|
|
|
| Science and Technology Governance in Post-modern Society: Connotation, Principle and Theoretical Direction |
| Li Yang,Meng Wei |
| (School of Public Administration, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In recent years, science and technology (S&T) governance has been widely used by both academics and practitioners to distinguish it from the traditional S&T management. However, due to the divergence of views on governance, the connotation and denotation of S&T governance are vague, and the theoretical components are of fragmentation and conflict with each other. This, in turn, limits the guiding function of S&T governance for S&T innovation practice. Hence,this paper aims to answer three fundamental questions: What is S&T governance? Why should we adopt S&T governance? How should we act in S&T governance? #br#It can be found that, through retrospecting the history of S&T institutionalization in China, the governance paradigm changes are closely related with the transitions of characteristics of S&T innovation activities in different historical stages. Since the founding of New China, S&T innovation has witnessed a process of continuous strengthening in institutionalization. As human beings step into the post-modern society, some new problems have been emerging in the social collective actions around S&T innovation: "unmanageability" of S&T development issues, the VUCA(Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) as the prominent characteristic of process of S&T innovation, high dependence of innovation to cooperation, diminishment of marginal utility of S&T investment, institutional lag triggered by the acceleration of changes of S&T, etc. But the S&T management which advocates institutionalization seems to fail to deal with these challenges, because it's difficult to put forward the solutions to these problems under the framework of “management”. On the basis of critical reflection on institutionalization, S&T governance puts forward “deconstructivism” as the best medicine to post-modernity, catering for the new changes happening in S&T innovation practices. #br#S&T represents a governance paradigm and action process of S&T social collective action in line with the post-modern society, and it reconstructs the practice which is under the S&T management paradigm from multiple dimensions. First of all, S&T governance replaces the "center-edge" structure with actor-network as action structure. Actor-network redefines the relationship between subject and object, multiple stakeholders participate in the process as governance subjects, and the problems during S&T development are common governance objects. Actor-network aims to achieve global Pareto optimality, and benefit all without harming the interests of part. In addition, the actor-network in S&T governance involves multilateral interaction instead of unilateral interaction. Secondly, S&T governance replaces meta-narratives with post-modern discourse as dialogue form, and this discourse diversion mainly manifested itself in two aspects: in terms of discourse content, S&T dialogue should get rid of the exterior stipulation of administrative discourse and return to the value standard of S&T innovation activities; in terms of dialogue way, post-modern discourse determines the form and content of dialogue according to the space-time situation in which the dialogue takes place, breaks the myth of "absolute authority", respects the voice of “local knowledge”, and emphasizes the two-way and diversified way of dialogue. Thirdly, S&T governance replaces hierarchical organization with cooperative organization as organization form. There are three key features of cooperative organization: to begin with, organization goals, norms and structure are subject to change according to needs in practice, and there is no fixed and solidified group of members; next, specialization at organizational rather than individual level is emphasized, and members are selected according to the demands of cooperation; finally, cooperative organization has no boundary, and it includes not only the actual boundary, but also the mental, cognitive and spiritual boundary. Fourthly, S&T governance replaces institutionalism with activism as interaction form. Activism advocates the mutual construction between S&T actions and institutions, actors should solve problems dynamically in the interaction, rather than laying down institutions in advance to cope with uncertainties. Finally, S&T governance replaces mere output with a benign and sustainable ecosystem as a development goal. In a benign and sustainable S&T ecosystem, output is the automatic result of system′s ecological optimization, and its impetus comes from the adjustment and refinement of internal resource allocation. #br#This study clarifies the principles, connotations and theoretical components of S&T governance, sketches out the blueprint of S&T governance in post-modern society, and answers several fundamental but crucial questions about S&T governance. It innovatively integrates the theoretical propositions, including actor-network, post-modern discourse, cooperative organization, activism, innovation ecosystem into the S&T field. Furthermore, it puts forward some feasible suggestions for the current reform of S&T institution and mechanism.#br#
|
|
Received: 07 March 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 谢琦,陈亮.网络化治理的叙事重构、中国适用性及理论拓展[J].行政论坛,2020,27(3):34-40.
[2] MOYNIHAN D P.The network governance of crisis response: case studies of incident command systems[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 2009(4):895-915.
[3] [美]斯蒂芬·戈德史密斯, 威廉·D·埃格斯. 网络化治理:公共部门的新形态[M]. 孙迎春, 译. 北京:北京大学出版社, 2008.
[4] DAMGAARD B. Do policy networks lead to network governing[J]. Public Administration, 2010, 84(3):673-691.
[5] HOOGHE,LIESBET,MARKS,et al.Unraveling the central state, but how? types of multi-level governance[J]. American Political Science Review, 2003,97(2):233-243.
[6] PETERS B G,PIERRE J.Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance[J]. Policy & Politics, 2001, 29(2):131-135.
[7] STEPHENSON P.Twenty years of multi-level governance:where does it come from? what is it? where is it going[J].Journal of European Public Policy,2013,20(6):817-837.
[8] XIAN G,SONG Y,ZHU X. Integration and coordination: advancing China's fragmented e-government to holistic governance[J]. Government Information Quarterly, 2013, 30(2):173-181.
[9] 竺乾威.从新公共管理到整体性治理[J].中国行政管理,2008,280(10):52-58.
[10] 胡象明,唐波勇.整体性治理:公共管理的新范式[J].华中师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,49(1):11-15.
[11] 李正风,曾国屏.中国创新系统研究——技术、制度与知识[M].济南:山东教育出版社,1999:171.
[12] V·布什.科学:没有止境的前沿[M].北京:商务印书馆, 2005.
[13] 刘霁堂.科学建制化过程与科学家科普责任演变[J].科学学研究,2003,21(6):591-595.
[14] PRICE D J. Little science, big science[C]. New York: Comlumbia University Press,1963.
[15] 刁生富.大科学时代科学家的社会责任[J].自然辩证法研究,2001,17(7):53-56.
[16] S·O·福特沃兹,J·R·拉维茨.后常规科学的兴起[J].吴永忠,译.国外社会科学,1995,10:32-38.
[17] 蔡跃洲.中国共产党领导的科技创新治理及其数字化转型——数据驱动的新型举国体制构建完善视角[J].管理世界,2021,37(8):30-46.
[18] 王岩,魏崇辉.协商治理的中国逻辑[J].中国社会科学,2016,37(7):26-45,204-205.
[19] 查尔斯·J·福克斯,休·T·米勒. 后现代公共行政话语指向[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社,2013.
[20] [美]伊哈布·哈桑. 后现代转向——后现代理论与文化论文集[M]. 刘象愚,译.上海: 上海人民出版社,2015.
[21] 郁建兴,刘大志.治理理论的现代性与后现代性[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2003,49(2):6-14.
[22] [英]安东尼·吉登斯. 现代性的后果[M]. 田禾, 译. 北京: 译林出版社,2000.
[23] CHARLES TAYLOR. A secular age[M]. Boston: Harvard University Press, 2007:146.
[24] 陈志伟.查尔斯·泰勒的脱嵌理论及其影响[J].云南大学学报(社会科学版),2019,18(5):44-50.
[25] BRIAN S. Actor-network theory and stakeholder collaboration: the case of cultural districts[J]. Tourism Management,2005,32(3):641-654.
[26] 中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅印发《关于进一步弘扬科学家精神加强作风和学风建设的意见》[EB/OL]. (2019-06-11)[2022-02-10]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2019-06/11/content_5399239.htm?trs=1.
[27] 胡功胜.解构的原意阐释与误读[J].文艺理论研究,2009,30(1):70-75,83.
[28] 克利福德·吉尔兹. 地方性知识——阐释人类学论文集[M]. 王海龙,张家瑄,译. 北京: 中央编译出版社,2000:295.
[29] W·理查德·斯科特, 杰拉尔德·F·戴维斯.组织理论——理性、自然与开放系统的视角[M]. 高山峻, 译. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2011: 205.
[30] 张康之.论打破信息垄断的组织开放性[J].东南学术,2017,30(4):55-67,247.
[31] 张康之.走向合作制组织:组织模式的重构[J].中国社会科学,2020,41(1):47-63,205.
[32] 包健.创新驱动发展战略下我国科技税收政策分析[J].税务研究,2019,36(10):48-52.
[33] 张康之.公共行政的行动主义[M]. 南京: 江苏人民出版社,2014.
[34] 向玉琼.走向行动主义:建构风险社会中的政策分析范式[J].理论与改革,2022,35(2):143-155.
[35] 孔繁斌.从社会科学的边缘到核心:公共管理学科再认识[J].中国行政管理,2017,33(9):16-20.
[36] 张乾友.行动主义视野中的社会治理转型[J].江汉论坛,2016,59(6):34-41.
|
|
|
|
