Social Construction of Technology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Social Construction of Technology (SCOT for short) is a variety of social constructivism that deals with the genesis of technology , i.e. the emergence of technologies . SCOT builds on theories of the sociology of knowledge developed by social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann) and incorporated into the sociology of science by David Bloor and Harry Collins . The theory came up in the 1980s and is now quite common; well-known representatives are Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker .

Basic assumption

Every technological development is seen as a social process . That means: For the development and success of a technology, less technical or engineering principles (e.g. good construction or durability) are decisive, but rather social processes (e.g. attribution of meaning or group dynamics).

Basic concepts

Every technology, according to the core assumption of SCOT, is socially constructed . It is constructed in a controversial interplay of relevant social groups that see future technology as the solution to a problem. Both interests and problems vary from group to group. Accordingly, the different groups also have different ideas about the emerging technology, they assign different meanings to it. This is crucial because it depends on exactly these group-specific meanings whether and by whom the finished technology is seen as working or as a failure.

Does it even make sense to speak of an object if it varies in the desired form, function and meaning - depending on who you ask? From a social constructivist point of view not, instead one starts from the pluralism of artifacts (variety of things). Such diversity is made possible by the fundamental ambiguity of things, which makes them not only capable of interpretation, but even in need of interpretation - they are interpretatively flexible . This flexibility of things forms the gateway for non-technical influences (e.g. politics, religion, culture), which in SCOT are referred to as wider context (extended context). In this context, it again makes sense to also adopt “ magical techniques”, as the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen did in the 1940s.

Technological development then appears as a contentious dispute (see also figuration ) in which different influences of the wider context compete with one another. The interpretative flexibility gradually disappears, the object gains clarity in an evolution-like process of variation and selection. In the end, the initial ambiguity and diversity of the emerging object has been reduced to a 'surviving' object. The debate is closed (cf. the sociology of knowledge ). The arguments that lead to the closure do not have to be technical, good or even correct. Also, whether the technology actually solves the problem or not is not a question of something like “ technical rationality ”, but a matter of belief: According to SCOT, what matters is simply whether those affected believe that their problem has been solved. And who asserts his belief as the 'right' one is a question of power . “ Technology ” thus appears as thoroughly social , with a formulation of the sociology of technology as a “social relationship”, and in systems theory even as contingent .

An example of use

... is the story of the air-filled bicycle tire , as described by Bijker (1995): The inventor John Boyd Dunlop originally designed it as an " antivibration device " (suspension) to increase comfort. As such, it worked technically, but not socially - because cycling was seen as a risk sport by the then dominant group of " young men of means and nerve " ( against the context : culture). Sports equipment that was more comfortable, that is, easier to handle, was a loss of prestige. Only when drivers with pneumatic tires drove their competitors out of the 'hard school' in races did that change because the 'comfort tire ' had now been reinterpreted as a 'high-speed device ' ( interpretative flexibility ). Historians who have dealt with the history of the bicycle, however, contradict Bijker's account on decisive points. For example, Dunlop designed the pneumatic tire as an accelerator from the start and noted this in its patent.

An application problem

... is the identification of relevant social groups . “Relevant” should ideally be understood in the sense of “involved” or even “affected”. In fact, it is inevitable that even the “involved” in the empirical work unexpectedly becomes a (influential or poor) power . Then the notorious 'SCOT problem' of the missing groups arises (cf. the criticism by Winner 1993). These are groups that had raised their voices, but were not heard due to a lack of noticeable power and are therefore extremely difficult to track down empirically. At best, the Internet, with its almost anarchically low access threshold, offers hope for the future.

Literature & Links

See also

Introductory

Basic text

  • Wiebe E. Bijker, Trevor J. Pinch: The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit of Each Other. In: Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor J. Pinch (Eds.): The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge MA et al. 1987, ISBN 0-262-02262-1 , pp. 17-50.

Case studies

  • Wiebe E. Bijker: Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. MIT Press, Cambridge MA et al. 1995, ISBN 0-262-02376-8 .

debate

  • Langdon Winner , (1993): Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology. In: Science, Technology & Human Values. 18, 3, 1993, ISSN  0162-2439 , pp. 362-378.
  • Nick Clayton: SCOT: Does It Answer? In: Technology and Culture . tape 43 (2) , 2002, pp. 351-360 , doi : 10.1353 / tech.2002.0054 .
  • Wiebe E. Bijker, Trevor J. Pinch: SCOT Answers, Other Questions. A Reply to Nick Clayton. In: Technology and Culture. 43, 2002, ISSN  0040-165X , pp. 361-368, online (PDF; 541 kB) .

Theoretical foundations

  • Robert K. Merton : Social Theory and Social Structure. Toward the codification of theory and research. Free Press, Glencoe IL 1949 (Revised and enlarged edition. Ibid 1959).
  • David Bloor, (1976): Knowledge and Social Imagery. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London et al. 1976, ISBN 0-7100-8377-7 ( Routledge Direct Editions ), ( Bloors 'strong program' ).
  • Harry Collins: Stages in the Empirical Program of Relativism. In: Social Studies of Science. 11, 1, Special Issue: Knowledge and Controversy. Studies of Modern Natural Science. 1981, ISSN  0306-3127 , pp. 3-10, ( Via EPOR ).

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Nick Clayton: SCOT: Does It Answer? In: Technology and Culture . tape 43 , no. 2 , 2002, p. 351-360 , doi : 10.1353 / tech.2002.0054 .