본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

시민참여형 과학기술 거버넌스의 논의와 실험에 내재된 도구적 관점: 영국 공론화 사례 중심

Instrumental Perspectives in Discourse and Practice of Public Engaged ST Governance: Case Study on UK Public Deliberations

이윤정
기술경영경제학회 (The Korean Society For Technology Management & Economics)|2015.05|기술혁신연구 (JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION)|제23권 제2호|pp. 1-32|DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.14383/SIME.2015.23.2.1

0

조회

0

다운로드

6

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

시민참여공론화과학기술 거버넌스Public deliberationPublic engagementRisk governance정책 도구기술위험 거버넌스Science and technology governancePolicy instrument
주제분류기술정책

초록

지난 30여 년간 서구 민주주의 사회를 중심으로 시민참여형 과학기술 거버넌스에 대한 논의와 실험이 다양하게 이루어졌다. 이에 대한 당위성에는 사회적 공감대가 형성되었지만 이를 통해 궁극적으로 얻고자 하는 목표와 방법론은 다양했다. 본 논문에서는 겉으로주창되는 규범적, 실제적 이유와는 달리 은밀히 내재된 도구적 관점의 시민참여 논리가 갖는정책적 함의를 고찰한다. 사례로 영국의 시민참여형 과학기술 거버넌스 담론의 형성과정과실험을 분석한다. 1990년대 후반부터 제도권의 다양한 정책관련 기관들이 주장한 시민참여형 과학기술 거버넌스의 필요 논리에 이용된 쟁점 및 실제로 시행된 두 공론화 과정(유전자변형 작물의 상업화 관련 GM Dialogue와 방사성 폐기물 처리 방법 관련 CoRWM의 프로그램)에 드러난 도구적 관점을 분석한다. 이를 통해, 시민참여형 과학기술 거버넌스로의 전환시도에는 겉으로 주창된 민주주의적 의사결정과 창의적 문제해결의 목표 외에, 이해관계자들이 자신의 이해 실현을 위해 도구로서 이용하려는 은밀한 시도들이 있었음을 보여준다.

Abstract

Various concepts and practices of public deliberation have been exercised over the last three decades in western countries for science and technology (ST) governance. There has been a general social consensus for the need of such new governance notwithstanding, ends and means to achieve it varied. Among various rationales, while normative and substantive perspectives are explicitly claimed in public as reasons for public engagement in ST policy making, instrumental perspectives tend to be implicitly arranged by interested parties and still affecting policy significantly. This paper therefore, examines the implications of such instrumental perspectives in public engaged ST governance. To do so, this paper analyses the discourses and practices of public deliberation for ST governance in the UK from the late 1990’s until the mid 2000’s. It examines the proposals made by various policy institutions and two real public deliberations- the GM Dialogue for commercialization of genetically modified crops and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management(CoRWM)’s programme. This study finds that policy institutions tried to employ public deliberation as strategic instrument for their policy interest, which contrasted with their outwardly claimed rationales of democratic policy making and better quality in decision for ST governance.

참고문헌 (49)

  1. 이영희, "참여적 위험 거버넌스의 논리와 실천", 동향과 전망, (79), pp.281~314 (2010), 한국사회과학연구회
  2. Genetically Modified Crops and Food, "Barclay, C.", House of Commons Library, ~, pp.House of Commons Library Research Paper 99 (1999), 38
  3. Blowers, A., "Environmental Policy in an International Context, Book2, Environmental Problems as Conflicts of Interest", pp.151~186 (1996), Open University of the Netherlands
  4. Blowers, A., "The International Politics of Nuclear Waste" (1991), Macmillan
  5. Cabinet Office, "Field Work: Weighing Up the Costs and Benefits of GM Crops" (2003), Cabinet Office Strategy Unit
  6. Chilvers, J., "Towards Analytic-deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste", Journal of Risk Research, 10(2), pp.197~222 (2007)
  7. Chilvers, J., "Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice", Science and Technology & Human Values, 33(2), pp.155~185 (2008)
  8. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, "Managing Our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM’s Recommendations to Government, CoRWM Doc 700", Committee on Radioactive Waste Management Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, ~ (2006)
  9. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, "23rd Plenary Meeting Minute", Doc 1417, ~ (2005)
  10. Pest or Panacea? Science, Democracy, and the Promise of Public Participation, "Demeritt, D.S. Dyer", Department of Geography, King’s College London, ~, pp.Environment, Politics and Development, Working Paper Series, No. 10 (2009)
  11. Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Summary of Responses to the Consultation September 2001–March 2002, "Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs", UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Department of Environment Northern Ireland, ~ (2002)
  12. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, "The GM Dialogue: Government response 9 March 2004", ~ (2004)
  13. Department of Trade and Industry, "Our Energy Future－Creating a Low Carbon Economy", TSO, ~ (2003)
  14. Nuclear consultation: public trust in government, "Dorfman, P.", Nuclear consultation working group, ~ (2008)
  15. The ‘Great GM Food Debate’－A Survey of Media Coverage in the First Half of 1999, "Durant, J.", House of Commons, ~, pp.Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology Report no. 138 (2000)
  16. Fiorino, D. J., "Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institutional Mechanisms", Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15(2), pp.226~243 (1990)
  17. Planting Prejudice: How UK Government Support for GM Undermines Sustainable Farming Policies, "Friends of the Earth", Friends of the Earth, England Wales and Northern Ireland, ~ (2007)
  18. Funtowicz, S.O., "Social Theories of Risk", pp.251~273 (1992), Greenwood Press
  19. GeneWatch UK, "Avoiding the difficult issues: A GeneWatch UK report on the Government's response to the ‘GM Nation?'", public debate, ~ (2004)
  20. GM Nation? Steering Board, "GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate", Department of Trade and Industry, ~ (2003)
  21. GM Science Review Panel, "GM Science Review: First Report" (2003), Department of Trade and Industry
  22. GM Science Review Panel, "‘GM Science Review : Second Report’" (2004), Department of Trade and Industry
  23. Greenpeace, "Talking Nonsense－The 2007 Nuclear Consultation", ~ (2007)
  24. Grove-White, R., "Britain’s genetically modified crop controversies: The agriculture and environment biotechnology commission and the negotiation of ‘uncertainty", Community Genetics, 9, pp.170~177 (2006)
  25. Hendriks, C., "Public Deliberation and Interest Organizations: A Study of Responses to Lay Citizens Engagement in Public Policy", 박사, pp.2004
  26. Horlick-Jones, T.G. Rowe, "The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement" (2007), Routledge
  27. Conduct of the GM Public Debate, "House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee", HMSO, ~, pp.Eighteenth Report of Session 02–03 (2003)
  28. Irwin, A., "The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with the ‘New’ Scientific Governance", Social Studies of Science, 36(2), pp.299~320 (2006)
  29. Kemp, R. V., "‘Recent Trends and Developments in Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Experience from the UK", Environment International, 32(8), pp.1021~1032 (2006)
  30. Leach, M.I. Scoones, "Science and Citizens: Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement" (2005), Zed Books
  31. Lehtonen, M., "Pathways towards the nuclear revival in Finland, France, and the UK", Paper presented at the Sussex Energy Group conference “Energy transitions in an interdependent world: what and where are the future social science research agendas?” (2010)
  32. Löfstedt, R., "Social Trust and Risk Management", pp.73~88 (1999), Earthscan
  33. Lövbrand, E., "A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology", Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(4), pp.474~496 (2011)
  34. Mackerron, G., "Learning to Listen : Institutional Change and Legitimation in UK Radioactive Waste Policy", Journal of Risk Research, 12(7–8), pp.989~1008 (2009)
  35. Morton, A., "Nuclear Risk Management on Stage: A Decision Analysis Perspective on the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management", Risk Analysis, 29(5), pp.764~779 (2009)
  36. Office of Science and Technology, "The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making", Department of Trade and Industry, ~ (1997)
  37. Office of Science and Technology, "Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees", Department of Trade and Industry, ~ (2001)
  38. Parkinson, J., "Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy" (2006), Oxford University Press
  39. Pellizzoni, L., "The Myth of the Best Argument: Power, Deliberation and Reason", British Journal of Sociology, 52(1), pp.59~86 (2001)
  40. The Energy Review, A Performance and Innovation Unit Report, February 2002, "Performance and Innovation Unit", Cabinet Office, ~ (2002)
  41. Renn, O., "Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse" (1995), Kluwer Academic Publishers
  42. Second Annual Report, "Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee", HMSO, ~ (1981)
  43. Setting Environmental Standards, "Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution", HMSO, ~ (1998)
  44. Stirling, A., "Risk at a Turning Point?", Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), pp.97~109 (1998)
  45. Stirling, A., "‘Opening Up’ and ‘Closing Down’: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology", Science and Technology & Human Values, 33(2), pp.262~294 (2008)
  46. Response to the Report and Recommendations, "UK Government and Devolved Administrations", Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, ~ (2006)
  47. Wilsdon, J., "See-through SCIENCE: Why public engagement needs to move upstream" (2004)
  48. Wynne, B., "Knowledges in Context", Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(2), pp.111~121 (1991)
  49. Wynne, B., "Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science–Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?", Community Genetics, 9(3), pp.211~220 (2006)

관련 논문AI추천

기술위험 거버넌스에서의 역할분담: 영국과 한국의 방사성폐기물 관리 공론화 사례이윤정기술경영경제학회 · 기술혁신연구2016 · 제24권 제4호참여적 위험 거버넌스의 논리와 실천이영희한국사회과학연구회 · 동향과 전망2010 · 제79호위험기술의 사회적 관리를 향하여?: ‘사용후핵연료공론화위원회’ 활동의 평가이영희제3섹터연구소 · 시민사회와 NGO2017 · 제15권 제1호과학기술과 시민사회 정치패러다임: 과학상점의 대안가능성 탐색손혁상, 정복철국제지역연구원 · 아태연구2008 · 제15권 제2호과학기술정책에 관한 새로운 민주적 참여모델의 모색 : 프랑스의 유전자조작 농식물(GMO) 관련 정책결정과정에서의 비정부행위자의 역할김태수EU연구소 · EU연구2011 · 제28호과학기술 민주화 기획으로서의 합의회의: 한국의 경험이영희한국사회과학연구회 · 동향과 전망2008 · 제73호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (3건)

횡단면분석과 추세분석을 이용한 슈퍼컴퓨팅성능수요 예측박만희pp. 33-54산학협력단 핵심역량이 기술이전과 교육성과에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구권혁재, 윤재홍pp. 55-80혁신의 장애요인이 R&D협력에 미치는 영향허문구, 박정수pp. 81-100
원문 보기