Social construction of technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social construction of technology (also referred to as SCOT) is a theory within the field of Science and Technology Studies (or Technology and society). Advocates of SCOT -- that is, social constructivists -- argue that technology does not determine human action, but that rather, human action shapes technology. They also argue that the ways in which a technology is used cannot be understood without understanding how that technology is embedded in its social context. SCOT is a response to technological determinism.

SCOT draws on work done in the constructivist school of the sociology of scientific knowledge, and its subtopics include actor-network theory and sociotechnical System Theory (a branch of the sociology of science and technology). Leading adherents of SCOT include Wiebe Bijker, Trevor Pinch and Bruno Latour.

1 The Strong Programme
2 Criticism
3 References
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] The Strong Programme

[edit] Social Causation

SCOT holds first that those who seek to understand the reasons for acceptance or rejection of a technology should look to the social world. It is not enough, according to SCOT, to explain a technology's success by saying that it is "the best" -- researchers must look at how "best" is defined and at who defines it. In particular, they must ask who defines the technical criteria by which success is measured, why technical criteria are defined in this way, and who is included or excluded and why.

[edit] Symmetry

The strong programme adopts a position of relativism regarding the arguments that social actors put forward for the acceptance/rejection of any technology. All arguments (social, cultural, political, economic, as well as technical) are to be treated equally. When investigating beliefs, researchers should be impartial to the truth or falsehood of those beliefs, and all explanations should be symmetrical, that is, unbiased.

[edit] Interpretative Flexibility

Symmetry creates interpretative flexibility. This means that different and various interpretations exist for the meaning of a technology. For instance, some may see that the automobile is a means of freedom, others a mode of transportation, and still others another way in which women are required to perform familial tasks.

[edit] Relevant Social Groups

The meaning of a technology varies according to social groups. Social groups (and they may be any size from a handful of individuals to entire societies) have shared meanings about the technology. Their meanings about the technology may be favorable or unfavorable.

[edit] Design Flexibility

Just as technologies will have differing meanings to different social groups, there are also different means to construct technologies. In other words, there exists design flexibility towards technical solutions.

[edit] Closure

Over time, as technologies are developed, the interpretative and design flexibility collapse through closure mechanisms. Closure is achieved in a variety of ways.

Closure is not permanent. New social groups may form and re-introduce interpretative flexibility causing a new round of debate or conflict about a technology. (For instance, in the 1890s Automobiles were seen as the "green" alternative, a cleaner environmentally-friendly technology, to horse-powered vehicles; by the 1960s, new social groups had introduced new interpretations about the environmental benefits of the automobile)

Social Explanations: Social groups do not have the power to contest meanings or designs.
Rhetorical Closure: When social groups see the problem as being solved, they will begin to talk about the problem being solved. This is often found in advertising.
Redefinition of the Problem: Often flexibility is eliminated by redefining the problem.

[edit] Criticism

In 1993, Langdon Winner pubished an influential critique of SCOT entitled "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." In it, he raises a few problems with social constructivism:

It explains how technologies arise, but ignores the effects of the technology after the fact.
It is a social construction of knowledge in itself, subject to the same limitations as it postulates ("Who says what are relevant social groups and social interests?")
It disregards dynamics which are not due to its "preferred conceptual strawman: technological determinism."

Other critics include Stewart Russell with his letter in the journal "Social Studies of Science" titled "The Social Construction of Artefacts: A Response to Pinch and Bijker"

[edit] References

Pinch, Trevor J. and Wiebe E. Bijker. "The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other." Social Studies of Science 14 (August 1984): 399-441.
Russell, Stewart. "The Social Construction of Artefacts: Response to Pinch and Bijker." Social Studies of Science 16 (May 1986): 331-346.
Pinch, Trevor J. and Wiebe E. Bijker. "Science, Relativism and the New Sociology of Technology: Reply to Russell." Social Studies of Science 16 (May 1986): 347-360.
Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor J. Pinch, eds. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.
Sismondo, Sergio. "Some Social Constructions." Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993): 515-53.
Winner, Langdon. "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology" in Science Technology & Human Values 18, no 3 (Summer 1993): 362-378.