Post on 26-Dec-2015
SCOTSCOTThe Social Constructivist Paradigm
to Study Technology in Society
and some examples
Wiebe E. BijkerESST Maastricht, September 2002
Think of problems such as...
Sustainable development» …its conception» …its implementation
Users’ involvement in technological design» …because of a “sustainable technology”» …because of a need to democratise
technological culture
The purpose of this paper...
Is notnot to give you a concrete instrument
ButBut to give you a specific perspective to» … identify otherwise hidden problems» ... open-up new solutions» ... view the world in a new way
Modern society’s problemseems to be:
science/technology develops autonomously,
... having an impact on society
and the only reactions left to the public, are : » accept » protest» run off
tech
nologic
al
tech
nologic
al
determ
inis
m
determ
inis
m
intermezzo 1: Technological Determinism
Technological determinism (TD) means:» Technology develops autonomously» Technology determines society
TD is problematic because:» TD is politically debilitating» TD is false
TD is false because:» Technology does change as result of social
changes» Technology can be changed as a result of
conscious (political, social) action
The struggle of invention
Our bicycle: mistake of 400 years of engineering?
All elements of modern bicycle already existed for centuries
First successful bicycle was a monstrous machine (high wheeled “Ordinary”)
Now, let us try to understand this technology.
So, let’s describe the bicycle
but:... not with the mistakes of our hindsight, … not with the illusion that the bikes speak for themselves.
That is: Through the eyes of the people of those days themselves;
for example the women:
…and we see: the Unsafe Bicycle
Or we see, through the eyes of users of the Ordinary:
…and we see: the Macho Bicycle
relevant socialgroups
women
technology
Ordinary
young men
interpretative flexibility
Technological frame
Technological frame
Technological frame
Technological frame
SCOT (social construction of technology)
Technology is socially constructed:…its design…Its gender…its working
The process of social construction continues forever
Many social groups are involved in the social construction of technology
And...
...this analysis of an artifact such as the bicycle opens up the wider world in new ways:
Bicycling women emancipation
We can now extend our analysis:
Studythe culture
of technologyStudy
technological culture
“We live in a Technological Culture”
“Technological culture”
=
Our modern society
that cannot exist without science and technology
Concept of“Technological Culture”
• = modern society which cannot be understood without recognising the role of science and technology
• Co-evolution of technology and society
• Construction processes are continuous (i.e. technology is also being constructed after its leaving the design, production, marketing and publication departments)
• Construction is done by all sorts of actors (i.e. not only by engineers, technicians, marketeers, but also by groups in the public)
• Definition as technical/cultural/political is negotiated
A break ...
This moment in lecture and in module
In lecture:» Technological determinism» SCOT» Broader view: technological culture» A methodological reflection on STS and ESST» Some projects as examples
In module:» Technological determinism» “New sociology of technology”:
– SCOT– Systems approach– Actor network theory
Problems of Technological Culture:
peace and safety global distribution of wealth, resources, risks
environment / ecology
These are problems of Democracy, not of Technology
Needed: politicisation of Technological Culture
How to study Nature, Culture, and Science and Technology?
Where to start? What to look for? Which topic to choose? Which methods to use? How to balance data and theory? Pitfalls to avoid? Thesis’ structure?
Women Advisory Committees on Housing (VACs)
All-women committees (white, middle class, married-with-children, educated)
Advice on public housing and town planning (since 1946)
In 50% of all Dutch municipalities Recognised expertise (self-trained) Paradox 1:
» Playing the “women experience” card» Non-feminist
Paradox 2:» Successful» Unknown to the general public
Changing identities
Representing respectively:» Housewives» Women in general» House consumers
– Officially recognised spokespersons for the general public (consumers)
– But how to live up to that status?
Women experience <—> feminism
The feminist self?
using rhetorical oppositions:male — female
abstract — concrete
by head — by heart
expert knowl. — common sense
esthetics — functionality
demarcation from other women organisations:» autonomous feminism» women architects» academic women
“Peace-keeping” strategy expertise: in the niche between “real experts” and
“non-informed residents”
“stable participation” two vocabularies:
» external: high inclusion in male building technological frame
– through: low key interventions– price paid: “caught in the frame” (e.g. one-family
house with fixed gender roles)
– profit gained: influence
» internal: high inclusion in feminism
“Public Debate” on nature development
Case of nature development:» Public controversy» Technology & science» High stakes
“Public Debate Conference”:» Heterogeneous panel» 4-stage process
– Introduction– Information market– Field studies– Consensus conference and public debate
» Unclear mandate
Lessons from Public Debate
One cornerstone of politicisation of Technological Culture is to give the public(s) a voice (“to get the values from the public” (Keeney))
e.g. in the nature development debate:» research budget for panellists» agenda-setting by panellists» through field studies of case also “nature” acquired
a voice
generally:» support science shops» support specific groups
so, so, not just values!not just values!
Lessons for planning engineers
Recognise the limits of your own expertise
Recognise the expertise of other relevant social groups
Recognise your own heterogeneous engineering capabilities
References Bijker, W. E. (1995). Of Bicycles, Bakelites and Bulbs. Toward a
Theory of Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bijker, W. E., & Bijsterveld, K. (2000). Women Walking through Plans—Technology, democracy and gender identity. Technology & Culture, 41(3), 485-515.
Bijker, W. E. (forthcoming in 2002). Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands. Plurimondi.
Aibar, E., & Bijker, W. E. (1997). Constructing a City: The Cerdà Plan for the Extension of Barcelona. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 3-30.
Slides at:
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture
does it work?
Alternative high wheelers
Back to intermezzo
The American “Star”
Back to intermezzo
Women did want to bicycle!
The “Ladies’ Ariel”
However, in practice ...
The Ordinary was avery unsafe machine
which didnot work!
…even when you went to a bicycling school
Back to SCOT
“Young men of means and nerve”
The “Macho Bicycle”
Back to SCOT
which did work well!
Women emancipation
The wheel of the past…
and
…the wheel of the future
“Will dinner be ready at six?”
back
Bijker’s
Curriculum vitae elements:
Training:» Engineer, physics» Philosophy of science» PhD in sociology/history of technology
Professor of “Technology & Society”» University of Maastricht» Undergraduate, MA, PhD programmes in STS
Chairman of Board of Netherlands PhD School on Science, Technology & Modern Culture (network of 6 universities; Workshops and International Summer Schools)