This dissertation examines the debates and discourses surrounding the Korean Astronaut Program (KAP) using the concepts of sociotechnical imaginaries, sociotechnical vanguards, and the construction of expertise. Based on documentary analysis and oral interviews, this research considers KAP as an example of how the visions of sociotechnical vanguards conflict and their failure to construct a unified sociotechnical imaginary. Furthermore, it contends that the expertization of the Korean astronaut failed because of the public openness of KAP. KAP was proposed by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) and run by the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI). These two sociotechnical vanguards, MOST and KARI, provided different visions to the Korean public sphere, which already ascribed to its own image of an astronaut. MOST imagined the future Korea as a science-loving nation in which especially the next generations would have a strong interest in science and technology. Thus, MOST defined KAP as a science popularizing program and the Korean astronaut as a science popularizer. However, imagining a better Korea with better science and technology, KARI defined KAP as a research program that would lead to human space flight technology and considered the Korean astronaut a space expert. However, in the Korean public sphere, the widely shared expectation was a better Korea with a Korean heroic astronaut, because having a hero similar to that in other countries could position Korea on par with other advanced countries. These three visions conflicted in Korean society during KAP, and none of them succeeded in becoming the dominant sociotechnical imaginary. This elicited severe criticism of KAP and the Korean astronaut. KAP was also a good example of expertization with public openness. Credibility is the most important part of modern scientific practice. Without credibility, scientific experts cannot exercise their authority. Credibility rests on social markers such as academic degrees, track records, and institutional affiliation. However, these social markers are not suddenly assigned to an expert, who spends much time and effort attaining them. Rather, experts are made in a continuous process of improvement. Therefore, this research focuses on the process through which a person becomes an expert in emerging science and proposes the new terminology: expertization. Usually, the expertization process is hidden behind a public image. People do not know how experts obtain social markers, despite believing that these verify expertise. However, when the expertization process open to the public, it could be easily destroyed. KARI tried to position the Korean astronaut as a space expert. The first Korean astronaut did not become an expert overnight, but emerged as such to the Korean public through a selection process, training, and spaceflight. However, unlike other expertization, all steps comprising KAP were broadcast, and the expertization of Dr. Soyeon Yi, the first Korean astronaut, was open to the public. Consequently, her expertise was questioned each time the public found an element that did not satisfy their expectations. This research also clarifies the meaning of gender in emerging science. Dr. Soyeon Yi became the first Korean astronaut before any Korean male. In this way, KAP provided an important meaning to women in science, especially in the field of emerging science, which is usually dominated by males. Through these discussions, this research expands the application of sociotechnical imaginary and expert studies. It also enhances understanding of these discourses in Korean society, and stimulates discussions of the negative consequences of research programs. / Doctor of Philosophy / In April 2008, the first Korean Astronaut, Dr. Soyeon Yi, was launched to the International Space Station. The Korean nation welcomed their astronaut and believed this marked Korea's entry into the space age. However, before long, this aspiration changed to severe criticism. This research analyzes the Korean Astronaut Program (KAP) from its proposal to after its spaceflight in terms of its reception by Korean society. The Korean Astronaut Program was proposed by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) to overcome the science and engineering crisis in 2004. As such, MOST defined KAP as a science-popularization program and the Korean astronaut as a science popularizer. However, as the first human space program in Korea, the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), who ran KAP, considered it a research program to achieve human spaceflight technology and the Korean astronaut a space expert. These two different understandings were communicated to the Korean public sphere. However, the Korean pubic already had its own image of the "heroic" astronaut based on other countries' space programs and popular culture. The public thought that having an astronaut would position the country on par with other countries. Because the visions of MOST, KARI, and the Korean public differed, KAP could not satisfy the expectations of all three actors. In addition, the process through which Dr. Yi became the first Korean astronaut was opened to the Korean public. Consequently, when the public found an element that did not satisfy their expectations, they doubted Dr. Yi as a space expert, bringing about severe criticism of KAP and the concept of the Korean astronaut.

Historical accounts depict NASA's interactions with American citizens beyond government agencies and aerospace firms since the 1950s and 1960s as efforts to 'sell' its human space flight initiatives and to position external publics as would-be observers, consumers, and supporters of such activities. Characterizing citizens solely as celebrants of NASA's successes, however, masks the myriad publics, engagement modes, and influences that comprised NASA's efforts to forge connections between human space flight and citizens after Apollo 11 culminated. While corroborating the premise that NASA constantly seeks public and political approval for its costly human space programs, I argue that maintaining legitimacy in light of shifting social attitudes, political priorities, and divided interest in space flight required NASA to reconsider how to serve and engage external publics vis-à-vis its next major human space program, the Space Shuttle. Adopting a sociotechnical imaginary featuring the Shuttle as a versatile technology that promised something for everyone, NASA sought to engage citizens with the Shuttle in ways appealing to their varied, expressed interests and became dependent on some publics' direct involvement to render the vehicle viable economically, socially, and politically. NASA's ability and willingness to democratize the Shuttle proved difficult to sustain, however, as concerns evolved following the Challenger accident among NASA personnel, political officials, and external publics about the Shuttle's purpose, value, safety, and propriety. Mapping the publics and engagement modes NASA regarded as crucial to the Shuttle's legitimacy, this case study exposes the visions of public accountability and other influences -- including changing perceptions of a technology -- that can govern how technoscientific institutions perceive and engage various external publics. Doing so illuminates the prospects and challenges associated with democratizing decisions and uses for space and, perhaps, other technologies managed by U.S. government agencies while suggesting a new pathway for scholarly inquiry regarding interactions between technoscientific institutions and external publics. Expanding NASA's historical narrative, this study demonstrates that entities not typically recognized as space program contributors played significant roles in shaping the Shuttle program, substantively and culturally. Conceptualizing and valuing external publics in these ways may prove key for NASA to sustain human space flight going forward. / Ph. D.

Nous posons deux questions : quels sont les facteurs qui influencent l’engagement de chercheurs dans la vulgarisation ? quels effets, pour lui-même, un chercheur peut-il tirer de la vulgarisation ? Après un historique synthétique brossant différents paradigmes de la communication publique des sciences, nous explorons 20 enquêtes réalisées entre 1967 et 2014. Celles-ci interrogent les chercheurs. Nous les critiquons une à une et dégageons certaines tendances. La vulgarisation a globalement « bonne presse » et l’engagement des chercheurs semble faible mais robuste. Les études de type « enquête d’opinion » tendent à laisser déclarer le diagnostic et les préconisations aux chercheurs eux-mêmes, d’autres utilisent des modèles théoriques, moins déclaratifs, et des divergences apparaissent autour l’influence du « regard des autres » notamment. La question des effets n’est pas analysée. Pour explorer plus avant nos deux questions, nous utilisons deux démarches. D’une part adapter un modèle théorique, la théorie du comportement planifié, au corpus des doctorants de l’université de Bourgogne ; d’autre part, profiter de mon expérience de responsable de l’Experimentarium, programme de vulgarisation qui, depuis 17 ans, engage des doctorants. L’enquête utilisant la théorie du comportement planifié détermine des facteurs d’engagement principaux : le comportement passé, l’attitude envers la vulgarisation, l’avis des collègues. Au-delà de tendances générales, des analyses multifactorielles permettent de mieux cerner, au cas par cas, les facteurs qui influencent l’engagement de chacun. Chaque doctorant a une histoire. L’observation de l’Experimentarium appuie l’influence de l’attitude, du plaisir à vulgariser, ainsi que l’importance de la socialisation conséquente de certaines actions de vulgarisation. Ces critères sont à la fois facteurs d’engagement et effets pour le chercheur. L’importance de « prendre soin » des doctorants vulgarisateurs est soutenue. Elle conduit à une dynamique réconfort - remotivation pour la recherche. L’action réjouissante menée avec des pairs (à qui on peut parler), l’encouragement du public, l’acquisition d’aptitudes pour mieux s’exprimer et cerner son sujet contribuent à « faire exister » le vécu du chercheur et à le dynamiser dans son travail scientifique. Plus généralement, certaines actions de vulgarisation gonflent la pratique scientifique de sens. In fine, nous proposons un schéma définissant trois postures communicationnelles, basées sur des « pelures d’identité » : le soi, le chercheur, le présentateur. Ce schéma explique des effets potentiels en fonction de situations de vulgarisation. Les dynamiques de communication sont causes et conséquences d’ajustements sur ces postures et de la porosité de ces pelures d’identité. Cette schématisation conduit à aborder le concept de réflexivité, constitutif de situations de vulgarisation et qui peut provoquer certains effets sur le chercheur. Ces réflexions invitent à penser la vulgarisation, non comme une tâche ou un devoir à remplir, mais comme une situation qui – si elle est préparée, observée, ajustée et donc réflexive – peut être source d’émancipation pour le public, mais également pour le chercheur. / We examine two questions: what factors influence the engagement of researchers in public engagement activities ? what effects, for himself, can a researcher derive from popularization (or public communication of sciences and technologies : PCST)? After a synthetic history brushing different paradigms of the PCST, we investigate 20 studies carried out between 1967 and 2014. These interrogate the researchers. We criticize them one by one and clear some trends. PCST has generally "good press" and the commitment of researchers seems weak but robust. Opinion-type studies tend to allow the diagnosis and recommendations to be declared to the researchers themselves, others use less declarative theoretical models, and divergences appear around the influence of the "gaze of others" especially. The question of effects is not analyzed. To explore our two questions further, we use two approaches. On the one hand adapting a theoretical model, the theory of planned behavior, to the corpus of PhD students of the University of Burgundy; on the other hand, to take advantage of my experience as head of the Experimentarium, an extension program which, for 17 years, has been hiring doctoral students. The survey using the theory of planned behavior determines the main factors of engagement: past behavior, attitude towards extension, the opinion of colleagues. Beyond general trends, multifactorial analyzes make it possible to better identify, on a case by case basis, the factors that influence the commitment of each one.Each doctoral student has its own history. The observation of the Experimentarium supports the influence of attitude, pleasure to popularize, as well as the importance of the consequent socialization of actions of popularisation. These criteria are both factors of commitment and effects for the researcher. ...These reflections invite thinking about popularisation, not as a task or a duty to be fulfilled, but as a situation which - if prepared, observed, adjusted and therefore reflexive - can be a source of emancipation for the public but also for the searcher.

In february 2017 the maternity ward in Sollefteå was shut down. The citizens of the surrounding area, Ådalen, thus have more than two hours - with private transportation on narrow roads without phone connection - to the nearest maternity ward. The shutdown is a result of various developments in society, connected to larger structures of power that present these changes as natural and inevitable. This qualitative study explores the relationship between individual and structure by examining the area of Ådalen and its inhabitants’ access to maternity care. The emphasis lay on power dynamics within - and between - different structures and how these come to influence people’s everyday life. With ethnographic material collected through in depth-interviews and observations, the impact of these power structures are exemplified and discussed from the perspectives of a few individuals. The relevant structures are examined through three norms; a male norm, a neoliberal norm and an urban norm. The analysis problematize how the norms, through the conceptions of women, rurality and human values they reproduce, influence access to maternity care and limit the agency of the study’s participants. The analysis is based on power theories of both Foucault and Bourdieu. Foucault’s theories of subject and resistance are used to examine structural exercise of power and the informants’ collective actions and experiences. While Bourdieu’s theories of habitus, capital and field are used to analyze the informants’ individual perceptions of power. The power structures discussed are tied together by an intersectional framework, which enables a broader analysis of how these structures cooperate and strengthen each other. The study shows the complexity of power where the local movements challenge prevailing structures through mobilization and resistance. / I februari 2017 stängdes Sollefteå BB. Invånarna i det omgivande området, Ådalen, har därmed över två timmars bilfärd - med privat transport på smala vägar utan telefontäckning - till närmaste förlossningsvård. Nedstängningen av Sollefteå BB kan förstås som en konsekvens av olika samhälleliga förändringar, vilka är kopplade till större maktstrukturer som får denna utveckling att framstå som naturlig och oundviklig. Denna kvalitativa studie utforskar relationen mellan individ och struktur genom att undersöka Ådalen och dess invånares tillgång till förlossningsvård. Fokus ligger på makt-dynamiken inom, liksom mellan, olika strukturer och hur dessa påverkar människors villkor. Maktstrukturerna exemplifieras och diskuteras utifrån ett antal individers perspektiv, med etnografiskt material insamlat genom djupintervjuer och observationer. De för studien relevanta strukturerna undersöks genom tre normer; en manlig norm, en neoliberal norm och en urban norm. Utifrån dessa normer diskuteras hur informanterna relaterar till makt i kontexten av nedstängningen av Sollefteå BB. Analysen problematiserar hur de olika normerna genom den uppfattning om kvinnor, landsbygd och mänskliga värden som reproduceras påverkar tillgången till förlossningsvård, liksom handlingsutrymmet för studiens deltagare. Analysen utgår från teorier om makt av både Foucault och Bourdieu. Foucaults teorier om bl. a. subjekt och motmakt används för att analysera strukturellt maktutövande och informanternas kollektiva handlingar och upplevelser. Medan Bourdieus teorier om habitus, kapital och fält används för att förstå informanternas individuella erfarenheter av och uppfattningar om makt. De maktstrukturer som diskuteras knyts samman genom ett övergripande intersektionellt ramverk, vilket möjliggör en bredare analys av hur dessa strukturer samarbetar och stärker varandra. Studien visar en komplex bild av makt och maktutövning där de lokala rörelserna i Ådalen utmanar rådande maktstrukturer genom mobilisering och motstånd.

La thèse traite des modalités contemporaines de l’engagement public, à partir d’une recherche menée dans un collectif d’habitants du quartier de la Duchère à Lyon. Elle propose une sociologie des épreuves de vigilance des habitants pour renouveler les cadres d’analyse de l’activité politique en banlieue. Elle entend mettre au jour les conditions concrètes d’émergence et d’exercice de la critique sociale en s’intéressant de façon pragmatique aux compétences déployées par les habitants engagés dans ces épreuves de vigilance. La recherche centre son attention sur le rapport au monde spécifique qui peut se déployer à travers ce type d'engagement dans la localité. Nous proposerons ici une sociologie liant sociologie politique et sociologie urbaine qui permette de rendre compte des divers cheminements qu’emprunte la vigilance. L’analyse doit notamment passer par la reconsidération de l’expérience de la quotidienneté comme expérience politique. Elle prendra en compte également le rapport à l’histoire du quartier qu’entretiennent les habitants de la Duchère, celle-ci faisant figure de ville nouvelle depuis les années soixante. Elle s’attachera enfin à la réflexivité qui s’exerce localement autour du travail social. / This thesis is about the contemporary modalities of public engagement. By focusing on an inhabitants' collective in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Lyon's suburb called « La Duchère », it offers a sociological analysis of the inhabitants' experiencing vigilance and so it aims to renew the analysis patterns of political activity in such neighbourhoods called « banlieue » in France. By employing a pragmatist perspective to investigate the inhabitants' abilities involved in different vigilance processes, it offers an analysis of the practical conditions of emergence and exercise of social critic. By researching the specific relationship to the world that can spread through this type of locality engagement, we'll propose a sociology crossing political and urban analysis to expose the multiple ways vigilance can take. To do so we need to rethink the day-to-day experience as a political experience. We will also consider the specific inhabitants' relation to the neighbourhood's history, “La Duchère”, as it's being defined as a “new town” since the 60's. Finally, we'll be focusing on the reflexivity locally exercised around social work.

In recent times, public engagement has become an increasingly prominent feature of modern public service provision. Contemporary Public Engagement (CPE) has been characterized by the proliferation of new and innovative mechanisms with which to engage and involve the public in any process in which their input is either desired or legally required. This thesis takes a qualitative approach to exploring CPE within the context of local public services in Scotland, with the explicit aim of contribution to the development of conceptual understanding and theory. The design of this project was based on a case study of the Clackmannanshire Community Health Partnership (CHP). The key empirical instruments were semi-structured interviews, a focus group, analysis of key CHP documents and participant observation by the researcher at CHP Committee meetings. This study makes three main contributions to existing knowledge. They are: a Conceptual Framework for explaining CPE within Scottish local public service provision, a Conceptual Model which is based on the Conceptual Framework and presents it at a higher level of abstraction, and the generation of substantive theory rooted in the case study data. The thesis makes two main recommendations. The first is that further comparative research should be undertaken in order to further develop and confirm the validity of Conceptual Model and substantive theory. The second is that meta-analysis should be undertaken to assist in the development of the proposed formal theory of Public Sector Reform.

In recent years, the UK higher education sector has seen notable policy changes with regard to how research is funded, disseminated and evaluated. Important amongst these changes is the emphasis that policy makers have placed on disseminating peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles via Open Access (OA) publishing routes e.g. OA journals or OA repositories. Through the Open Science agenda there have also been a number of initiatives to promote the dissemination of other types of output that have not traditionally been made publicly available via the scholarly communication system, such as data, workflows and methodologies. The UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 introduced social/economic impact of research as an evaluation measure. This has been a significant policy shift away from academic impact being the sole measure of impact and has arguably raised the profile of public engagement activities (although it should be noted that public engagement is not equivalent to social/economic impact, but is an important pathway to realising such impact). This exploratory study sought to investigate the extent to which these recent policy changes are aligned with researchers publication, dissemination and public engagement practices across different disciplines. Furthermore, it sought to identify the perceptions and attitudes of researchers towards the concept of social/economic impact. The study adopted a mixed-methods approach consisting of a questionnaire- based survey and semi-structured interviews with researchers from a broad range of disciplines across the physical, health, engineering, social sciences, and arts and humanities across fifteen UK universities. The work of Becher (1987) and Becher & Trowler (2001) on disciplinary classification was used as an explanatory framework to understand disciplinary differences. The study found evidence of a lack of awareness of the principle of OA by some researchers across all disciplines; and that researchers, in the main, are not sharing their research data, therefore only the few who are doing so are realising the benefits that have been championed in research funders policies. Moreover, the study uncovered that due to the increased emphasis of impact in research evaluation, conflicting goals between researchers and academic leaders exist. The study found that researchers, particularly from Applied and Interdisciplinary (as opposed to Pure) disciplinary groups felt that research outputs such as articles published in practitioner journals were most appropriate in targeting and making research more accessible to practitioners, than prestigious peer-reviewed scholarly journal articles. The thesis argues that there is still more to learn about what impact means to researchers and how it might be measured. The thesis makes an overall contribution to knowledge on a general level by providing greater understanding of how researchers have responded to the impact agenda . On a more specific level, the thesis identifies the effect of the impact agenda on academic autonomy, and situates this in different disciplinary contexts. It identifies that it is not only researchers from Pure disciplines who feel disadvantaged by the impact agenda , but also those from Interdisciplinary and Applied groups who feel an encroachment on their academic autonomy, particularly in selecting channels to disseminate their research and in selecting the relevant audiences they wish to engage with. Implications of the study s findings on researchers, higher education institutions and research funders are highlighted and recommendations to researchers, academic leaders and research funders are given.

BUDI (Building Urban Designs Interactively) is an integrated 3D visualization and remote collaboration platform for complex urban design tasks. Users with different backgrounds can remotely engage in the entire design cycle, improving the quality of the end result. In this paper, I consider the trade-offs encountered when trying to make spatial-based collaboration seamless. Specifically, I detail the multi-dimensional data visualization and interaction the platform provides, and outline how users can interact with and analyze various aspects of urban design. In $BUDI$, the display and interactive environment was designed to seamlessly expand beyond a traditional two-dimensional surface into a fully immersive three-dimensional space. Clients on various devices connect with servers for different functionalities tailored for different user groups. A demonstration with a local urban planning use-case shows the costs and benefits of $BUDI$ as a spatial-based collaborative platform. A performance evaluation with remote collaboration shows how the platform can meet the requirements for real-time and seamless collaboration. / Graduate

This dissertation examines a major policy change in the context of energy decision-making for shale gas development in the province of New Brunswick, Canada. After a long series of public engagement exercises aimed at regulating and promoting the safe development of shale gas resources in New Brunswick, the provincial government implemented a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in 2014 and extended it indefinitely in 2016. The dissertation is interested in how policy-oriented learning may have influenced this policy change from both an empirical and a theoretical perspective. Theoretically, in line with recent scholarship on policy learning, this study trains its sites on the nature of policy learning and how it may influence change. To this end, the dissertation is grounded in the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), a theoretical approach with (i) clearly defined mechanisms of learning, and (ii) significant application to resource development and to case studies of resource development in jurisdictions across North America and globally. The study builds on the ACF by proposing a conception of learning drawing on post-positivist literature. The study argues that learning is too narrowly focused on policy elites in the ACF and should be expanded to consider the role of non-traditional actors. The analysis questions the notion that learning can be isolated to rational and technical understandings amongst policy elites, and aims to integrate interactive knowledge into the analysis as a fundamental component of learning. The research aims to contextualize learning and understand the factors that shape policy learning and policy change. The dissertation focuses on the role of three factors - public engagement, uncertainty and trust - in shaping policy actors' learning. Empirically, the study examines the case of New Brunswick between 2007 and 2017. The province undertook multiple public engagement exercises regarding shale gas development in the context of unknown risks and uncertainty associated with the practice of hydraulic fracturing, an emerging technology that enabled the production of shale gas on a large scale. Two major coalitions emerged that advocated for and against shale development in the province, with the dominant pro-development coalition asserting that shale gas could proceed safely through stringent regulation. Through documentary analysis, interviews and a media analysis, the research reveals that interactive knowledge was a key component of how people learned in the case. The anti-shale coalition in New Brunswick brought its lived experience - notably its lack of trust in public authorities to successfully regulate fracking - to bear on decision-making, and was able to undermine and question the pro-development coalition's position that the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing could be managed. The anti-shale coalition mobilized this knowledge through the government's public engagement exercises and successfully contested the dominant coalition's beliefs. Fundamentally, the study demonstrates that public engagement, uncertainty and trust are three key factors that can shape policy learning and change.

Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOC) are designated geographical locations within the Great Lakes Basin with particularly degraded environmental conditions. There is a consensus among diverse sectors in the Great Lakes Basin that contaminated sediment is a major environmental problem and a key factor in many of the impairments of the human and nonhuman uses (beneficial uses) of the Great Lakes. This case study examines Randle Reef in the Hamilton Harbour (AOC) which is the largest Canadian contaminated sediment site in the Great Lakes containing 695,000 m3 of sediment contaminated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and metals. The cleanup of the Randle Reef site is a major step in the process to restore Hamilton Harbour and remove it from the list of AOCs. The Randle Reef sediment remediation project is finally coming to fruition after more than thirty years of study, discussion, collaborations, and debate. As in the case of Randle Reef, environmental decisions are often complex and multi-faceted and involve many stakeholders with competing (sometimes conflicting) priorities or objectives representing exactly the type of problem that humans are poorly equipped to solve unaided. When professionals encounter complex issues, they often attempt to use approaches that simplify the complexity so that they can manage the problem at hand. During this process, valuable information may be lost, opposite points of view may be ignored and elements of uncertainty may be overlooked. A systematic methodology that combines both quantitative and qualitative data from scientific or engineering studies of risk, cost, and benefit, as well as stakeholder objectives and values to rank project alternatives, has yet to be fully developed for contaminated sediment decision-making. The main goal of this Ph.D. research was to develop a Decision Support System (DSS) framework to aid the complex decision-making in sediment remediation. The proposed DSS framework incorporates the five key themes that, through research, were found to be the most relevant for sediment remediation projects. These themes are 1)participation of appropriate actors with common objectives; 2)funding and resources; 3)decision-making process; 4)research and technology development; and 5)public and political support. There was a need to gather relevant information and data from various sources to develop the required DSS framework. For this purpose, expert interviews were conducted, responses were collected through a public survey, Qualitative Document Analysis (QDA) was performed on available policy and research documents, and a review was undertaken of how other jurisdictions have employed DSS to aid their decision-making process. The final DSS framework has six key components as follows: 1)data module; 2)communication module; 3)document module; 4)knowledge module; 5)tools module; and 6)DSS optimization module. This generic framework can assist practitioners in developing more systematic and structured decisions for sediment remediation by incorporating an Integrated Information Management System (IIMS) along with a DSS optimization module. This IIMS+DSS method can aid the decision-making process by making it documented, reproducible, robust, transparent and provide a coherent framework to explore and analyze available alternatives in an attempt to reach the preferred solution promptly. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)