Journal of Science and Technology Studies (과학기술학연구)

Korean Association of Science and Technology Studies (한국과학기술학회)
권호 표지

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

과학기술과 사회 연계에 대한 담론: 사회참여형 과학기술 평가방법의 적용가능성 모색

  • Received : 2015.11.17
  • Accepted : 2015.12.20
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

과학 스스로의 거리두기 이면에는 과학이 사회로부터 신뢰를 회복하고 사회 속에 융화되려는 노력이 잠재되어 있다고 할 것이다. 과학이 사회로부터 신뢰를 회복하려는 자구적 노력은 과학기술의 급속한 진화, 사회로부터의 지속된 불신, 공적자금 출연에 의한 과학자의 책무성에 따라 더욱 가시화됨에 따라, 많은 학자로부터 과학과 사회의 연계 필요성이 제기되어 왔다. 이에 본 연구는 과학기술과 사회와의 연계를 위해 사회참여형 과학기술 평가에 초점을 두고 그 실현 가능성을 탐색하였다. 이를 위해 다양한 평가 방법론, 사회참여를 위한 전제요건 및 장애요인을 제시하였다. 평가방법론에서는 목적론적 측면과 행태적 측면으로 구분하여 형성평가, 총괄평가, 권한부여평가, 협력평가, 이해당사자 평가를 제시하였고, 전제요건으로는 과학 언어의 공유, 과학자와 시민사회의 인식의 변화를 제시하였으며 장애요인으로 평가참여자간의 시각의 차이, 평가지표의 복잡성을 제시하였다. 본 연구는 이러한 전제요건의 선결과 장애요인의 극복 하에서 목적과 행태에 부합하는 평가방법론의 선택이 필요함을 강조한다. 다만, 사회참여형 과학기술평가를 도입하기 위해서는 이를 수용할 수 있는 사회시스템의 정립과 평가자 스스로의 인식과 자발성이 수반되어야 그 효과성이 가시화될 수 있음을 제안한다.

Keywords

References

  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. 한재각 (2004), 국가연구개발사업 개혁을 위한 시민사회의 시각: 분석틀과 평가기준의 제안, 과학기술학연구, 제4권 제2호, 한국과학기술학회
  20. Arnason, V. (2012), "Scientific citizenship in a democratic society", Public Understanding of Science, 22(8): 927-940 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512449598
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/097172189900400106
  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 https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737014004397
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009340580
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508401082002
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2011.03.004
  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 https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct007
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819702400614
  38. Feenberg, A. (1999), Questioning Technology, London and New York: Routledge
  39. 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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909345839
  40. Fetterman, D, Kaftarian, S. & Wandersman, A. (1996), Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self-assessment and Accountability, London: Sage
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.017
  48. Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1989), Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, SAGE
  49. Hrzonsky, J. and Houghton, K. (2001), "The meaning of a defined accounting concept", Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2): 123-139 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(00)00020-9
  50. Irwin, A. (2006), "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with New Scientific Governance", Social Studies of Science, 36(2): 299-320 https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706053350
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311262
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389004042326
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509335456
  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 https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780461
  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 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2012.751012
  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. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2005), "A typology of public engagement mechanism", Science, Technology and Human Values, 30: 251-290 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724
  72. Rowe, G. & Fewer, L. (2004), "Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda", Science, Technology and Human Values, 29: 512-556 https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903259197
  73. 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 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01905.x
  74. Schwartzenberg, R. G. (2001), Dix mesures pour rapprocher scienc e et societe, http://www.recherche.gouv.fr/discours/2001/voeux.htm
  75. Scriven, M. (2001), "Evaluation: Future tense", American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3): 301-307 https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200303
  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 https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8701100501
  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 https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2014.882097
  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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.08.002
  81. Weiss, C. (1998), "Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?", American Journal of Evaluation, 19:21-33 https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409801900103
  82. Weiss, C. (1999), "The Interface between Evaluation and Public Policy", Evaluation, 5(4): 468-486 https://doi.org/10.1177/135638909900500408
  83. Wynne, B. (1989), "Sheepfarming after Chenobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information", Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31:10-39