Upload
fpaisey
View
4.098
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The is a brief presentation on the central tenets of Bikjer and Pinch's theory on significant factors at play in forming, developing, adopting, and establishing sociotechnical objects.
Citation preview
Social Construction of
TechnologyFlorence Paisey
April 2011
Table of Contents Definition
Importance
Origins
Core Assumptions
Central Constructs
Leading Advocates
Significant Studies
Limitations
Conclusion
DefinitionThe Theory of the Social Construction of Technology
Definition The Social Construction of Technology
(SCOT) has grown out of the tenets of social constructivism and the sociology of scientific knowledge.
SCOT views the development of technology as an interactive process or discourse among technologists or engineers and relevant (or interested) social groups.
SCOT may be defined as an interactive sociotechnical process that shapes all forms of technology.
ImportanceA Ground-Breaking Perspective
Why SCOT? Technologies or innovations – like the
wheel, the printing press, the bicycle, the assembly line, computers – all shape and organize the world and our lives.
Individuals – you and me – decide what technologies or parts of a technology are useful, profitable, or comfortable – meaningful.
Groups – assemblies of individuals – form, each characterized by particular variables, each group holding a stake in a technology.
Why SCOT? These relevant groups or “stakeholders”
include scientists, technologists, economists, politicians, entrepreneurs, you, and me.
Each stakeholder characterizes innovations with variant problems and solutions – they interpret the innovation differently. One innovation may be a solution – but, also
have a bug. If the “bug” or problem isn’t resolved, the innovation will fail – relevant social groups – or stakeholders will not buy in.
In resolving the problems – accepted more or less by significant groups -- the social has shaped the technical. Hence, sociotechnical.
Origins & Social ConstrucivismSociology of Technology and Science (STS)
Origins The Social Construction of Technology
(SCOT) was introduced in 1984 by Bijker and Pinch.
Their paper – “The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other” introduced the theory and set forth an argument to support it.
The paper identified mechanisms by which the social and the technical interact.
Social Constructivism The sociology of science and the
sociology of technology had been approached separately.
The sociology of science has recently applied the theory of social constructivism to explain its trajectory.
Social Constructivism holds that knowledge is a social construction – (not an ultimate truth). As such knowledge/science can be interpreted in different ways.
Social ConstructivismBijker and Pinch relate this perspective to the
progress of technology.Technologies work or fail because of a
range of heterogeneous interpretations and variables – constraining or driving factors.
Social Constructivism and technology holds that people attach meanings or interpretations to artifacts.
People/social groups direct technological development through their interpretation/meanings – perhaps to fruition; perhaps to defeat.
A Break With the PastPioneering Ideas in the Sociology of Technology
Epistemology and ScienceThe idea that the social shapes science was a new
idea. Science is not directed independently, by an internal
logic or “Determinism.”There is nothing epistemologically special about the
path or nature of science.
…in other words, this is a relativist position – not a positivist or objectivist position.
Science progresses due to social forces – this includes all social pressures – economic, political, psychological – influences.
Social entities attach meanings to specific scientific endeavors, innovations, or related variables – if these meanings are accepted by relevant social groups – science progresses.
Epistemology & Social Constructivism
The trajectory of technology, like science, does not depend on its independent, exogenous nature.
Technology is socially constructed – its progress or movement depends on many social factors and relevant social groups.
ArgumentsThe Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology
Some ProblemsStudies in the sociology of technology
are problematic because most studies have been conducted on successful innovations—few studies done on the failures.
These studies of innovation suggest that there is an implicit assumption that an innovation succeeded as if a magic wand “made it so.”
The sociological variables that played into a success are not sufficiently analyzed.
Bakelite – A Famous ExampleBijker and Pinch use the example of the
plastic Bakelite to illustrate their idea of social forces at work in shaping technology.
Bakelike: an early plastic, started out as an artificial substitute for varnish. It was not a market success. Accidental dumping of materials that make up
Bakelite, proved that the material could be molded into plastics.
The innovation was redirected for use as plastic and all of its applications.
The scientist who developed Bakelite did not envision its use as a plastic and the many ways plastic is used.
AssumptionsHow do Social Groups Form?
What Road Does Science Travel?
Bijker and Pinch (1984) state that technology, like science, is socially constructed – its trajectory depends on many social factors and relevant social groups.
AssumptionsAn implicit assumption
Social, political, economic and all other “societal” pressures are established (not forming) while shaping a technological innovation (Callon & Law, 1987).
Callon & Law also question how the boundaries between social elements – economics, political, etcetera, are determined and defined.Callon & Law (Actor Network Theory) view
technology and social movement as working in tandem – one effecting change in the other until stabilization ( or failure) occurs.
Central ConstructsInterpretive Flexibility, Relevant Social Groups, Stabilization,
Controversies, Closure
Central Constructs
Relevant Social GroupsWho are the most influential social groups
that could be interested in an innovation?ResearchersHousewivesChildrenBusinessFilm makersGovernmentUtility Companies
Central ConstructsInterpretive Flexibility
How to the relevant social groups ascribe meaning to an innovation.What does an innovation mean to:
A businessmanA housewifeA researcherA researcher
Central Constructs
Controversies
Has another innovation similar to the one just diffused.Among the relevant social groups – who has the most
power – influence. Variables such as economic factors, political factors,
business advantages come to the fore. Vehement debates take place among the relevant social
groups – the group that have the most to gain – or lose. Proposed strategies for resolving a controversy may involve:
Redesigning to meet specs. Of stakeholders. Strong marketing campaigns – some more truthful than others
Diagram of Stakeholders
Technological Frames Goals
Current Theories
Problem Solving Strategies – how does an innovator or business market their technology most effectively.Educational UseSafetyConvenience
Central Constructs
• Stabilization • One social group overcomes another –
the innovation of this group has been “socially constructed” through socially relevant groups, controversy, and technical framework.
Examples – Noted Studies
The development of the Bicycle
Bakelite
Florescent Lamps
Limitations
Does not describe how people “assemble.”
Does not account for some revolutionary discoveries – Copernicus.
Conclusions
Silvia’s One to One Computing – Does school acculturation proceed through similar interplay.
How is technology decided in a school?
At what point in smart phone development did Apple’s iPhone capture the market.
Thank you!Florence M. Paisey, April 2011