Social constructionism of technology
description
Transcript of Social constructionism of technology
![Page 1: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Social Construction of Technology
Florence PaiseyApril 2011
![Page 2: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Table of Contents
Definition
Importance
Origins
Core Assumptions
Central Constructs
Leading Advocates
Significant Studies
Limitations
Conclusion
![Page 3: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
DefinitionThe Theory of the Social Construction of Technology
![Page 4: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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.
![Page 5: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ImportanceA Ground-Breaking Perspective
![Page 6: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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.
![Page 7: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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.
![Page 8: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Origins and Social ConstrucivismSociology of Technology and Science (STS)
![Page 9: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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.
![Page 10: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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.
![Page 11: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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.
![Page 12: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
A Break With the PastPioneering Ideas in the Sociology of Technology
![Page 13: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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.
![Page 14: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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.
![Page 15: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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.
![Page 16: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
ArgumentsThe Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology
![Page 17: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
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.
![Page 18: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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.
![Page 19: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
AssumptionsHow do Social Groups Form?
![Page 20: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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.
![Page 21: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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.
![Page 22: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Central ConstructsInterpretive Flexibility, Relevant Social Groups, Stabilization, Controversies, Closure
![Page 23: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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
![Page 24: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
![Page 25: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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
![Page 26: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Diagram of Stakeholders
![Page 27: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Technological Frames
Goals
Current Theories
Problem Solving Strategies – how does an innovator or business market their technology most effectively. Educational Use Safety Convenience
![Page 28: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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.
![Page 29: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Examples – Noted Studies
The development of the Bicycle
Bakelite
Florescent Lamps
![Page 30: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
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.
![Page 31: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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?
![Page 32: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
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.
![Page 33: Social constructionism of technology](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062617/54bc38de4a79592e1a8b469f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Thank you!Florence M. Paisey, April 2011