Social Construction of

TechnologyFlorence Paisey

April 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? These relevant groups or “stakeholders”

include scientists, technologists, economists, politicians, entrepreneurs, you, and me.

Each stakeholder characterizes innovations with variant problems and solutions – they interpret the innovation 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 & 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 ConstructivismBijker 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 holds 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 ScienceThe 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.

…in other words, this is a relativist position – not a positivist or objectivist position.

Science progresses due to social forces – this includes all social pressures – economic, political, psychological – influences.

Social entities attach meanings to specific scientific endeavors, innovations, or related variables – if these meanings are accepted by relevant social groups – science progresses.

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 ProblemsStudies 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 ExampleBijker and Pinch use the example of the

plastic Bakelite to illustrate their idea of social forces at work in shaping technology.

Bakelike: an early plastic, started out as an artificial substitute for varnish. It was not a market success. Accidental dumping of materials that make up

Bakelite, proved that the material could be molded into plastics.

The innovation was redirected for use as plastic and all of its 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.

AssumptionsAn implicit assumption

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

Callon & Law also question how the boundaries between social elements – economics, political, etcetera, are determined and defined.Callon & Law (Actor Network Theory) view

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 GroupsWho are the most influential social groups

that could be interested in an innovation?ResearchersHousewivesChildrenBusinessFilm makersGovernmentUtility Companies

Central ConstructsInterpretive Flexibility

How to the relevant social groups ascribe meaning to an innovation.What does an innovation mean to:

A businessmanA housewifeA researcherA researcher

Central Constructs

Controversies

Has another innovation 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 – the group 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 UseSafetyConvenience

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.”

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.

Thank you!Florence M. Paisey, April 2011