scot scot the social constructivist paradigm to study technology in society and some examples wiebe...

SCOTSCOTThe Social Constructivist Paradigm

to Study Technology in Society

and some examples

Wiebe E. BijkerESST Maastricht, September 2002

Think of problems such as...

Sustainable development» …its conception» …its implementation

Users’ involvement in technological design» …because of a “sustainable technology”» …because of a need to democratise

technological culture

The purpose of this paper...

Is notnot to give you a concrete instrument

ButBut to give you a specific perspective to» … identify otherwise hidden problems» ... open-up new solutions» ... view the world in a new way

Modern society’s problemseems to be:

science/technology develops autonomously,

... having an impact on society

and the only reactions left to the public, are : » accept » protest» run off

tech

nologic

al

tech

nologic

al

determ

inis

m

determ

inis

m

intermezzo 1: Technological Determinism

Technological determinism (TD) means:» Technology develops autonomously» Technology determines society

TD is problematic because:» TD is politically debilitating» TD is false

TD is false because:» Technology does change as result of social

changes» Technology can be changed as a result of

conscious (political, social) action

The struggle of invention

Our bicycle: mistake of 400 years of engineering?

All elements of modern bicycle already existed for centuries

First successful bicycle was a monstrous machine (high wheeled “Ordinary”)

Now, let us try to understand this technology.

So, let’s describe the bicycle

but:... not with the mistakes of our hindsight, … not with the illusion that the bikes speak for themselves.

That is: Through the eyes of the people of those days themselves;

for example the women:

…and we see: the Unsafe Bicycle

Or we see, through the eyes of users of the Ordinary:

…and we see: the Macho Bicycle

relevant socialgroups

women

technology

Ordinary

young men

interpretative flexibility

Technological frame

Technological frame

Technological frame

Technological frame

SCOT (social construction of technology)

Technology is socially constructed:…its design…Its gender…its working

The process of social construction continues forever

Many social groups are involved in the social construction of technology

And...

...this analysis of an artifact such as the bicycle opens up the wider world in new ways:

Bicycling women emancipation

We can now extend our analysis:

Studythe culture

of technologyStudy

technological culture

“We live in a Technological Culture”

“Technological culture”

=

Our modern society

that cannot exist without science and technology

Concept of“Technological Culture”

• = modern society which cannot be understood without recognising the role of science and technology

• Co-evolution of technology and society

• Construction processes are continuous (i.e. technology is also being constructed after its leaving the design, production, marketing and publication departments)

• Construction is done by all sorts of actors (i.e. not only by engineers, technicians, marketeers, but also by groups in the public)

• Definition as technical/cultural/political is negotiated

A break ...

This moment in lecture and in module

In lecture:» Technological determinism» SCOT» Broader view: technological culture» A methodological reflection on STS and ESST» Some projects as examples

In module:» Technological determinism» “New sociology of technology”:

– SCOT– Systems approach– Actor network theory

Problems of Technological Culture:

peace and safety global distribution of wealth, resources, risks

environment / ecology

These are problems of Democracy, not of Technology

Needed: politicisation of Technological Culture

How to study Nature, Culture, and Science and Technology?

Where to start? What to look for? Which topic to choose? Which methods to use? How to balance data and theory? Pitfalls to avoid? Thesis’ structure?

Women Advisory Committees on Housing (VACs)

All-women committees (white, middle class, married-with-children, educated)

Advice on public housing and town planning (since 1946)

In 50% of all Dutch municipalities Recognised expertise (self-trained) Paradox 1:

» Playing the “women experience” card» Non-feminist

Paradox 2:» Successful» Unknown to the general public

Changing identities

Representing respectively:» Housewives» Women in general» House consumers

– Officially recognised spokespersons for the general public (consumers)

– But how to live up to that status?

Women experience <—> feminism

The feminist self?

using rhetorical oppositions:male — female

abstract — concrete

by head — by heart

expert knowl. — common sense

esthetics — functionality

demarcation from other women organisations:» autonomous feminism» women architects» academic women

“Peace-keeping” strategy expertise: in the niche between “real experts” and

“non-informed residents”

“stable participation” two vocabularies:

» external: high inclusion in male building technological frame

– through: low key interventions– price paid: “caught in the frame” (e.g. one-family

house with fixed gender roles)

– profit gained: influence

» internal: high inclusion in feminism

“Public Debate” on nature development

Case of nature development:» Public controversy» Technology & science» High stakes

“Public Debate Conference”:» Heterogeneous panel» 4-stage process

– Introduction– Information market– Field studies– Consensus conference and public debate

» Unclear mandate

Lessons from Public Debate

One cornerstone of politicisation of Technological Culture is to give the public(s) a voice (“to get the values from the public” (Keeney))

e.g. in the nature development debate:» research budget for panellists» agenda-setting by panellists» through field studies of case also “nature” acquired

a voice

generally:» support science shops» support specific groups

so, so, not just values!not just values!

Lessons for planning engineers

Recognise the limits of your own expertise

Recognise the expertise of other relevant social groups

Recognise your own heterogeneous engineering capabilities

References Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a

Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bijker, W. E., & Bijsterveld, K. (2000). Women Walking through Plans—Technology, democracy and gender identity. Technology & Culture, 41(3), 485-515.

Bijker, W. E. (forthcoming in 2002). Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands. Plurimondi.

Aibar, E., & Bijker, W. E. (1997). Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 3-30.

Slides at:

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture

does it work?

Alternative high wheelers

Back to intermezzo

The American “Star”

Back to intermezzo

Women did want to bicycle!

The “Ladies’ Ariel”

However, in practice ...

The Ordinary was avery unsafe machine

which didnot work!

…even when you went to a bicycling school

Back to SCOT

“Young men of means and nerve”

The “Macho Bicycle”

Back to SCOT

which did work well!

Women emancipation

The wheel of the past…

and

…the wheel of the future

“Will dinner be ready at six?”

back

Bijker’s

Curriculum vitae elements:

Training:» Engineer, physics» Philosophy of science» PhD in sociology/history of technology

Professor of “Technology & Society”» University of Maastricht» Undergraduate, MA, PhD programmes in STS

Chairman of Board of Netherlands PhD School on Science, Technology & Modern Culture (network of 6 universities; Workshops and International Summer Schools)