Science and

technology studies

This article has multiple issues. Please help

improve it or discuss these issues on the talk more
Learn

It has been suggested that Science studies be

merged into this article. (Discuss) Learn more

Science and technology studies, or

science, technology and society studies
(both abbreviated STS) is the study of how
society, politics, and culture affect
scientific research and technological
innovation, and how these, in turn, affect
society, politics and culture.

History
Like most interdisciplinary programs, STS
emerged from the confluence of a variety
of disciplines and disciplinary subfields, all
of which had developed an interest—
typically, during the 1960s or 1970s—in
viewing science and technology as
socially embedded enterprises.[1] The key
disciplinary components of STS took
shape independently, beginning in the
1960s, and developed in isolation from
each other well into the 1980s, although
Ludwik Fleck's (1935) monograph Genesis
and Development of a Scientific Fact
anticipated many of STS's key themes. In
the 1970s Elting E. Morison founded the
STS program at Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), which served as a
model. By 2011, 111 STS research centres
and academic programs were counted
worldwide.[2]

Key themes

History of technology, that examines

technology in its social and historical
context. Starting in the 1960s, some
historians questioned technological
determinism, a doctrine that can induce
public passivity to technologic and
scientific "natural" development. At the
same time, some historians began to
develop similarly contextual approaches
to the history of medicine.
History and philosophy of science
(1960s). After the publication of
Thomas Kuhn's well-known The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(1962), which attributed changes in
scientific theories to changes in
underlying intellectual paradigms,
programs were founded at the University
of California, Berkeley and elsewhere
that brought historians of science and
philosophers together in unified
programs.
Science, technology, and society. In the
mid- to late-1960s, student and faculty
social movements in the U.S., UK, and
European universities helped to launch a
range of new interdisciplinary fields
(such as women's studies) that were
seen to address relevant topics that the
traditional curriculum ignored. One such
development was the rise of "science,
technology, and society" programs,
which are also—confusingly—known by
the STS acronym. Drawn from a variety
of disciplines, including anthropology,
history, political science, and sociology,
scholars in these programs created
undergraduate curricula devoted to
exploring the issues raised by science
and technology. Feminist scholars in
this and other emerging STS areas
addressed themselves to the exclusion
of women from science and
engineering.
Science, engineering, and public policy
studies emerged in the 1970s from the
same concerns that motivated the
founders of the science, technology, and
society movement: A sense that science
and technology were developing in ways
that were increasingly at odds with the
public's best interests. The science,
technology, and society movement tried
to humanize those who would make
tomorrow's science and technology, but
this discipline took a different approach:
It would train students with the
professional skills needed to become
players in science and technology
policy. Some programs came to
emphasize quantitative methodologies,
and most of these were eventually
absorbed into systems engineering.
Others emphasized sociological and
qualitative approaches, and found that
their closest kin could be found among
 scholars in science, technology, and
society departments.

During the 1970s and 1980s, leading

universities in the US, UK, and Europe
began drawing these various components
together in new, interdisciplinary
programs. For example, in the 1970s,
Cornell University developed a new
program that united science studies and
policy-oriented scholars with historians
and philosophers of science and
technology. Each of these programs
developed unique identities due to
variation in the components that were
drawn together, as well as their location
within the various universities. For
example, the University of Virginia's STS
program united scholars drawn from a
variety of fields (with particular strength in
the history of technology); however, the
program's teaching responsibilities—it is
located within an engineering school and
teaches ethics to undergraduate
engineering students—means that all of its
faculty share a strong interest in
engineering ethics.

The "turn to technology" (and

beyond)
A decisive moment in the development of
STS was the mid-1980s addition of
technology studies to the range of
interests reflected in science. During that
decade, two works appeared en seriatim
that signaled what Steve Woolgar was to
call the "turn to technology": Social
Shaping of Technology (MacKenzie and
Wajcman, 1985) and The Social
Construction of Technological Systems
(Bijker, Hughes and Pinch, 1987).
MacKenzie and Wajcman primed the
pump by publishing a collection of articles
attesting to the influence of society on
technological design. In a seminal article,
Trevor Pinch and Wiebe Bijker attached all
the legitimacy of the Sociology of
Scientific Knowledge to this development
by showing how the sociology of
technology could proceed along precisely
the theoretical and methodological lines
established by the sociology of scientific
knowledge. This was the intellectual
foundation of the field they called the
social construction of technology.

The "turn to technology" helped to cement

an already growing awareness of
underlying unity among the various
emerging STS programs. More recently,
there has been an associated turn to
ecology, nature, and materiality in general,
whereby the socio-technical and
natural/material co-produce each other.
This is especially evident in work in STS
analyses of biomedicine (such as Carl
May, Annemarie Mol, Nelly Oudshoorn, and
Andrew Webster) and ecological
interventions (such as Bruno Latour, Sheila
Jasanoff, Matthias Gross, S. Lochlann
Jain, and Jens Lachmund).

Professional associations
The subject has several professional
associations.

Founded in 1975, the Society for Social

Studies of Science, initially provided
scholarly communication facilities,
including a journal (Science, Technology,
and Human Values) and annual meetings
that were mainly attended by science
studies scholars. The society has since
grown into the most important
professional association of science and
technology studies scholars worldwide.
The Society for Social Studies of Science
members also include government and
industry officials concerned with research
and development as well as science and
technology policy; scientists and
engineers who wish to better understand
the social embeddedness of their
professional practice; and citizens
concerned about the impact of science
and technology in their lives. Proposals
have been made to add the word
"technology" to the association's name,
thereby reflecting its stature as the leading
STS professional society, but there seems
to be widespread sentiment that the name
is long enough as it is.

In Europe, the European Association for

the Study of Science and Technology
(EASST)[3] was founded in 1981 to
"stimulate communication, exchange and
collaboration in the field of studies of
science and technology". Similarly, the
European Inter-University Association on
Society, Science and Technology (ESST)
researches and studies science and
technology in society, in both historical
and contemporary perspectives.

In Asia several STS associations exist. In

Japan, the Japanese Society for Science
and Technology Studies (JSSTS)[4] was
founded in 2001. The Asia Pacific Science
Technology & Society Network
(APSTSN)[5] primarily has members from
Australasia, Southeast and East Asia and
Oceania.

In Latin America ESOCITE (Estudios

Sociales de la Ciencia y la Tecnología) is
the biggest association of Science and
Technology studies. The study of STS (CyT
in Spanish, CTS in Portuguese) here was
shaped by authors like Amílcar Herrera
and Jorge Sabato y Oscar Varsavsky in
Argentina, José Leite Lopes in Brazil,
Miguel Wionczek in Mexico, Francisco
Sagasti in Peru, Máximo Halty Carrere in
Uruguay and Marcel Roche in Venezuela.[6]

Founded in 1958, the Society for the

History of Technology initially attracted
members from the history profession who
had interests in the contextual history of
technology. After the "turn to technology"
in the mid-1980s, the society's well-
regarded journal (Technology and Culture)
and its annual meetings began to attract
considerable interest from non-historians
with technology studies interests.

Less identified with STS, but also of

importance to many STS scholars, are the
History of Science Society, the Philosophy
of Science Association, and the American
Association for the History of Medicine.

Additionally, within the US there are

significant STS-oriented special interest
groups within major disciplinary
associations, including the American
Anthropological Association, the American
Political Science Association, the National
Women's Studies Association, and the
American Sociological Association.

Journals
Notable peer-reviewed journals in STS
include:

Social Studies of Science

Science, Technology & Human Values
Science & Technology Studies[7]
Engaging Science, Technology, and
Society
Catalyst: Feminism, Theory,
Technoscience
 Technology in Society; Research Policy
Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning
and Policy
Science, Technology and Society
Science as Culture
Research Policy[8]
IEEE Technology and Society
Magazine[9]
Technology and Culture
Science and Public Policy
Tapuya: Latin American Science,
Technology and Society[10]

Student journals in STS include:

 Intersect: the Stanford Journal of
Science, Technology, and Society at
Stanford
DEMESCI: International Journal of
Deliberative Mechanisms in Science
The Science In Society Review: A
Production of the Triple Helix at Cornell
Synthesis: An Undergraduate Journal of
the History of Science at Harvard

Important concepts
STS social construction

Social constructions are human created

ideas, objects, or events created by a
series of choices and interactions.[11]
These interactions have consequences
that change the perception that different
groups of people have on these
constructs. Some examples of social
construction include class, race, money,
and citizenship.

The following also alludes to the notion

that not everything is set, a circumstance
or result could potentially be one way or
the other. According to the article "What is
Social Construction?" by Laura Flores,
"Social construction work is critical of the
status quo. Social constructionists about
X tend to hold that:
 1. X need not have existed, or need not
be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at
present, is not determined by the
nature of things; it is not inevitable

Very often they go further, and urge that:

1. X is quite as bad as it is.

2. We would be much better off if X
were done away with, or at least
radically transformed."

In the past, there have been viewpoints

that were widely regarded as fact until
being called to question due to the
introduction of new knowledge. Such
viewpoints include the past concept of a
correlation between intelligence and the
nature of a human's ethnicity or race (X
may not be at all as it is).[12]

An example of the evolution and

interaction of various social constructions
within science and technology can be
found in the development of both the high-
wheel bicycle, or velocipede, and then of
the bicycle. The velocipede was widely
used in the latter half of the 19th century.
In the latter half of the 19th century, a
social need was first recognized for a
more efficient and rapid means of
transportation. Consequently, the
velocipede was first developed, which was
able to reach higher translational velocities
than the smaller non-geared bicycles of
the day, by replacing the front wheel with a
larger radius wheel. One notable trade-off
was a certain decreased stability leading
to a greater risk of falling. This trade-off
resulted in many riders getting into
accidents by losing balance while riding
the bicycle or being thrown over the handle
bars.

The first "social construction" or progress

of the velocipede caused the need for a
newer "social construction" to be
recognized and developed into a safer
bicycle design. Consequently, the
velocipede was then developed into what
is now commonly known as the "bicycle"
to fit within society's newer "social
construction," the newer standards of
higher vehicle safety. Thus the popularity
of the modern geared bicycle design came
as a response to the first social
construction, the original need for greater
speed, which had caused the high-wheel
bicycle to be designed in the first place.
The popularity of the modern geared
bicycle design ultimately ended the
widespread use of the velocipede itself, as
eventually it was found to best accomplish
the social-needs/ social-constructions of
both greater speed and of greater
safety.[13]

Technoscience

Technoscience is a subset of Science,

Technology, and Society studies that
focuses on the inseparable connection
between science and technology. It states
that fields are linked and grow together,
and scientific knowledge requires an
infrastructure of technology in order to
remain stationary or move forward. Both
technological development and scientific
discovery drive one another towards more
advancement. Technoscience excels at
shaping human thought and behavior by
opening up new possibilities that gradually
or quickly come to be perceived as
necessities.[14]

Technosocial

It has been suggested that this section be split out

into another article titled Technosocial.Learn
(Discuss)
more

"Technological action is a social

process."[15] Social factors and technology
are intertwined so that they are dependent
upon each other. This includes the aspect
that social, political, and economic factors
are inherent in technology and that social
structure influences what technologies are
pursued. In other words, "technoscientific
phenomena combined inextricably with
social/political/ economic/psychological
phenomena, so 'technology' includes a
spectrum of artifacts, techniques,
organizations, and systems."[16] Winner
expands on this idea by saying "in the late
twentieth century technology and society,
technology and culture, technology and
politics are by no means separate."[17]

Examples

Ford Pinto[18] – Ford Motor Company

sold and produced the Pinto during the
1970s. A flaw in the automobile design
of the rear gas tank caused a fiery
explosion upon impact. The exploding
fuel tank killed and injured hundreds of
people. Internal documents of test
results, proved Ford CEO Lee Iacocca
and engineers were aware of the flaw.
The company decided to ignore
improving their technology because of
profit-driven motives, strict internal
control, and competition from foreign
competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford
Motor Company conducted a cost-
benefit analysis to determine if altering
the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An
analysis conducted by Ford employees
argued against a new design because of
increased cost. Employees were also
under tight control by the CEO who
rushed the Pinto through production
lines to increase profits. Ford finally
changed after public scrutiny. Safety
organizations later influenced this
technology by requiring stricter safety
standards for motor vehicles.
DDT/toxins[16] – DDT was a common
and highly effective insecticide used
during the 1940s until its ban in the early
1970s. It was utilized during World War
2 to combat insect-borne human
disease that plagued military members
and civilian populations. People and
companies soon realized other benefits
of DDT for agricultural purposes. Rachel
Carson became worried of wide spread
use on public health and the
environment. Rachel Carson's book
Silent Spring left an imprint on the
industry by claiming linkage of DDT to
many serious illness such as cancer.
Carson's book drew criticism from
chemical companies who felt their
reputation and business threatened by
such claims.. DDT was eventually
banned by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
after a long and arduous process of
research on the chemical substance.
The main cause for the removal of DDT
was the public deciding that any
benefits outweighed the potential health
risk.
Autopilots/computer aided tasks
(CATs)[16] – From a security point of
view the effects of making a task more
computer driven is in the favor of
technological advance because there is
less reaction time required and
computational error than a human pilot.
Due to reduced error and reaction times
flights on average, using autopilot, have
been shown to be safer. Thus the
technology has a direct impact on
people by increasing their safety, and
society affects the technology because
people want to be safer so they are
constantly trying to improve the
autopilot systems.
Cell phones[16] – Cell phone technology
emerged in the early 1920s after
advancements were made in radio
technology. Engineers at Bell
Laboratories, the research and
development division of AT&T
discovered that cell towers can transmit
and receive signals to and from many
directions. The discovery by Bell Labs
revolutionized the capabilities and
outcomes of cellular technology.
Technology only improved once mobile
phone users could communicate
outside of a designated area. First
generation mobile phones were first
created and sold by Motorola. Their
phone was only intended for use in cars.
Second generation mobile phone
capabilities continued to improve
because of the switch to digital. Phones
were faster which enhanced
communication capabilities of
customers. They were also sleeker and
weighed less than bulky first generation
technology. Technologically advances
boosted customer satisfaction and
broadened cell phone companies
customer base. Third generation
technology changed the way people
interact with other. Now customers had
access to wifi, texting and other
applications. Mobile phones are now
entering into the fourth generations.
Cellular and mobile phones
revolutionized the way people socialize
and communicate in order to establish
modern social structure. People have
affected the development of this
technology by demanding features such
as larger screens, touch capabilities, and
internet accessibility.
Internet[16] – The internet arose because
of extensive research on ARPANET
between various university, corporations,
and ARPA (Advanced Research Project
Agency), an agency of the Department
of Defense. Scientist theorized a
network of computers connected to
each other. Computing capabilities
contributed to developments and the
creation of the modern day computer or
laptop. The internet has become a
normal part of life and business, to such
a degree that the United Nations views it
as a basic human right. The internet is
becoming larger, one way is that more
things are being moved into the digital
world due to demand, for example
online banking. It has drastically
changed the way most people go about
daily habits.
Deliberative democracy

Deliberative democracy is a reform of

representative or direct democracies
which mandates discussion and debate of
popular topics which affect society.
Deliberative Democracy is a tool for
making decisions. Deliberative democracy
can be traced back all the way to
Aristotle’s writings. More recently, the term
was coined by Joseph Bessette in his
1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The
Majority Principle in Republican
Government, where he uses the idea in
opposition to the elitist interpretations of
the United States Constitution with
emphasis on public discussion.[19]

Deliberative Democracy can lead to more

legitimate, credible, and trustworthy
outcomes. Deliberative Democracy allows
for "a wider range of public knowledge,"
and it has been argued that this can lead
to "more socially intelligent and robust"
science. One major shortcoming of
deliberative democracy is that many
models insufficiently ensure critical
interaction.[20]

According to Ryfe, there are five

mechanisms that stand out as critical to
the successful design of deliberative
democracy:

Rules of equality, civility, and inclusivity

may prompt deliberation even when our
first impulse is to avoid it.
Stories anchor reality by organizing
experience and instilling a normative
commitment to civic identities and
values, and function as a medium for
framing discussions.
Leadership provides important cues to
individuals in deliberative settings, and
can keep groups on a deliberative track
when their members slip into routine
and habit.
 Individuals are more likely to sustain
deliberative reasoning when they have a
stake in the outcomes.
Apprenticeship teaches citizens to
deliberate well. We might do well to
imagine education as a form of
apprenticeship learning, in which
individuals learn to deliberate by doing it
in concert with others more skilled in the
activity.[21]
Importance of deliberative
democracy in STS

Recently, there has been a movement

towards greater transparency in the fields
of policy and technology. Jasanoff comes
to the conclusion that there is no longer a
question of if there needs to be increased
public participation in making decisions
about science and technology, but now
there needs to be ways to make a more
meaningful conversation between the
public and those developing the
technology.[22]

Deliberative democracy in
practice

Ackerman and Fishkin offer an example of

a reform in their paper "Deliberation Day."
The deliberation is to enhance public
understanding of popular, complex, and
controversial issues, through devices such
as Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling.[23]
Although implementation of these reforms
is unlikely in a large government situation
such as the United States Federal
Government. However, things similar to
this have been implemented in small, local,
governments like New England towns and
villages. New England town hall meetings
are a good example of deliberative
democracy in a realistic setting.[19]

An ideal Deliberative Democracy balances

the voice and influence of all participants.
While the main aim is to reach consensus,
a deliberative democracy should
encourage the voices of those with
opposing viewpoints, concerns due to
uncertainties, and questions about
assumptions made by other participants.
It should take its time and ensure that
those participating understand the topics
on which they debate. Independent
managers of debates should also have
substantial grasp of the concepts
discussed, but must "[remain] independent
and impartial as to the outcomes of the
process."[20]

Tragedy of the commons

In 1968, Garrett Hardin popularised the

phrase "tragedy of the commons." It is an
economic theory where rational people act
against the best interest of the group by
consuming a common resource. Since
then, the tragedy of the commons has
been used to symbolize the degradation of
the environment whenever many
individuals use a common resource.
Although Garrett Hardin was not an STS
scholar, the concept of tragedy of the
commons still applies to science,
technology and society.[24]

In a contemporary setting, the Internet

acts as an example of the tragedy of the
commons through the exploitation of
digital resources and private information.
Data and internet passwords can be stolen
much more easily than physical
documents. Virtual spying is almost free
compared to the costs of physical
spying.[25] Additionally, net neutrality can
be seen as an example of tragedy of the
commons in an STS context. The
movement for net neutrality argues that
the Internet should not be a resource that
is dominated by one particular group,
specifically those with more money to
spend on Internet access.

A counterexample to the tragedy of the

commons is offered by Andrew Kahrl.
Privatization can be a way to deal with the
tragedy of the commons. However, Kahrl
suggests that the privatization of beaches
on Long Island, in an attempt to combat
overuse of Long Island beaches, made the
residents of Long Island more susceptible
to flood damage from Hurricane Sandy.
The privatization of these beaches took
away from the protection offered by the
natural landscape. Tidal lands that offer
natural protection were drained and
developed. This attempt to combat the
tragedy of the commons by privatization
was counter-productive. Privatization
actually destroyed the public good of
natural protection from the landscape.[26]
Alternative modernity

Alternative modernity[27][28] is a conceptual

tool conventionally used to represent the
state of present western society.
Modernity represents the political and
social structures of the society, the sum of
interpersonal discourse, and ultimately a
snapshot of society's direction at a point in
time. Unfortunately conventional
modernity is incapable of modeling
alternative directions for further growth
within our society. Also, this concept is
ineffective at analyzing similar but unique
modern societies such as those found in
the diverse cultures of the developing
world. Problems can be summarized into
two elements: inward failure to analyze
growth potentials of a given society, and
outward failure to model different cultures
and social structures and predict their
growth potentials.

Previously, modernity carried a

connotation of the current state of being
modern, and its evolution through
European colonialism. The process of
becoming "modern" is believed to occur in
a linear, pre-determined way, and is seen
by Philip Brey as a way of to interpret and
evaluate social and cultural formations.
This thought ties in with modernization
theory, the thought that societies progress
from "pre-modern" to "modern" societies.

Within the field of science and technology,

there are two main lenses with which to
view modernity. The first is as a way for
society to quantify what it wants to move
towards. In effect, we can discuss the
notion of "alternative modernity" (as
described by Andrew Feenberg) and which
of these we would like to move towards.
Alternatively, modernity can be used to
analyze the differences in interactions
between cultures and individuals. From
this perspective, alternative modernities
exist simultaneously, based on differing
cultural and societal expectations of how
a society (or an individual within society)
should function. Because of different
types of interactions across different
cultures, each culture will have a different
modernity.

Pace of innovation

Pace of Innovation is the speed at which

technological innovation or advancement
is occurring, with the most apparent
instances being too slow or too rapid. Both
these rates of innovation are extreme and
therefore have effects on the people that
get to use this technology.
No innovation without
representation

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

Learn more

"No innovation without representation" is a

democratic ideal of ensuring that everyone
involved gets a chance to be represented
fairly in technological developments.

Langdon Winner states that groups and

social interests likely to be affected by a
particular kind of technological change
ought to be represented at an early
stage in defining exactly what that
technology will be. It is the idea that
 relevant parties have a say in
technological developments and are not
left in the dark.[29]
Spoken about by Massimiano Bucchi[30]
This ideal does not require the public to
become experts on the topics of
science and engineering, it only asks
that the opinions and ideas be heard
before making drastic decisions, as
talked about by Steven L. Goldman.[31]

Privileged positions of
business and science

The neutrality of this section is disputed.

Learn more
The privileged positions of business and
science refer to the unique authority that
persons in these areas hold in economic,
political, and technosocial affairs.
Businesses have strong decision-making
abilities in the function of society,
essentially choosing what technological
innovations to develop. Scientists and
technologists have valuable knowledge,
ability to pursue the technological
innovations they want. They proceed
largely without public scrutiny and as if
they had the consent of those potentially
affected by their discoveries and
creations.
Legacy thinking

Legacy thinking is defined as an inherited

method of thinking imposed from an
external source without objection by the
individual, because it is already widely
accepted by society.

Legacy thinking can impair the ability to

drive technology for the betterment of
society by blinding people to innovations
that do not fit into their accepted model of
how society works. By accepting ideas
without questioning them, people often
see all solutions that contradict these
accepted ideas as impossible or
impractical. Legacy thinking tends to
advantage the wealthy, who have the
means to project their ideas on the public.
It may be used by the wealthy as a vehicle
to drive technology in their favor rather
than for the greater good. Examining the
role of citizen participation and
representation in politics provides an
excellent example of legacy thinking in
society. The belief that one can spend
money freely to gain influence has been
popularized, leading to public acceptance
of corporate lobbying. As a result, a self-
established role in politics has been
cemented where the public does not
exercise the power ensured to them by the
Constitution to the fullest extent. This can
become a barrier to political progress as
corporations who have the capital to
spend have the potential to wield great
influence over policy.[32] Legacy thinking
however keeps the population from acting
to change this, despite polls from Harris
Interactive that report over 80% of
Americans feel that big business holds too
much power in government.[33] Therefore,
Americans are beginning to try to steer
away this line of thought, rejecting legacy
thinking, and demanding less corporate,
and more public, participation in political
decision making.
Additionally, an examination of net
neutrality functions as a separate example
of legacy thinking. Starting with dial-up,
the internet has always been viewed as a
private luxury good. Internet today is a vital
part of modern-day society members.
They use it in and out of life every day.[34]
Corporations are able to mislabel and
greatly overcharge for their internet
resources. Since the American public is so
dependent upon internet there is little for
them to do. Legacy thinking has kept this
pattern on track despite growing
movements arguing that the internet
should be considered a utility. Legacy
thinking prevents progress because it was
widely accepted by others before us
through advertising that the internet is a
luxury and not a utility. Due to pressure
from grassroots movements the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has
redefined the requirements for broadband
and internet in general as a utility.[34] Now
AT&T and other major internet providers
are lobbying against this action and are in-
large able to delay the onset of this
movement due to legacy thinking’s grip on
American culture and politics.

For example, those who cannot overcome

the barrier of legacy thinking may not
consider the privatization of clean drinking
water as an issue.[35] This is partially
because access to water has become
such a given fact of the matter to them.
For a person living in such circumstances,
it may be widely accepted to not concern
themselves with drinking water because
they have not needed to be concerned with
it in the past. Additionally, a person living
within an area that does not need to worry
about their water supply or the sanitation
of their water supply is less likely to be
concerned with the privatization of water.

This notion can be examined through the

thought experiment of "veil of
ignorance".[36] Legacy thinking causes
people to be particularly ignorant about
the implications behind the "you get what
you pay for" mentality applied to a life
necessity. By utilizing the "veil of
ignorance", one can overcome the barrier
of legacy thinking as it requires a person
to imagine that they are unaware of their
own circumstances, allowing them to free
themselves from externally imposed
thoughts or widely accepted ideas.

Related concepts

Technoscience[16] – The perception that

science and technology are intertwined
and depend on each other.
Technosociety[37] – An industrially
developed society with a reliance on
technology.
Technological utopianism – A positive
outlook on the effect technology has on
social welfare. Includes the perception
that technology will one day enable
society to reach a utopian state.
Technosocial systems[38] – people and
technologies that combine to work as
heterogeneous but functional wholes.
Critical Technical Practice[39] – the
practice of technological creation while
simultaneously critiquing and
maintaining awareness of the inherent
 biases and value systems which
become embedded in those
technologies.

Classifications

Technological optimism[40] – The

opinion that technology has positive
effects on society and should be used in
order to improve the welfare of people.
Technological pessimism[40] – The
opinion that technology has negative
effects on society and should be
discouraged from use.
Technological neutrality[38] – "maintains
that a given technology has no
systematic effects on society:
 individuals are perceived as ultimately
responsible, for better or worse,
because technologies are merely tools
people use for their own ends."
Technological determinism[38] –
"maintains that technologies are
understood as simply and directly
causing particular societal outcomes."
Scientism[41] – The belief in the total
separation of facts and values.
Technological progressivism[41] –
technology is a means to an end itself
and an inherently positive pursuit.

STS programs around the

world
STS is taught in several countries.
According to the STS wiki, STS programs
can be found in twenty countries, including
45 programs in the United States, three
programs in India, and eleven programs in
the UK.[42] STS programs can be found in
Canada,[43], Germany[44], Israel,[45]
Malaysia,[46] and Taiwan.[47] Some
examples of institutions offering STS
programs are Stanford University,[48]
Harvard University,[49] the University of
Oxford,[50] Mines ParisTech,[51], Bar-Ilan
University,[52] and York University[43].

Notable scholars
Karen Barad
Wiebe Bijker
David Bloor
Barry Bozeman
Massimiano Bucchi
Andrew Feenberg
Ulrike Felt
Ludwik Fleck
Steve Fuller
Matthias Gross
Steven L. Goldman
Donna Haraway
Sandra Harding
S. Lochlann Jain
Sheila Jasanoff
Thomas Kuhn
Bruno Latour
Noortje Marres
Donald Angus MacKenzie
Carl May
Annemarie Mol
Elting E. Morison
Trevor Pinch
Arie Rip
Johan Schot
Bernard Stiegler
Judy Wajcman
Robin Williams (academic)
 Langdon Winner
Steve Woolgar

See also
Actor–network theory
Critique of technology
Cultural lag
Cyborg anthropology
Engineering studies
Historical materialism
Innovation system
Metascience
Mode 2
Normalization process theory
 Public awareness of science
Science studies
Science of team science
Science and technology in Israel
Science and technology studies in India
Scientometrics
Social shaping of technology
Sociology of scientific knowledge
Technological innovation system
Technology and society

References
1. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T.
and Douglas, D. G., The Social
 Construction of Technological
Systems: New Directions in the
Sociology and History of Technology,
MIT Press, Cambridge, 2012.
2. The STS Wiki .
3. European Association for the Study
of Science and Technology .
4. Japanese Society for Science and
Technology Studies
5. Asia Pacific Science Technology &
Society Network
6. Kreimer, P. (2007). Estudios sociales
de la ciencia y la tecnología en
América Latina: ¿para qué?, ¿ para
quién? Redes, 13(26), 55–64.
 Retrieved from
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/907/9070
2603.pdf
7. "Science & Technology Studies" .
sciencetechnologystudies.journal.fi.
Retrieved 2018-07-05.
8. Research Policy .
9. "Technology and Society Magazine -
IEEE Technology and Society" . IEEE
Technology and Society. Retrieved
2018-07-05.
10. "Tapuya: Latin American Science,
Technology and Society Homepage" .
Retrieved 2018-07-05.
11. Woodhouse, Edward (2014). Science
Technology and Society (1st ed.). San
Diego: University Readers. p. 255.
12. Hacking, Ian (1999). The Social
Construction of What? (1st ed.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts &
London, England: President and
Fellows of Harvard University. p. 6.
ISBN 978-0674004122.
13. Bijker, Wiebe (1993). The Social
Construction of Technological
System (1st ed.). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 28–
45. ISBN 978-0-262-52137-6.
14. Steven Lukes, Power: A Radical View
(London: Macmillan, 1974)
15. Goldman, S. (1992). No Innovation
Without Representation (pp. 148-
160). Troy, New York: Rensselaer.
16. Woodhouse, E. (2013). In The Future
of Technological Civilization (Revised
ed., pp. 1-258).
17. Winner, L. (1993). Artifacts/Ideas and
Political Culture (pp. 283-292). Troy,
New York: Rensselaer.
18. Dowie, M. (1977, October 1). Pinto
Madness. Retrieved February 4,
2015
19. Bohman, James (1998). "The Coming
of Age of Deliberative Democracy".
The Journal of Political Philosophy. 6
(4): 400–425. doi:10.1111/1467-
9760.00061 .
20. Chilvers, Jason (March 2008).
"Deliberating Competence,
Theoretical and Practitioners
Perspectives on Effective
Participatory Appraisal Practice" .
Science, Technology, & Human
Values. 33 (2). Retrieved April 21,
2015.
21. Ryfe, David M. (March 4, 2005). "Does
Deliberative Democracy Work?".
 Annual Review of Political Science. 8:
63–64.
doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.03290
4.154633 .
22. Jasanoff, Sheila (2003).
"Technologies of Humility: Citizen
Participation in Governing Science".
Minerva. 41 (3): 223–244.
doi:10.1023/A:1025557512320 .
23. Ackerman, Bruce; Fishkin, James S.
(2004-03-10). "Deliberation Day" .
Center for American Progress.
Retrieved April 21, 2015.
24. Hardin, Garrett. "The Tragedy of the
Commons" (PDF).
 www.sciencemag.org. American
Association for the Advancement of
Science. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
25. Davidow, Bill (2012-05-18). "The
Tragedy of the Internet Commons" .
theatlantic.com. The Atlantic.
Retrieved April 21, 2015.
26. Kahn, Matthew E. "Environmental and
Urban Economics" . Retrieved
April 21, 2015.
27. Eisenstadt, Shmuel (Winter 2000).
"Multiple Modernities". Dædalus.
28. Feenberg, Andrew (1995). Alternative
Modernity : The Technical Turn in
Philosophy and Social Theory.
 University of California Press.
ISBN 9780520089860.
29. Winner, Langdon. "Artifact/Ideas and
Political Culture." Technology and the
Future (1993): 283-92. Print.
30. Bucchi, Massimiano. "No Innovation
without Representation (A Parliament
of Things for the New Technical
Democracies)."
http://www.fondazionebassetti.org/ .
20 Dec. 2003. Web. 21 Apr. 2015.
31. Goldman, Steven L. "No Innovation
Without Representation:
Technological Action in a Democratic
Society." New Worlds, New
 Technologies, New Issues (1992):
148-60. Print.
32. Allison, Bill, and Sarah Harkins. "Fixed
Fortunes: Biggest Corporate Political
Interests Spend Billions, Get Trillions."
Sunlight Foundation Blog. Sunlight
Foundation, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 21
Apr. 2015.
33. Corso, Regina, SVP. "PACs, Big
Companies, Lobbyists, and Banks
and Financial Institutions Seen by
Strong Majorities as Having Too
Much Power and Influence in DC."
Harris Interactive: Harris Polls. Harris
 Interactive, 29 May 2012. Web. 21
Apr. 2015
34. "Net Neutrality: A Free and Open
Internet." The White House. The White
House, 26 Feb. 2015. Web. 21 Apr.
2015.
35. Flow. Oscilloscope Pictures, 2008.
DVD.
36. Woodhouse, Edward. Science
Technology and Society. Spring 2015
ed. N.p.: U Readers, 2014. Print.
37. Technosociety dictionary definition |
technosociety defined. (n.d.).
Retrieved March 20, 2015, from
 __http://www.yourdictionary.com/tec
hnosociety__
38. "Design by Society: Science and
Technology Studies and the Social
Shaping of Design", Edward
Woodhouse and Jason W. Patton,
Design Issues, Volume 20, Number 3
Summer 2004.
39. "Toward a Critical Technical Practice:
Lessons Learned in Trying to Reform
AI", Philip E. Agre, in Bridging the
Great Divide: Social Science,
Technical Systems, and Cooperative
Work, Geoff Bowker, Les Gasser,
 Leigh Star, and Bill Turner, eds,
Erlbaum, 1997
40. Hochschild, J., Crabill, A., & Sen, M.
(2012, December 1). Technology
Optimism or Pessimism: How Trust
in Science Shapes Policy Attitudes
toward Genomic Science. Retrieved
March 20, 2015, from
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen
/files/hochschild_crabill_sen.pdf
41. Kleinman, D. (2005). Science is
Political/Technology is Social:
Concerns, Concepts, and Questions.
Maryland: Blackwell.
42. "Worldwide directory of STS
programs - stswiki" .
www.stswiki.org. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
43. "Graduate Program in Science &
Technology Studies" .
sts.gradstudies.yorku.ca. York
University. Retrieved 8 January 2019.
44. "Technical University of Munich" .
45. "STS programs: Israel - stswiki" .
www.stswiki.org. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
46. "STS programs: Malaysia - stswiki" .
www.stswiki.org. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
47. "STS programs: Taiwan - stswiki" .
www.stswiki.org. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
48. {{Cite
web}url=https://sts.stanford.edu/%7C
title:Stanford | The Program in
Science, Technology, and Society}}
49. "Program on Science, Technology and
Society at Harvard" .
sts.hks.harvard.edu. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
50. "Home | Institute for Science
Innovation and Society" .
www.insis.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved
2018-01-25.
51. csi.mines-paristech.fr (in French)
http://www.csi.mines-paristech.fr/?
page=accueil&lang=en . Retrieved
2018-01-25. Missing or empty
|title= (help)
52. "STS@BIU - Science, Technology and
Society, Bar-Ilan University, Israel" .
STS@BIU - Science, Technology and
Society, Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
Retrieved 2018-01-25.

Further reading
Bauchspies, Wenda; Croissant, Jennifer;
Restivo, Sal (2005). Science, Technology,
and Socity: A Sociological Approach.
Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631232100.
Bijker, Wiebe; Hughes, Thomas; Pinch,
Trevor, eds. (1987). The Social
Construction of Technological Systems:
New Directions in the Sociology and
History of Technology. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press. ISBN 978-0262022620.
Felt, Ulrike; Fouché, Rayvon; Miller, Clark
A.; Smith-Doerr, Laruel, eds. (2017). The
Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press. ISBN 9780262035682.
Fuller, Steve (1993). Philosophy,
Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The
Coming of Science and Technology
Studies. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin Press. (2nd edition, with
James H. Collier, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 2004)
Hess, David J. (1997). Science Studies:
An Advanced Introduction. New York:
NYU Press. ISBN 9780814735640.
Jasanoff, Sheila; Markle, Gerald;
Petersen, James; Pinch, Trevor, eds.
(1994). Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. ISBN 978-0803940215.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of
scientific revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
 Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action:
How to follow scientists and engineers
through society. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press.
Restivo, Sal, ed. (2005). Science,
Technology, and Society: An
Encyclopedia. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 9780195141931.

External links
STSWiki (devoted to building resources,
such as a worldwide list of STS
programs and scholars)
STS-Wiki of (Dutch) STS PhD research
school (this page is partly a private
 wiki)
Argentinean Network for Science and
Technology Studies
Instituto de Estudios sobre la Ciencia y
la Tecnología - Universidad Nacional de
Quilmes

Journals

Social Studies of Science

Science, Technology, & Human Values
Science & Technology Studies
Technology in Society
Research Policy
Revue d'Anthropologie des
Connaissances
Minerva: A Journal of Science, Learning
and Policy
Science Technology and Society
Science as Culture
Technology and Culture
Science and Public Policy
Engineering studies
Tecnoscienza. Italian Journal of Science
& Technology Studies
IEEE Technology and Society Magazine
Nordic Journal of Science and
Technology Studies
Paakat: Revista de Tecnología y
Sociedad
 Intersect: the Journal of Science,
Technology, and Society, Stanford
University
DEMESCI: International Journal of
Deliberative Mechanisms in Science

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Science_and_technology_studies&oldid=9079
49326"

Last edited 18 days ago by Wikiman…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.