'대중의 과학기술 이해' 관점에서 공공 연구기관의 과학기술문화 정책대안 효과성 분석 : 한국원자력연구원 사례를 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

1. Introduction
Citizens have a great of interest in the negative effects of science and technology(S&T) and potential hazards such as nuclear issues, environmental pollution, research ethics problems, conflicts among religions. Currently knowledge and activities on S&T are not related only for S&T official and organizations.
New scientific culture paradigm under these changed circumstances is ‘Public Understanding of Science(PUS)’. The concept developed from ‘Popularization of Science’ that featured the branch one-way knowledge transfer and enlightenment. The characteristics of PUS are to emphasize public interaction, social impact of understanding on S&T in oder to be recognized to public the need for S&T and credibility.
This research was performed to analyze the effectiveness of policy alternatives in public research institutes that are major performers of scientific culture policy and significantly affected. Through them , I want to discuss scientific culture policy development directions and the role of public research institutions from the perspective of PUS.
2. Concepts and components of PUS
Public understanding of science is closely related to science communication, which aims to communicate the knowledge of science to society and share knowledge with the public. Both concepts emphasize interaction with the public and bi-directional communication.
Assuming that the overriding goal of scientific culture policies in public research institutes is PUS, the sub-goals and components were derived through theoretical discussions and a review of existing studies. The five components, which were derived from the ‘expanded goals of science communication’ and ‘three components of understanding of S&T’, are as follows.
First is the awareness of science, which is the feeling of familiarity towards science; second is the enjoyment or interest in science, which is an individual’s emotional reaction to science; third is the forming, reforming or confirming of science-related opinions, which is the process of thinking about science and forming personal opinions; fourth is the understanding of theory and processes in S&T, which is an understanding of the theories, content, and processes involved in science and technology; and fifth is the understanding of social impact on S&T, which is an understanding of the impact that science and technology has on society and individuals.
3. Analysis of scientific culture in a public research institute based on the PUS perspective
In order to analyse the scientific culture-related activities of public research institutes based on the five components of PUS, a survey was conducted on the scientific culture-related activities of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute. The pre-survey was conducted through in-depth interviews with staff in charge of scientific culture, and its scope consisted of five activities related to the public and the understanding of science. The standard of analysis applied was effectiveness, meaning the degree of goal achievement.
The analysis showed that the activities were relatively more effective in the components based on individual emotions - awareness of science, and enjoyment or interest in science. However, effectiveness was relatively low in components based on rational thinking - the forming, reforming or confirming of science-related opinions, and understanding of theory and processes in S&T. Moreover, there was little difference in effectiveness between the difference scientific culture-related activities for the respective components of PUS.
Turning to limitations and problems in scientific culture policies at public research institutes from the PUS perspective, first, the policy goals do not reflect the new paradigm of PUS. Although the government’s scientific culture policy goals are making gradual progress, the policy implementor at public research institutes have not successfully made the transition to the new paradigm and remain closer to the ‘popularization of science’ paradigm, which focuses on the unidirectional transmission and dissemination of knowledge.
Second, policy alternatives consist of policy goals and combinations of set policy means to achieve these goals. The fact that there is little difference between policy alternatives in effectiveness shows that there is a lack of rationale in the layered structure and causal relationship between the high-level goal, sub-goals, and policy means, making it unsuitable for accomplishing the defined goals.
Third, despite that public research institutes possess S&T-related information, equipment, and research facilities as research facilities working in highly specialized fields of S&T, there is a lack of specialized scientific culture-related activities for the public.
Finally, there is a lack of policy alternatives suitable for the needs of the public. Currently, scientific culture-related activities at public research institutes are focused on raising the profile of the institute, with the emphasis placed on science and technology rather than the public, There is also a lack of differentiated scientific culture-related activities to address the diverse needs and characteristics of individuals making up the public.
4. Conclusion
Interaction with the public and the restoration of trust in science through such interaction are key factors in achieving PUS. Therefore, the scientific culture-related policy goals of public research institutes have to be adjusted so as to shift away from the popularization of the science paradigm to the new paradigm of PUS.
First, looking at policy implementor, policy means that can utilize the unique characteristics of public research institutes have to be developed. Public research institutes are expert groups who are better positioned to understand and explain the science to the public, more than any other group. The professional manpower, advanced equipment, research facilities, and research outcomes that they possess should be utilized to give the public opportunities to participate in order to fully utilize the strengths of public research institutes.
Second, looking at needs, as reflected in the perceived importance of the sub-components of PUS, the public views emotional aspects such as awareness, enjoyment and interest as being more important than rational aspects such as thinking about science, and the understanding of knowledge, theory and processes. Therefore, policy alternatives that can promote awareness and spark interest in science among the public should be developed. Additionally, different policy alternatives should be developed for different target groups of scientific culture-related activities, so as to better meet the needs of the public,
Finally, to achieve bi-directional communication with the public, there has to be institutional infrastructure to provide comprehensive support and act as a medium between the public, public research institutes, and the media used in the transmission of S&T information. Ultimately, there has to be participatory governance for a scientific culture in which scientific culture policy makers, experts in science and technology, media professionals, and members of the public can share their opinions and be part of the policy making process.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서론 1
• 제1절 연구의 배경 및 목적 1
• 제2절 연구범위 및 방법 4
• 제2장 이론적 논의와 선행연구 10
• 제1절 정책대안에 관한 이론적 논의 10
• 1. 정책대안의 의미와 중요성 10
• 2. 정책대안의 평가기준 12
• 제2절 대중의 과학기술 이해의 개념에 대한 이론적 논의 14
• 1. 대중의 과학기술 이해의 역사적 발전 배경 14
• 2. 대중의 과학기술 이해의 개념과 구성요소 16
• 제3절 대중의 과학기술 이해에 관한 선행연구 검토 22
• 1. 기존 선행연구의 특징과 한계 22
• 2. 본 연구의 차별성 24
• 제4절 연구 분석의 틀 25
• 제3장 PUS 관점에서 공공 연구기관의 과학기술문화 현황 및 정책대안 분석 28
• 제1절 국외 대중의 과학기술 이해 사례의 현황과 특징 28
• 1. 영국의 대중의 과학기술 이해 활동 29
• 2. 미국의 대중의 과학기술 이해 활동 31
• 3. 일본의 대중의 과학기술 이해 활동 33
• 4. 국외 대중의 과학기술 이해 활동의 특징과 시사점 34
• 제2절 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 활동의 현황과 특징 35
• 1. 과학기술분야 정부출연 연구기관의 개념과 현황 35
• 2. 공공 연구기관의 과학기술문화 활동 현황 36
• 3. 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 활동의 특징과 시사점 42
• 제3절 한국원자력연구원 과학기술문화 활동의 효과성 분석 45
• 1. 분석대상, 기준 및 방법 45
• 2. 분석결과 및 해석 48
• 가. 원자력(연) 과학기술문화 활동 설문 응답자의 특성 48
• 나. 원자력(연) 과학기술문화 활동의 효과성 분석 49
• 1) 대중의 과학기술 이해 구성요소의 중요도 인식 49
• 2) 대중의 과학기술 이해 구성요소별 효과성 분석 50
• 3) 과학기술문화 활동별 효과성 분석 51
• 4) 효과성 분석 종합 52
• 다. 대중의 과학기술 이해 관련 기타 분석 결과 56
• 1) 대중의 과학기술 이해의 필요성 인식 56
• 2) 과학기술 분야에 대한 관심 수준 57
• 3) 과학기술 관련 사회적 이슈 및 영향력에 대한 인식 59
• 4) 과학기술 관련 사회적 이슈에 대한 정보 접촉 수준 및 정보원 60
• 제4절 PUS 관점에서 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 정책대안의 한계와 문제점 62
• 1. 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 정책목표의 한계 62
• 2. 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 정책대안의 문제점 65
• 가. 과학기술문화 정책대안(정책목표-정책수단)의 합리성 부족 65
• 나. 주체 측면에서 과학기술문화 정책대안의 차별화 부족 66
• 다. 수요 측면에서 과학기술문화 정책대안의 다양성 부족 67
• 제4장 PUS 관점에서 공공 연구기관의 과학기술문화 정책 발전방향 68
• 제1절 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 정책목표의 발전방향 68
• 제2절 공공 연구기관 과학기술문화 정책대안의 발전방향 72
• 1. 주체 측면의 정책대안 72
• 2. 수요 측면의 정책대안 76
• 3. 인프라 측면의 정책대안 78
• 가. 과학기술문화 매개채(대중↔전달매체↔과학기술) 78
• 나. 과학기술문화 참여 거버넌스 79
• 제5장 결론 81
• 제1절 연구결과 요약 및 함의 81
• 제2절 연구결과의 한계 및 향후 연구과제 86
• 참고문헌 87
• 부록 92
• ABSTRACT 99