양상과 시사점, 지역사회학, 제10권 제2호, pp. 197-223.
18 이영희 (2002), '기술사회'에서의 참여민주주의의 가능성 연구: 과학 기술정책 관련 시민참여 모델 평가를 중심으로, 동향과전망, 제7호, pp. 142-171.
19 이영희 (2012), 전문성의 정치와 사회운동: 의미와 유형, 경제와사회, 제93호, pp. 13-41.
20 이영희 (2014), 과학기술 시티즌십의 두 유형과 전문성의 정치: 과학기술 대중화 정책과 '차일드세이브'의 활동을 중심으로, 동향과 전망, 제10권, pp. 174-211.
21 정태석 (2012), 방폐장 입지선정에서 전문성의 정치와 과학기술적 안전성 담론의 균열, 경제와사회, 제3권, pp. 72-103.
22 최경숙 (2012), 시민들이 방사능 오염을 감시한다, 핵발전과 전문성의 정치 시민과학센터 , 가톨릭대 SSK 연구팀 공동주최 토론회 자료집.
23 최미진 (2014), 방사능에 대한시민사회의 위험인식과 대응, 가톨릭 대학교 사회학과 석사학위논문.
24 현재환 . 홍성욱 (2012), 시민참여를 통한 과학기술 거버넌스: STS의 '참여적 전환' 내의 다양한 입장에 대한 역사적 인식론, 과학기술학연구, 제12권 제2호, pp. 33-79.
25 홍덕화 . 이영희 (2014), 한국의 에너지 운동과 에너지 시티즌십. 유형과 특징, ECO, 제18권 제1호, pp. 7-44.
26 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.   DOI
27 Bloor, D. (1976), Knowledge and Social Imagery, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
28 Collins, H. (1985), Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice, London: Sage.
29 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.   DOI
30 Department of Trade and Industry (2000), Excellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st Century, London: The Stationery Office.
31 Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998), Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report, London: The Stationery Office.
32 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.   DOI
33 Phillips, L., Bridgeman, J. and Ferguson-Smith, M. (2000), The BSE Inquiry: The Report, London: The Stationery Office.
34 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.   DOI
35 Shapin, S. and S. Schaffer (1985), Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
36 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.   DOI
37 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.
38 Wakeford, T. (2001), "A Comparison of Deliberative Processes", PLA Notes, Vol. 40, pp. 7-19.
39 Wynne, B. (1992), "Misunderstood Misunderstandings: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, pp. 281-304.   DOI
40 Wynne, B. (2002), "Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?", Current Sociology, Vol. 50, pp. 459-477.   DOI
41 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.   DOI
42 Department of Trade and Industry (2003), GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate, London. http://www.gmnation.org.uk.
43 De Vries, G. (2007), "What is Political in Sub-politics?: How Aristotle Might Help STS", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 37, pp. 781-809.   DOI
44 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.
45 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.   DOI
46 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.   DOI
47 Functowicz, S. and J. Ravetz (1999), "Post-Normal Science: an Insight Now Maturing", Futures, Vol. 31, pp. 641-646.   DOI
48 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.
49 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.
50 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.
51 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.
52 Wynne B (2011), "Lab Work Goes Social, and Vice Versa: Strategising Public Engagement Processes", Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 17, pp. 791-800.   DOI
53 World Health Organization (1999), Guidelines for Community Noise.
54 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.
55 Guston, D. H. (2000), Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56 Horst, M. (2014), "On the Weakness of Strong Ties", Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 23, pp. 43-47.   DOI
57 House of Lords (2000), Science and Society, London, House of Lords.
58 Irwin, A. (1995), Citizen science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, London: Routledge.
59 Irwin, A. (2006), "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the 'New' Scientific Governance", Social Studies of Science, Vol. 36, pp. 299-320.   DOI
60 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.   DOI
61 Irwin, A. and M. Michael (2003), Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Maidenhead, Berks: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
62 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.   DOI
63 Jasanoff, S. (2003b), "Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science", Minerva, Vol. 41, pp. 226-227.
64 Jasanoff, S. (2005a), Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
65 김동주 (2009), 풍력발전단지 건설 갈등과 바람자원의 공유화, 제주학회 제33차 전국학술대회 자료집. 제주학회, 2009년 11월 20일, 제주.
66 강윤재 (2011), 광우병 위험과 촛불집회: 과학적인가 정치적인가?, 경제와 사회, 제89권, pp. 269-297.
67 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.
68 권순덕 외 (2014), 풍력발전단지 설치에 따른 산지관리방안 연구, 국립산림과학원.
69 김동주 (2012), 제주도 바람의 사회적 변형과 그 함의: 자원화와 공유화, ECO, 제16권 제1호, pp. 106-204.
70 김동주 (2015), 자연의 사회적 변형과 풍력발전: 제주도 바람의 자본화와 공유화운동, 제주대학교사회학과 박사학위논문.
71 김종영 (2011), 대항지식의 구성: 미 쇠고기 수입반대 촛불운동에서의 전문가들의 혼성적 연대와 대항논리의 형성, 한국사회학, 제45권 제1호, pp. 109-152.
72 김혜정. (2011), 후쿠시마 이후의 한국 반핵운동과 시민사회의 역할, 시민과 세계, 제19권 제1호, pp. 136-150.