• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.99-147
• /
• 2016

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.

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.159-191
• /
• 2016

In order to deal with uncertainty and conflicting interests in technological risk policy-making, various participatory decision-making models have been practiced. This participatory approach is an alterative to the traditional process of science and technology policy-making where scientific experts provide evidence and government officials make decisions. However, there still remain different opinions on who should play what kind of role in decision-making process. Therefore this paper examines the division of labour in the public deliberations for radioactive waste management policy carried out in the UK and Korea. It discusses the ways in which various actors are defined, and the rationales are employed for allocating actors to certain roles and participatory methods. In so doing, this paper unfolds the ways in which the participatory decision-making process for risk governance is delivered in real policy context. Similarities and differences revealed in the division of labour of two cases contribute to development of radioactive waste management policy and the policy instruments for risk governance.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.3 no.1 s.5
• /
• pp.75-103
• /
• 2003

The technological risk has two major aspects. The one is technological aspect of the risk which consists of rules of nature and rational behaviors of humans. The other is social aspect of risk which consists of human values and nonrational and emotional behaviors of humans. So the technological risks should be called and treated as the technological and social risks. Because of these, not only technological professionals but also public people should have the chance to participate in the management of technological risks.

• Proceedings of the Korea Contents Association Conference
• /
• 2007.11a
• /
• pp.183-187
• /
• 2007

During the recent decades in democratic and industrialized countries, government policies for governing technological innovation and risks to environment and human health have undergone significant changes. The shift from a top-down legislative approach to a more inclusive and deliberative atmosphere is, putatively the most prominent change. Such a move is often described as a move from government to governance. In the governance of technology and risk, public engagement has been a major strategy in technology decision-making process. This article aims to look into the changes in the procedural modes of technology decision-making process. It discusses the main viewpoints that have been placed on the basis of such a move. Also, it further relates the changes in local decision-making process to science and technology decision-making at global level. It argues that the democratic and reflexive trends in local science and technology decision-making will be the basis upon which to shape and respond to global governance system: while international decision-making process would require accountability in integrating different values and rationalities, such accountability may be sustained and reinforced depending on the robustness of the local decisions and social choices.

• Proceedings of the Korea Technology Innovation Society Conference
• /
• 2017.05a
• /
• pp.827-843
• /
• 2017

민군기술협력사업은 민과 군의 공동활용 기술개발 및 기술의 상호이전을 추진하는 사업으로, 민군기술의 융합을 바탕으로 과학기술을 효과적으로 획득하고 활용하기 위한 국가정책이다. 1998년 이후 현재까지 정부주도의 다양한 민군기술협력사업 진흥정책이 시행되었으나, 일관성있는 범 부처자원의 추진체계 및 위원회와 참여기관간의 상호협력 부족으로 그 효과가 극대화되지 못하고 있어 민군기술협력사업의 효율적인 정책 추진 방안에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 본 연구에서는 정부의 기본계획에 대해 각 수립 시기별로 민군기술협력 거버넌스 변화에 따른 민군기술협력사업의 연구 성과와 민군 기술의 상호 영향성과 문제점을 확인하고, 이를 기반으로 거버넌스에 의한 민군기술협력 사업의 활성화 영향에 대해 분석하였다. 향후 민군기술협력의 시너지 개선을 위하여, 민군기술협력 사업의 정책 주체인 정부부처-위원회-전문가집단 관계구조의 발전 방향에 대해 추가 연구할 예정이다.

• Asia-pacific Journal of Multimedia Services Convergent with Art, Humanities, and Sociology
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.37-46
• /
• 2017

In this research, we conducted an empirical study on the influence of social capital on cooperative governance for the Gwangju city social economy. The results of the study are as follows. First, the social capital factor commonly affecting cooperative governance is trust. Secondly, we were able to learn that there was a difference in the results of the hierarchical regression analysis to grasp the magnitude of the relative influence of detailed elements of social capital by cooperative governance factors in order. Network(4.843) exerted the most influence in Common Decision-making, followed by Trust(3.855). Trust(3.130) exerted the most influence on Management of Governance, followed by Network(2.936). Network(2.647) exerted the most influence on Cowork System, followed by Trust(2.244). Finally, Network(4.153) exerted the most influence on Partnership Building, followed by Trust(2.244). In particular, 'Participation' was an important factor in 'Co-work System'.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.15 no.2
• /
• pp.135-162
• /
• 2015

The purpose of this article is to reinterpret the existing innovation policy with 'the societal innovation policy' framework. It is looking into characteristics of societal innovation policy and the prospects for socio-technical systems transition and citizen participation are discussed. After the discussion, new interpretation of innovation policy elements will be dealt with lenses of societal innovation policy. It sheds new light on the key elements of innovation policy, such as Innovation policy governance, industrial innovation policy, regional innovation policy, and infrastructure policy and suggests direction of policy improvements from societal innovation policy perspectives. This will be an opportunity to reinterpret the existing innovation policy measures and to approach to science technology innovation policy for system transition with participatory perspective.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.43-93
• /
• 2018

The concept of citizen science(CS) is defined as "scientific work carried out by citizens." Here, 'citizen' means someone who has knowledge of everyday life, regardless of whether they have formal expertise in a related field. This definition may encompass scientists, as many scientists participate in scientific democracy and use their expertise in a citizen-oriented manner. That work is derived from their citizenship, so their scientific work is CS. CS in Korea has expanded from the Korea Pollution Research Institute, which was founded in 1982, to the Center for Democracy in Science & Technology, which was founded in 1997. Furthermore, in recent years, government agencies have started using CS approach. In this paper, I introduce Korean CS and examine its accomplishments and difficulties through eight cases. I show that Korea's CS activities have made a significant impact on Korean society and the experience of these activities has implications for the future directions of CS. I do so by examining four modes of CS and explore practical messages for more varied roles of CS. Until now CS has been mainly considered in the context of "CS as education" or "CS as movement" in Korea. However, governance and the platform mode of social decision-making or research, though still rare, have recently emerged as additional CS activities. Although it cannot be said with certainty that CS is better, it is undoubtedly better the more varieties of its modes coexist. The four types of CS will contribute individually or complementarily to social learning. Thus, because of its distinctive potential, CS is not exhausted by the supplementary concept of science.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.310-321
• /
• 2012

This study was conducted to establish collaborative governance for North Korean Refugees' settlement support service. Three major actors were identified. At the central government level, there is no control center to coordinate various functions. This study suggested three roles for central government in collborative governance, which are policy planning based on public value, allocating financial resources to implementing organizations, and program evaluation for securing public accountability. The rloes of local government are establishing communication channels between implementing participants, maintenancing good relations, and coordination. Finally, the role of private actors is developing high quality service programs, connecting local resources for settlement service.

• Journal of Science and Technology Studies
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.85-125
• /
• 2014

This paper explores what we call 'the problem of undone social science' by examining the lack of interests in the social, ethical, and legal issues of synthetic biology among social scientists in Korea. This new field of science, which has emerged in the twenty-first century with the promise of solving future problems of energy, food, and disease in the world, has also created a considerable degree of anxiety over the issues of bioethics, biosafety, and biosecurity. From its beginning, therefore, researchers of synthetic biology in Europe and the U.S. have sought to engage social scientists in their projects. Yet scientists and social scientists in Korea have shown no sign of working together to deal with both potential benefits and risks of synthetic biology. Why this silence? What strategic moves would be needed to overcome the structural barrier for their collaboration? Surveying the diverse methodologies developed during and after ELSI (ethical, legal, social implications) experiments, this paper aims to provide three suggestions that might make possible mutually profitable and continuously stimulating dialogues between the two worlds of science and social science: first, institutionalize the ELSI studies on any newly emerging science and technology of concern; second, explore diverse post-ELSI methodologies experimented elsewhere and develop ones that might be applicable best to the Korean situation; and third and perhaps most important, create an intellectual space and a lawful protection for social scientists to exercise their research freedom at the reasonable level and receive a fair review by their peers, not solely by funding agencies and scientific organizations.