Undone science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and industrial transitions
Author | Intae Choi |
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1905 |
Date | 01 February 2019 |
Published date | 01 February 2019 |
BOOK REVIEW
Undone science: Social movements, mobilized publics,
and industrial transitions
By David J. Hess. The MIT Press, 2016. 258 pages. Paperback. $35.00.
ISBN: 9780262529495.
This book can act as a valuable guide to governments and policy
practitioners seeking to form and implement science and technology
policy. First, the author points out several excluded areas in science
and technology policy that have resulted from complex political, cul-
tural, and historical contexts as well as information controlled prob-
lems by a few elite bureaucrats and politicians. This is a kind of
“Undone Science.”Then, the theories and concepts regarding Social
Movements Studies and Science and Technology Studies are reviewed
with different dimensions to emphasize mobilization for public inter-
ests. The roles of various civilian organizations, including business cor-
porations, community groups, and networks of science experts are
important for materializing the public interests when civilian organiza-
tions are participate in public policy processes (Hess, 2016; 201).
The complexity of modern science and technology policy is
increasing, because various citizen for social equality and improve-
ment of quality of life are expanding. Because this policy area is full
of huge uncertainty and variability, there might be a kind of fallibility
given that a few elites make exclusive policy decisions. Therefore, an
open‐door policy process might be necessary to negotiate and arbi-
trate with diverse stakeholders. Meanwhile, if there are many players
in policy process, it can cause conflicting goals for governments to
pursue and prioritize when in implementing policies due to the diver-
sification of values. Hence, it is an important matter in which direction
the governments should enforce the policies.
There can be two conflicting vectors in implementing policy,
seeking stability, or instability. Seeking stability refers to the pursuit
of planning and control to maintain the status quo. On the other hand,
seeking instability often takes the form of policy innovation, original
attempts, and pioneering. The top‐down approach to implementation
ensures stability, while the bottom‐up approach to implementation
creates more instability compared with the top‐down approach. The
top‐down approach can bring stability of public administration to gov-
ernments because this way has functional rationality and governments
can obtain normativity and legitimacy of public administration and pol-
icy implementation. However, there is a less probability that sufficient
discussions between various parties involved in science and technol-
ogy policy will be reflected in this policy process. In the case of the
bottom‐up implementation, the situation or context surrounding pol-
icy can be diversely interpreted though the policy objective may
become ambiguous due to dynamic interactions.
Aligned with the book, bottom‐up policy practices might be
expanded in science and technology policies because several policy
participants including citizens, community organizations, and other
stakeholders are open to engagement in the policy process. These
days policy is the product of compromises, and several conflicts
among stakeholders requiring compromises are reflected in the imple-
mentation process. Furthermore, as a series of conditions are deepen-
ing such as the limitations of government capabilities and the need for
improved policy flexibility, the need for bottom‐up policy processing
should be expanded in science and technology policy areas. It may
prove better for governments to secure several repertoires of various
policies by attempting and exploring policy scenarios even though this
approach would prove unstable in uncertain situations. Nonetheless, it
will enable governments to respond to the needs of their citizens in a
timely manner and enhance both democracy and the transparency of
the policy process.
ORCID
Intae Choi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-804X
Intae Choi
Department of Public Administration, Yonsei University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea
Correspondence
Intae Choi, 302, YonheeHall, 50, Yonsei‐ro, Seodaemun‐gu,
Seoul, Republic of Korea (03722).
Email: intae9294@gmail.com
REFERENCE
Hess, D. J. (2016). Undone science: Social movements, mobilized publics, and
industrial transitions. MIT Press.
Received: 18 October 2018 Accepted: 16 November 2018
DOI: 10.1002/pa.1905
J Public Affairs. 2019;19:e1905.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1905
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of1
To continue reading
Request your trial