Postdoctoral Researcher @ #DigitAg | PhD in Political Science and Sociology | Specializing in Social Studies of Science and Technology: ICT Policy, Digital Agriculture, Neuroscience, and Twin Transition
As discussed throughout this paper, not only were the Big Neurosciences announced within a short ... more As discussed throughout this paper, not only were the Big Neurosciences announced within a short period of time between 2013 and 2016 but also their goals and organisation significantly differ from each other, which made it challenging to refer to the circulation of policy models (i.e., Crespy & Leresche, this issue). Then, how can we understand this sudden “wave of Big Neurosciences”? What has brought about this “wave,” and what would be an adequate framework to grasp this phenomenon? This paper intends to answer these questions by comparing three cases, including the HBP of the EC, the BRAIN of the US government, and the KBI of the Korean government. In doing so, it proposes the framework of travelling vision and sociotechnical imaginary as a framework for examining a “wave” without a distinguishable model.
Unlike other developed countries, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) discourse has become the... more Unlike other developed countries, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) discourse has become the central element within technology governance in Korea. This paper examines the reasons for the discourse's success and its political and social implications. Based on the analysis of policy documents and the media coverage, I argue that political and economic elites have actively introduced the 4IR discourse to create novel momentum for promoting Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and to justify deregulatory measures while re-enacting the developmentalist imaginary. I also highlight that the 4IR discourse's promoters have drawn upon the dialectics between the desirable future and the nation's shared fear to urge the Korean society to accept the measures privileging the industry as the means of making the nation a developed country and avoiding being colonized again.
As discussed throughout this paper, not only were the Big Neurosciences announced within a short ... more As discussed throughout this paper, not only were the Big Neurosciences announced within a short period of time between 2013 and 2016 but also their goals and organisation significantly differ from each other, which made it challenging to refer to the circulation of policy models (i.e., Crespy & Leresche, this issue). Then, how can we understand this sudden “wave of Big Neurosciences”? What has brought about this “wave,” and what would be an adequate framework to grasp this phenomenon? This paper intends to answer these questions by comparing three cases, including the HBP of the EC, the BRAIN of the US government, and the KBI of the Korean government. In doing so, it proposes the framework of travelling vision and sociotechnical imaginary as a framework for examining a “wave” without a distinguishable model.
Unlike other developed countries, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) discourse has become the... more Unlike other developed countries, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) discourse has become the central element within technology governance in Korea. This paper examines the reasons for the discourse's success and its political and social implications. Based on the analysis of policy documents and the media coverage, I argue that political and economic elites have actively introduced the 4IR discourse to create novel momentum for promoting Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and to justify deregulatory measures while re-enacting the developmentalist imaginary. I also highlight that the 4IR discourse's promoters have drawn upon the dialectics between the desirable future and the nation's shared fear to urge the Korean society to accept the measures privileging the industry as the means of making the nation a developed country and avoiding being colonized again.
Uploads
Papers by Jongheon Kim
This paper intends to answer these questions by comparing three cases, including the HBP of the EC, the BRAIN of the US government, and the KBI of the Korean government. In doing so, it proposes the framework of travelling vision and sociotechnical imaginary as a framework for examining a “wave” without a distinguishable model.
This paper intends to answer these questions by comparing three cases, including the HBP of the EC, the BRAIN of the US government, and the KBI of the Korean government. In doing so, it proposes the framework of travelling vision and sociotechnical imaginary as a framework for examining a “wave” without a distinguishable model.