8/10/12  

1  

Social  Construction  of  Technology  

Florence  Paisey  April  2011  

Table  of  Contents  

   Definition  

   Importance  

   Origins  

   Core  Assumptions  

   Central  Constructs  

   Leading  Advocates  

   Significant  Studies  

   Limitations  

   Conclusion  

Definition  The  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.    

Importance  A  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.      

8/10/12  

2  

Why  SCOT?  

  Relevant  groups  or  “stakeholders”  include  scientists,  technologists,  economists,  politicians,  entrepreneurs,  you,  and  me.  

  Stakeholders  interpret  the  innovations  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  and  Social  Construcivism  Sociology  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  Constructivism  

  Bijker  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  hold  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  Past  Pioneering  Ideas  in  the  Sociology  of  Technology  

8/10/12  

3  

Epistemology  and  Science  

  The  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.    The  epistemology  of  science,  technology,  and  knowledge,  

then,  did  not  exist  independently  of  the  human  mind.      It  was  not  acquired  through  data  obtained  by  a  priori,  

deductive  methodology.    Social  science  now  rejected  the  idea  of  an  ultimate  social  

reality  that  involved  predictive,  natural  law.    

Epistemology  and  Science  

  SCOT  is  not  a  positivist  or  objectivist  position.    

  SCOT  holds  that  science  progresses  due  to  social  forces      Includes  all  social  pressures  –  economic,  political,  psychological  

–  influences.  

  Social  entities  attach  subjective  meanings  to  specific  scientific  endeavors,  innovations,  or  related  variables  –  if  these  meanings  are  accepted  by  relevant  social  groups  –  science  progresses  or  moved  in  relation  to  socio-­‐technical  and  socio-­‐cultural  issues.    

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.   Arguments  

The  Sociology  of  Science  and  the  Sociology  of  Technology  

Some  Problems  

  Studies  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  Example  

  Bakelite    illustrates  idea  of  social  forces  at  work  in  shaping  technology.  

  Bakelike:  an  early  plastic,  started  out  as  an  artificial  substitute  for  varnish.        Not  a  market  success.      

  Accidental  dumping  of  materials  that  make  up  Bakelite,  proved  that  the  material  could  be  molded  into  plastics.    

  The  innovation  redirected  for  use  as  plastic  and  all  related  applications.  

  The  scientist  who  developed  Bakelite  did  not  envision  its  use  as  a  plastic  and  the  many  ways  plastic  is  used.  

8/10/12  

4  

Assumptions  How  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.  

Assumptions  

  An  implicit  assumption  

   Social,  political,  economic  and  all  other  “societal”  pressures  are  established  (not  forming)  while  shaping  a  technological  innovation  (Callon,  1987).    

  Callon    questions  how  the  boundaries  between  social  elements  –  economics,  political,  etcetera,  are  determined  and  defined.  

  Callon  (Actor  Network  Theory)  views  technology  and  social  movement  as  working  in  tandem  –  one  effecting  change  in  the  other  until  stabilization  (  or  failure)  occurs.  

Central  Constructs  Interpretive  Flexibility,  Relevant  Social  Groups,  Stabilization,  Controversies,  Closure  

Central  Constructs  

  Relevant  Social  Groups    Who  are  the  most  influential  social  groups  that  could  be  

interested  in  an  innovation?    Researchers  

  Housewives  

  Children  

  Business  

  Film  makers  

  Government  

  Utility  Companies  

Central  Constructs  

  Interpretive  Flexibility    How  to  the  relevant  social  groups  ascribe  meaning  to  an  

innovation.    What  does  an  innovation  mean  to:  

  A  businessman  

  A  housewife  

  A  researcher    A  researcher  

8/10/12  

5  

Central  Constructs  

  Controversies  

  If  another  innovation  Is  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  –  

groups  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  Use    Safety    Convenience  

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.”  

  Lack  of  granularity  and  longitudinal  data  covering  many  technological  innovations  –  are  there  consistent  proclivities  among  stakeholders.    

  Does  not  account  for  some  revolutionary  discoveries  –  Copernicus.    

8/10/12  

6  

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.  

  What  technological  frame,  controversies,  drive  digital  libraries  and  special  collections?  

Bibliography  

  Pinch,  T.  J.,  &  Bijker,  W.  E.  (1984).    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,  388  -­‐  441.  

  Callon,  M.  (1987).    “Society  the  Making;  the  Study  of  Technology  as  a  Tool  for  Sociological  Analysis.”    In  Bijker  W.,  Hughes,  T.,  Pinch.  T.  (ed.).    New  Directions  in  the  Social  Studies  of  Technology,  Cambridge,  MIT  Press.  

Thank  you!  Florence  M.  Paisey,  April  2011