4. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. A Break With the Past
Pioneering Ideas in the Sociology of Technology
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
23. 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
24. 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
25. 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
27. Technological Frames
Goals
Current Theories
Problem Solving Strategies – how does an innovator or
business market their technology most effectively.
Educational Use
Safety
Convenience
28. 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.
29. Examples – Noted Studies
The development of the Bicycle
Bakelite
Florescent Lamps
30. 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.
31. 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?
32. 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.
Groups are characterized by core values – political, economic, psychological.
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).an early plastic, started out as an artificial substitute for varnish. It was not a market success. Due to an accidental dumping of materials that make up Bakelite, it was clear that this substance could be a cheap, artificial substitute for resin – an expensive organic substance
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
The significant and fundamental idea that social constructivism brings to the sociology of science is that there is nothing epistemologically special about the nature of science. of science – science is no more or less than all other knowledge cultures or knowledge disciplines.This can be questioned with some revolutionary scientific discoveries such as Copernicus’ heliocentric theory – a theory that was not accepted by the church – the post powerful political power of the age (15th century).
