Social constructionism of technology

Social Construction of Technology

Florence PaiseyApril 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?

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 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 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 PastPioneering Ideas in the Sociology of Technology

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.

ArgumentsThe 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.

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.

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 ConstructsInterpretive 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

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.

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