8/10/12

Table of Contents
Denition Importance Origins Core Assumptions

Social Construction of Technology

Florence Paisey April 2011

Central Constructs Leading Advocates Signicant Studies Limitations Conclusion

Denition
The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) has grown out

of the tenets of social constructivism and the sociology of scientic knowledge. interactive process or discourse among technologists or engineers and relevant (or interested) social groups.

Denition
The Theory of the Social Construction of Technology

SCOT views the development of technology as an

SCOT may be dened as an interactive sociotechnical

process that shapes all forms of technology.

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.

Importance
A Ground-Breaking Perspective

Individuals you and me decide what technologies or

parts of a technology are useful, protable, or comfortable meaningful.

Groups assemblies of individuals form, each

characterized by particular variables, each group holding a stake in a technology.

8/10/12

Why SCOT?
Relevant groups or stakeholders include scientists,

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

One innovation may be a solution but, also have a bug. If

Stakeholders interpret the innovations dierently.

the bug or problem isnt resolved, the innovation will fail relevant social groups or stakeholders will not buy in.

Origins and Social Construcivism

Sociology of Technology and Science (STS)

In resolving the problems accepted more or less by

signicant groups -- the social has shaped the technical. Hence, sociotechnical.

Origins
The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) was

Social Constructivism
The sociology of science and the sociology of technology

introduced in 1984 by Bijker and Pinch.

had been approached separately.

Their paper The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts

The sociology of science has recently applied the theory

or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benet Each Other introduced the theory and set forth an argument to support it. the technical interact.

of social constructivism to explain its trajectory.

Social Constructivism holds that knowledge is a social

The paper identied mechanisms by which the social and

construction (not an ultimate truth). As such knowledge/science can be interpreted in dierent 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

A Break With the Past

Pioneering Ideas in the Sociology of Technology

attach meanings or interpretations to artifacts.

People/social groups direct technological development

through their interpretation/meanings perhaps to fruition; perhaps to defeat.

8/10/12

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

inuences.

Social entities attach subjective meanings to specic

scientic 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.

Arguments
The Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology

Some Problems
Studies in the sociology of technology are problematic

Bakelite A Famous Example

Bakelite illustrates idea of social forces at work in

because most studies have been conducted on successful innovationsfew studies done on the failures. implicit assumption that an innovation succeeded as if a magic wand made it so.

shaping technology.

Bakelike: an early plastic, started out as an articial

These studies of innovation suggest that there is an

substitute for varnish.

Not a market success. Accidental dumping of materials that make up Bakelite,

proved that the material could be molded into plastics. applications.

The sociological variables that played into a success are

The innovation redirected for use as plastic and all related The scientist who developed Bakelite did not envision its

not suciently analyzed.

use as a plastic and the many ways plastic is used.

8/10/12

What Road Does Science Travel?

Bijker and Pinch (1984) state that technology, like

Assumptions
How do Social Groups Form?

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). elements economics, political, etcetera, are determined and dened.
Callon (Actor Network Theory) views technology and social

Callon questions how the boundaries between social

Central Constructs
Interpretive Flexibility, Relevant Social Groups, Stabilization, Controversies, Closure

movement as working in tandem one eecting change in the other until stabilization ( or failure) occurs.

Central Constructs
Relevant Social Groups
Who are the most inuential social groups that could be

Central Constructs
Interpretive Flexibility
How to the relevant social groups ascribe meaning to an

interested in an innovation?
Researchers Housewives Children Business Film makers Government Utility Companies

innovation.

What does an innovation mean to: A businessman A housewife A researcher A researcher

8/10/12

Central Constructs
Controversies If another innovation Is similar to the one just diused: Among the relevant social groups who has the most power inuence.
Variables such as economic factors, political factors, business

Diagram of Stakeholders

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

Technological Frames
Goals Current Theories Problem Solving Strategies how does an innovator or

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.

business market their technology most eectively.

Educational Use Safety Convenience

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.

8/10/12

Conclusions
Silvias One to One Computing Does school How is technology decided in a school? At what point in smart phone development did Apples

Bibliography
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of

acculturation proceed through similar interplay.

facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benet each other. Social Studies of Science, 14, 388 - 441. 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.

Callon, M. (1987). Society the Making; the Study of

iPhone capture the market.

What technological frame, controversies, drive digital

libraries and special collections?

Thank you!
Florence M. Paisey, April 2011