STI Policy Review

Science & Technology Policy Institute (과학기술정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A 'Mode 3' Science Policy Framework for South Korea - Toward a Responsible Innovation System

  • Kim, Gouk Tae (Strategic Planning Center, Korea Advanced Institute of Science & Technology (KAIST))
  • Published : 2017.12.14
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This article advocates for a Mode 3 science policy. Compared to the university research-based Mode 1 knowledge production system and the knowledge application-centric Mode 2 innovation system, Mode 3 can be defined as a system that integrates both Mode 1 and Mode 2-type knowledge production models. In this article, based on the major characteristics of the Mode 3 scientific knowledge production system, I agree with the advocates of Mode 3 that constructing a knowledge society requires an inclusive form of knowledge production and innovation system through the democratization of knowledge production as well as the promotion of social values. Moreover, the mechanisms for creating accountable innovation in the Mode 3 system should be given more attention from the science research and policy communities to make public policy for scientific and technological innovation more reflective of social changes. Similar to the ways that the Mode 1 and Mode 2 scientific knowledge production approaches have influenced the development of science policy models, the Mode 3 scientific knowledge production approach, or Mode 3 science, also has the potential to shape a new science policy model. I will refer to this as Mode 3 science policy. In an effort to conceptualize the democracy- and society-centric Mode 3 science policy model, I will articulate science policy strategies in four science policy domains in South Korea from the context of the Mode 3 science approach. These include (1) evaluation of publicly-funded research activities, (2) valorization of scientific knowledge (that is, enhancement of the value of scientific knowledge through governmental action), (3) development of a science policy decision-making support system, and (4) anticipatory foresight of science, technology and society. When adopting and implementing a Mode 3 science framework, one progressive change is to increase socially desirable innovation such as responsible innovation.

Keywords

References

  1. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. M. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engage ment and integration. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 979-1000). (3rd ed). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Baycan, T. (2013). Knowledge commercialization and valorization in regional economic development: New perspectives and challenges. In T. Baycan (Ed.), Knowledge commercialization and valorization in regional economic development (pp. 3-20). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
  3. Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science become an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  4. Bozeman, B. & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science & Public Policy, 32(2), 119-136. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154305781779588
  5. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-1
  6. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2007). A "Mode 3" systems approach for knowledge creation, diffusion, and use: Towards a twenty-first century fractal innovation ecosystem. In E. G. Carayannis & C. Ziemnowicz (Eds.), Rediscovering Schumpeter: Creative destruction evolving into "Mode 3" (pp.71-111). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Carayannis, E. G. & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012a). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: 21stcentury democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. New York: Springer.
  8. Carayannis, E. G. & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012b). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. In E. G. Carayannis (Ed.), Sustainable policy application for social ecology and development (pp. 29-59). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
  9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: Arts, democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix innovation system. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(12) 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-3-1
  10. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J., & Rehman, S. S. (2016). Mode 3 knowledge production: Systems and systems theory, clusters and networks. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 5(17), 1-24.
  11. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235-296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312702032002003
  12. Etzkowitz, H. (2014). Making a humanities town: Knowledge-infused clusters, civic entrepreneurship and civil society in local innovation systems. Triple Helix, 2(1), 1-22.
  13. Etzkowitz, H. & Cai, Y. (2014). Towards a three-layer Triple Helix model for understanding innovation systems (Extended Abstract). XIV Triple Helix Conference, 1-7.
  14. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  15. Fruhmann, J., Omann, I. & Rauschmayer, F. (2009). Conceptualizing 'Mode-3 Science': Integral research on sustainable development and quality of life. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.455&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  16. Gibbons, M. (1999). Science's new social contract with society. Nature, 402, C81-84. https://doi.org/10.1038/35011576
  17. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scottm, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
  18. Godoe, H. (2007). Doing innovative research: "Mode 3" and methodological challenges in leveraging the best of three worlds. In E. G. Carayannis & C. Ziemnowicz (Eds.), Rediscovering Schumpeter: Creative destruction evolving into "Mode 3" (pp. 344-361). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  19. Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding 'anticipatory governance'. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669
  20. Hessels, L. K. & Lente, H. (2010). The mixed blessing of mode 2 knowledge production, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, 6(1), 65-69.
  21. Ho, W. K. (2017, February 16). Concerned anticipation of and suggestion for science policy in the era of the 4th industrial revolution. Science On by the Hankyoreh Newspaper, Retried from http://scienceon.hani.co.kr/492336
  22. Jasanoff, S. (2004). Afterword. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 274-282). New York: Routledge.
  23. Kim, G. T. (2015). Promoting public engagement in STI policy through crowdsourcing. Presentation at the Korean Association for Public Administration Summer Conference. South Korea.
  24. Kim, G. T., Kim, S. Y., Park, B. S., Lee, D. Y. & Baek, G. H. (2013). Recent trends of Science of Science Policy (SoSP) and their implications for planning further development of K2Base system. Seoul: KISTEP.
  25. Kleinman, D. L. (2005). Science and technology in society: From biotechnology to the internet. Malden. MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  26. Klepsch, A. (1995). Foreword. In J. Simon & J. Durant (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conference in Europe (p. 7). London, UK: Science Museum.
  27. Ko, J. M. (2017, July 24). Public committee to discuss fate of korean nuclear reactors kicks off. Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea. Retrieved from http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2017&no=496981
  28. Lee, C. H. (2017, September 3). Criticism of Presidential Office's Logic of Ideal Engineers in South Korea. OhmyNews. Retrieved from http://ohmynews.com
  29. Lee, C. W., Lee, H. Ho., & Park, K. S. (2010). An inquiry into the Triple Helix as a new regional innovation model. Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea, 13(3), 335-353. https://doi.org/10.23841/egsk.2010.13.3.335
  30. Logar, N. (2011). Scholarly science policy models and real polity, RSD for SciSIP in US Misssion Agencies, Policy Sciences, 44(249), 249-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9136-4
  31. Low, S. (2017), The futures of climate engineering. Earth's Future, 5, 67-71. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000442
  32. Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning. (MSIP) (2017). Press release on new education programs of the engineering education reform plan. Retrieved from http://eiec.kdi.re.kr/skin_2016/common/epicdownload.jsp?num=163050&filenum=1
  33. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, Maiden. MA: Polity Press.
  34. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2006). Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters: A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe, and Asia (pp. 39-66). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
  35. OECD. (2017). Gross domestic expenditure on R-D by sector of performance and socio-economic objective in NABS2007. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=GERD_OBJECTIVE_NABS2007
  36. Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D. (2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27-50). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
  37. Park, E. H. (2017, September 2). The issues of presidential office's view on scientists and engineers in South Korea. The Kyunghyang Shinmun. Retrieved from http://m.khan.co.kr
  38. Park, H. W. (2014). Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David F. J. Campbell. Scientometrics, 99(1), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1124-3
  39. Park, M. & Jeong, S. O. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities for science and technology: Cases of KAIST and POSTECH. STI Policy Review, 5(1), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.22675/STIPR.2014.5.1.131
  40. Popescu, L. G. (2013). From a holistic approach of public policy to co-governance. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 20(7), 95-108.
  41. Research Planning Center of KAIST. (2016). The plan for selecting and funding problem-based interdisciplinary research, KAIST, 1-4.
  42. Schneidewind, U., Singer-Vrodowski, M., Augenstein, K., & Stelzer, F. (2016). Pledge for a transformative science: A conceptual framework. Wuppertal Paper, 191, 1-28.
  43. Sclove, R. E. (2000). Town meeting on technology: Consensus conferences on democratic participation. In D. L. Kleinman (ed.), Science, Technology and Democracy (pp. 33-48). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  44. Seong, J., Song, W. & Lim, H. (2016). The rise of korean innovation policy for social problem-solving: A policy niche for transition? STI Policy Review, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.22675/STIPR.2016.7.1.001
  45. Shim, W. H. (2017, July 14). KHNP suspends construction of 2 nuclear power plants. The Korea Herald, Retrieved from http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170714000336
  46. Tartaruga, I. G. P., Cazarotto, R. S., Martins, C. H. B. & Fukui, A. (2016). Innovation and public understanding of science: Possibility of new indicators for the analysis of public attitudes to science, technology and innovation (MPRA Paper 76262), 1-26. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/76262/1/MPRA_paper_76262.pdf
  47. Van Geenhuizen, M. V. (2011). Entrepreneurial university activity: Can field or living labs be supportive? 19th Triple Helix Conference. July 11-14, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
  48. Zastrow, M. (2016). South Korea's Nobel dream. Nature, 534, 20-23. https://doi.org/10.1038/534020a