| Social Construction Of Technology |
Article Index for Social |
Website Links For Social |
Information AboutSocial Construction Of Technology |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY | |
| history of technology | |
| science and technology studies | |
| sociology of scientific knowledge | |
| social constructionism | |
|
SCOT draws on work done in the constructivist school of the Sociology Of Scientific Knowledge , as a response to Technological Determinism . Social Constructivists argue that technology does not determine human action, but that human action shapes technology. Social Structure s are embedded in technologies which shape how users use them. Leading writers in this field include Wiebe Bijker , Trevor Pinch and Bruno Latour . THE STRONG PROGRAMME Social Causation SCOT holds first that the reasons for the acceptance (or rejection) of any technology needs to found in the social world. If a technology succeeds because it is "best" then researchers must look at how "best" is defined and, more importantly, who defines it. These questions should include: Who defines the technical criteria by which success is measured? Why are technical criteria defined in this way? Who is included or excluded and why? Symmetry The strong programme adopts a position of relativism regarding the arguments that social actors put forward for the acceptance/rejection of any technology. All arguments (social, cultural, political, economic, as well as technical) are to be treated equally. When investigating beliefs, researchers should be impartial to the truth or falsehood of those beliefs, and all explanations should be symmetrical, that is, unbiased. Interpretative Flexibility Symmetry creates interpretative flexibility. This means that different and various interpretations exist for the meaning of a technology. For instance, some may see that the automobile is a means of freedom, others a mode of transportation, and still others another way in which women are required to perform familial tasks. Relevant Social Groups The meaning of a technology varies according to social groups. Social groups (and they may be any size from a handful of individuals to entire societies) have shared meanings about the technology. Their meanings about the technology may be favorable or unfavorable. Design Flexibility Just as technologies will have differing meanings to different social groups, there are also different means to construct technologies. In other words, there exists design flexibility towards technical solutions. Closure Over time, as technologies are developed, the interpretative and design flexibility collapse through closure mechanisms. Closure is achieved through a variety of ways. Closure is not permanent. New social groups may form and re-introduce interpretative flexibility causing a new round of debate or conflict about a technology. (For instance, in the 1890s Automobiles were seen as the "green" alternative, a cleaner environmentally-friendly technology, to horse-powered vehicles; by the 1960s, new social groups had introduced new interpretations about the environmental benefits of the automobile) #Social Explanations: Social groups do not have the power to contest meanings or designs. #Rhetorical Closure: When social groups see the problem as being solved, they will begin to talk about the problem being solved. This is often found in advertising. #Redefinition of the Problem: Often flexibility is eliminated by redefining the problem. CRITICISM In 1993, Langdon Winner pubished an influential critique of SCOT entitled "Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding it Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology." In it, he raises a few problems with social constructivism: # It explains how technologies arise, but ignores the effects of the technology after the fact. # It is a social construction of knowledge in itself, subject to the same limitations as it postulates ("Who says what are relevant social groups and social interests?") # It disregards dynamics which are not due to its "preferred conceptual strawman: technological determinism." Other critics include Stewart Russell with his letter in the journal " Social Studies Of Science " titled "The Social Construction of Artefacts: A Response to Pinch and Bijker" REFERENCES
SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL SITES |
|
|